• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(CNN) Publishers Clearing House’s bankruptcy means ‘forever’ winners will no longer get paid

Firstly, the 5K is pre-tax; net is substantially less. I assume your 1,500 is pre-tax, as well? And, you're not providing your own health insurance?

I'm not saying it can't be done at 1,500 a week gross, in some cases. But I don't think it's common across America.

You would be mistaken. The majority of households across the United States get by on that income, or less. It's more common than not.

The thought that one can't survive on less than $250,000 dollars per year in the United States defies reality...


For lack of a better method, I use national averages as a point of discussion.

Be sure to check the median against the average, as a general rule, in case outliers skew the data.

As to putting away 2K a week to "fund a full retirement in 2 years", I don't see how. Not on 208K.
Yeah, that was a mispost. 208k is not enough to fund a 78k per year retirement.

It would take closer to 12 years of saving that from one's 5k per week payment to fund that, based on average market returns, using the 4% rule.

Sorry for my mistake, and thank you for correcting it. I probably meant twenty years.
 

You would be mistaken. The majority of households across the United States get by on that income, or less. It's more common than not.

The thought that one can't survive on less than $250,000 dollars per year in the United States defies reality...


How did you get from my original statement, to such a characterization?

My original statement was to a young starting-out suburban family providing a mortgage, self-pay health insurance, two cars, and everything else a family needs, including providing for their kids' educations and investing for the parents' retirement.

My argument is few are doing the full & specific items above on 75K a year.

That many households otherwise "get by" on 75K has no relevance.


Be sure to check the median against the average, as a general rule, in case outliers skew the data.

Yeah, after looking over dobieg's post, and noting the huge income disparity in this country, I suppose I can see the desire to use median numbers.

Yeah, that was a mispost. 208k is not enough to fund a 78k per year retirement.

It would take closer to 12 years of saving that from one's 5k per week payment to fund that, based on average market returns, using the 4% rule.

Sorry for my mistake, and thank you for correcting it. I probably meant twenty years.

No "sorry "needed at all!
 
Median net worth is more accurate as average is heavily skewed by the ultra wealthy. Median net worth of those 55 - 64 is $364,500.


I suppose given the huge and growing disparity in incomes, I can see the impetus to use median values. And yeah, it changes the numbers substantially.

I'm not very good at many things but I know a good piece of ground as soon as I see it.

Of my 23 real estate purchases over the years the only time I didn't make money was a place I panic sold down off the Chespeake Bay at the beginning of the pandemic. Didn't read the market right and lost my tail. I thought I was so smart getting out with a 20% haircut before the housing market collapsed. Well as we all know, it did the opposite.

We typically hold places between 6 months to 3 years. Just unloaded another place earlier this month we bought in June. Again down on the Chesapeake. It was a good month.

I'm amazed you can profit flipping raw land in such quick time-frames. I always thought of land - and even with residences - as a long hold, unless developed to increase market value and marketability.

But yeah, as the saying goes - "They're not making anymore land".

When I bought my house, I bought the neighborhood. In other words, I bought the land and location. There were a lot better structures my wife preferred, but I knew if I bought the very best land & location I could afford, I could always play with the bricks, and even knock them down and start over.

What taught me this lesson was I was leaving my old neighborhood in the city, that was turning worse. The house matters not, if you're not happy living there!
 
How did you get from my original statement, to such a characterization?

My original statement was to a young starting-out suburban family providing a mortgage, self-pay health insurance, two cars, and everything else a family needs, including providing for their kids' educations and investing for the parents' retirement.

My argument is few are doing the full & specific items above on 75K a year.
Because the data shows that most American households are doing all of this on the same income, or less.

And that if one had 3X this income, they would be doing fantastically well, and could easily save 2K a week, since most people spend circa 1.5k a week, and therefore if they spent double the median income (and saved nothings) they could still save a hundred thousand dollars a year while living better than most anyone else in the us.
 
Back
Top Bottom