If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   A look at how Americans spent their money in 2012, all broken down by income disparity   (theatlantic.com) divider line 104
    More: Interesting, income disparity, Americans, pie charts, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

17178 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-16 09:47:54 PM  
This should not surprise anyone. If it does, you're one of those people who think that it's silly that people claim to be "poor" and yet have refrigerators.
 
2013-09-16 10:20:21 PM  
intobolivian.files.wordpress.com

Which was also Barbara Ehrenreich's opinion at the close of "Nickel and Dimed" as to why it's so hard to get ahead in America.  In order to get and keep a job, you absolutely have to have a physical address. And sure you'd save money by having 10 roomies, but no landlord in his/her right mind is going to allow that many people to share a dwelling. Prices on gas may drop every now and then, but prices on rent always go up.
 
2013-09-16 10:52:17 PM  
does not specify whether employer-managed health care counted as income
 
2013-09-16 11:14:39 PM  
Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.
 
2013-09-16 11:30:54 PM  

doglover: Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.


Basically this.... that insurance column REALLY shows the disparity, and that doesn't even show what people are able to actually "save" (either directly or into investments), which would look pretty similar to that insurance column I am guessing.

It is interesting though that "entertainment" is more or less the same % of your income, no matter what your income level.

I do have to say, housing at 30%, even with including all my utilities in "housing" (it isn't clear if "housing" for this meant just your rent/mortage, or was supposed to include utilities) is at 24% over the past year.  Seems like most people, even in it the "Top 20%", way overspend what is "necessary" on their housing (although, I live in one of the lowest cost of living metro areas in the country, so, obviously that helps in that regard).
 
2013-09-17 12:38:10 AM  
Econ 101 - poor people have a much higher marginal propensity to consume rather than to save.
 
2013-09-17 12:41:21 AM  
Does beer count as food?

Even if it does that pie chart is grossly underestimating.

/mmm... pie
 
2013-09-17 12:44:11 AM  
Looks like rich people spend less of their income on housing and food. Poor people ought to take note.
 
2013-09-17 12:44:25 AM  
Spend more than 1/4 of your income on housing, nearly lose your house, come to the rest of us for a bailout, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-09-17 12:47:53 AM  
Maybe we should have started with Obamahousing or Obamacars, before Obamacare. At least Bush crashed the housing market so we can buy houses cheap now.
 
2013-09-17 12:49:24 AM  
I spent a shiatload on pie this year, but I don't know how to visually represent that.
 
2013-09-17 12:51:31 AM  
Would a car elevator be housing or transportation?
 
2013-09-17 12:53:27 AM  
The Atlantic

/laughing
 
2013-09-17 12:57:25 AM  

doglover: Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.


Or take risks with their time and money, like "Going to college so you have a chance of getting a job that actually pays decently".
 
2013-09-17 12:57:52 AM  
I don't understand the value of posting these news articles. It's the equivalent of standing outside the houses of others and despising them for being better off than you.

Seriously folks, let ... It ... Go...
 
2013-09-17 12:58:19 AM  
the only thing this graph shows us is that the amount of money it takes to stay alive is fixed, and if you don't have more than X dollars, you'll never be able to save

...and the wages in this country aren't solving for X, if you know what i'm sayin'

/and i think you do
 
2013-09-17 01:00:12 AM  
I spent the majority of solvent cash on motorcycles and entertainment. They're intertwined in my life

/and lots on charities
/50/50 raffles are charities!!!
//I almost always give the 50/50 winnings back to the charity the raffle is for
 
2013-09-17 01:00:40 AM  

1nsanilicious: I don't understand the value of posting these news articles. It's the equivalent of standing outside the houses of others and despising them for being better off than you.

Seriously folks, let ... It ... Go...


Yeah, the American dream is dead. Get over it.
 
2013-09-17 01:04:50 AM  
The "average" chart is misleading. The BLS stats show that the "average" he's using as the baseline has an income of $65,596, expenditures of $51,442 and is around 50 years old.

Nothing lies like graphs made from statistics.
 
2013-09-17 01:04:52 AM  
You know what the difference is? That big chunk labeled as "housing"? The rich are spending it on property, and the poor are spending it on rent.

Guess which one of those two has a positive return-on-investment.
 
2013-09-17 01:08:22 AM  

LordJiro: 1nsanilicious: I don't understand the value of posting these news articles. It's the equivalent of standing outside the houses of others and despising them for being better off than you.

Seriously folks, let ... It ... Go...

Yeah, the American dream is dead. Get over it.


No, I think he's referencing the Librul obsession with other peoples stuff.

cloudfront.mediamatters.org
 
2013-09-17 01:10:03 AM  
I'm a little nutty when it comes to the detail of tracking my expenses and investments. Here's how my expenditures have been over the past 12 months (this doesn't include the 16% gross placed into 401K & 2% into fed savings bonds.

scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net

-Business services: expenditures for work, which I'm reimbursed (and gives me "free" cash rewards on my credit card - about $500 a year).
-Home: mortgage: solar panel install & waterfront property purchase
-Auto & transport: fuel, car lease, insurance for 5 cars/motorcycle, boat insurance, marina
-Travel: a cruise to the Mediterranean, trip to Iceland, cruise to the arctic, cruise to Tahiti, Disneyworld, and Disneyland a few times.
-Heath and fitness: I include my hobbies in this, so it includes Scuba equipment, marathons, mountain climbing gear, and expense to hire mountain climbing guides.
Food: self explanatory. I eat out a lot, at least once a day.
Bills: power, water, internet
Shopping: shoes, clothes, etc.

Overall I'm pretty happy with this profile. Nothing goes to fees or interest, other than the 3% interest on the mortgage, which works out to be about $200 a month.

/no wife, no kids, no student debt, no credit card debt = has a lot of fun
 
2013-09-17 01:10:10 AM  
I spent 80% of my  pre-tax salary on housing over the last two years.

/Finally paid off the f-ing mortgage, though.
 
2013-09-17 01:11:46 AM  
I spent a ton of money of hookers and blow. The rest I wasted.
 
2013-09-17 01:13:20 AM  
What about "government"?  That's one big expense that isn't in tfa. 
Guess people aren't supposed to realize just how big of a bite government is taking from them.
 
2013-09-17 01:14:25 AM  
wow, the 'troll' is strong in here...
 
2013-09-17 01:15:42 AM  

ausfahrk: I spent 80% of my  pre-tax salary on housing over the last two years.

/Finally paid off the f-ing mortgage, though.


Wow, nicely done! I've been contemplating that move, but with interest rates being as low as they are, I chose to invest in buying other properties, and putting money into the market via 401k & stocks. I figure that "money is cheap" right now, and the real estate market has bottomed, it's time to put money there.
 
2013-09-17 01:17:27 AM  
Soooo...did you just come here to tell us how awesome you are?

MrSteve007: I'm a little nutty when it comes to the detail of tracking my expenses and investments. Here's how my expenditures have been over the past 12 months (this doesn't include the 16% gross placed into 401K & 2% into fed savings bonds.

[scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net image 416x314]

-Business services: expenditures for work, which I'm reimbursed (and gives me "free" cash rewards on my credit card - about $500 a year).
-Home: mortgage: solar panel install & waterfront property purchase
-Auto & transport: fuel, car lease, insurance for 5 cars/motorcycle, boat insurance, marina
-Travel: a cruise to the Mediterranean, trip to Iceland, cruise to the arctic, cruise to Tahiti, Disneyworld, and Disneyland a few times.
-Heath and fitness: I include my hobbies in this, so it includes Scuba equipment, marathons, mountain climbing gear, and expense to hire mountain climbing guides.
Food: self explanatory. I eat out a lot, at least once a day.
Bills: power, water, internet
Shopping: shoes, clothes, etc.

Overall I'm pretty happy with this profile. Nothing goes to fees or interest, other than the 3% interest on the mortgage, which works out to be about $200 a month.

/no wife, no kids, no student debt, no credit card debt = has a lot of fun

 
2013-09-17 01:21:57 AM  

leadmetal: What about "government"?  That's one big expense that isn't in tfa.
Guess people aren't supposed to realize just how big of a bite government is taking from them.


It's a small price to pay in order to live in the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Besides. the poor exactly jack and shiat to the feds.
 
2013-09-17 01:23:42 AM  

retro128: Soooo...did you just come here to tell us how awesome you are?


Oooh, ooh, I did.  I've been waiting for this thread since Friday.  Mission accomplished.
 
2013-09-17 01:25:53 AM  

TomD9938: the poor pay exactly jack and shiat to the feds.



/ bleh...
 
2013-09-17 01:26:06 AM  
Not interested in the top 20% or the bottom 20% - how about those of us in between who are too rich for social welfare, and too poor for corporate welfare?
 
2013-09-17 01:27:10 AM  

dletter: doglover: Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.

Basically this.... that insurance column REALLY shows the disparity, and that doesn't even show what people are able to actually "save" (either directly or into investments), which would look pretty similar to that insurance column I am guessing.

It is interesting though that "entertainment" is more or less the same % of your income, no matter what your income level.

I do have to say, housing at 30%, even with including all my utilities in "housing" (it isn't clear if "housing" for this meant just your rent/mortage, or was supposed to include utilities) is at 24% over the past year.  Seems like most people, even in it the "Top 20%", way overspend what is "necessary" on their housing (although, I live in one of the lowest cost of living metro areas in the country, so, obviously that helps in that regard).


Everyone has got to find some way to eliminate the feeling of tedium from their lives, poor people much more so than wealthy people in my opinion.
 
2013-09-17 01:28:14 AM  
So a poor person is spending 40% of their income on renting a one bedroom apartment while a wealthy person is spending 30% of their income paying the mortgage on their 4-bedroom 2-bath home in the suburbs?
I have trouble understanding the data as it is presented.
 
2013-09-17 01:28:14 AM  

dletter: I do have to say, housing at 30%, even with including all my utilities in "housing" (it isn't clear if "housing" for this meant just your rent/mortage, or was supposed to include utilities) is at 24% over the past year.  Seems like most people, even in it the "Top 20%", way overspend what is "necessary" on their housing (although, I live in one of the lowest cost of living metro areas in the country, so, obviously that helps in that regard).


Mine in 2012 was about 37%, counting rent only. You could probably get to 25% around here by getting a somewhat crappy place, but to get below that for me would have required roommates. Which certainly isn't unreasonable, but it's not the choice I made and while I recognize I'm paying quite a bit, I also don't consider myself to be "overspending".

--

Inspired by MrSteve posting his Mint data, here is mine for 2012 (I changed my passwords and didn't update Mint so it's far out of date):
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-17 01:33:00 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Looks like rich people spend less of their income on housing and food. Poor people ought to take note.


Well, when your house is paid for, it's pretty easy to not spend much of your income on it.
 
2013-09-17 01:33:36 AM  

1nsanilicious: I don't understand the value of posting these news articles. It's the equivalent of standing outside the houses of others and despising them for being better off than you.

Seriously folks, let ... It ... Go...


Hey look, a Mormon being a condescending asshole. Where have we seen that before? Oh right, what's his name... ...Spit Chimney?
 
2013-09-17 01:33:53 AM  
i1048.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 01:34:39 AM  

ausfahrk: I spent 80% of my  pre-tax salary on housing over the last two years.

/Finally paid off the f-ing mortgage, though.


80% of my pre tax salary couldn't buy a house. Nor could I live on the remainder.
 
2013-09-17 01:35:33 AM  

leadmetal: What about "government"?  That's one big expense that isn't in tfa.
Guess people aren't supposed to realize just how big of a bite government is taking from them.


It depends really on how well you plan for the future, and work your expenses to maximize deductions. Through solar energy tax incentives and deductions, I was able to keep my effective income tax rate at 3.48% this year. My state doesn't have an income tax, so no worries there. I live out in the county, so my property taxes are low - about 2% of my gross income. I keep my sailboat at a tribally owned marina, so no taxes there. My leased electric car qualified for $7,500 fed cash rebate (which went to the dealership, lowering my payments), the tabs for an EV were free in the state, and the car was sales tax exempt too.

The only major tax is the ~9.8% sales tax. Depending on the level of expenditures, you can legally minimize that too by purchasing items while out of the country and bringing them back, as long as you stay under the duty free limits (typically $1,600), and if need be, jumping through the paperwork to reimburse the VAT. You can't do a bunch this way, but you can buy things like clothes, tax free, while abroad.

If you're smart on how you spend your money, you minimize your tax exposure and can instead use that money elsewhere (ie. installing solar panels on your house, traveling, driving a new EV, etc.)

Or you can be like most people, and blow it on highly taxed items like lotto, booze and cigarettes.
 
2013-09-17 01:37:10 AM  
Percentages are misleading because cost of living doesn't adjust medially with income. There is a relative maxima to the kind of life that exists, and anything you earn beyond that doesn't improve your living standards.

For instance: Say taxes are 50%. For a person earning a billion dollars, that's 500 million, which may sound like a lot but it doesn't impact his standard of living because there is no standard on the planet that requires 500 million to live. There is barely any standard on the planet that requires more than 5 million to live. Taxes could be set at 90% and his lifestyle would still be unaffected. He can still eat gourmet steaks at 5-star restaurants every night.

But for someone earning $18,000, 50% is literally cutting their standard of living in half. It's the difference between slums and a decent apartment. Between rent and electricity. It defines whether he can spring for new socks or eat mayonnaise sammiches three times a week.

This illustrates why the flat tax is such a stupid idea, because it looks strictly at income and doesn't factor cost of living.
 
2013-09-17 01:38:48 AM  

red5ish: So a poor person is spending 40% of their income on renting a one bedroom apartment while a wealthy person is spending 30% of their income paying the mortgage on their 4-bedroom 2-bath home in the suburbs?
I have trouble understanding the data as it is presented.


this. also, renting as opposed to buying...HUGE difference.
 
2013-09-17 01:42:43 AM  
This shiat is so skewed I can barely focus. Yes, captain obvious, people who make less money tend to not plan for the future as much as others who make more.

Hey! People who make more money may have more drive in life or may have more things they want to achieve.

There's nothing wrong with that. But, we need to get more "poor" people out of the poor me mentality.

The american dream is real. If you don't believe it then you are part of the problem.
 
2013-09-17 01:43:38 AM  
The smart money is actually on the poor.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:05 AM  

dletter: doglover: Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.

Basically this.... that insurance column REALLY shows the disparity, and that doesn't even show what people are able to actually "save" (either directly or into investments), which would look pretty similar to that insurance column I am guessing.

It is interesting though that "entertainment" is more or less the same % of your income, no matter what your income level.

I do have to say, housing at 30%, even with including all my utilities in "housing" (it isn't clear if "housing" for this meant just your rent/mortage, or was supposed to include utilities) is at 24% over the past year.  Seems like most people, even in it the "Top 20%", way overspend what is "necessary" on their housing (although, I live in one of the lowest cost of living metro areas in the country, so, obviously that helps in that regard).


Affluent neighborhoods cost extra, because the land is desirable.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:15 AM  

radarlove: The smart money is actually on the poor.


Might be some truth in that -- the Koch Bros make toilet paper and Warren Buffet makes underwear. Even the poorest of the poor have to wipe their butts and cover 'em up.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:35 AM  

MrSteve007: Or you can be like most people, and blow it on highly taxed items like lotto, booze and cigarettes.


In fact, forget the lotto and cigarettes!
 
2013-09-17 01:48:34 AM  
I didn't see an entry on there for lobbyists...
 
2013-09-17 01:59:38 AM  

MrEricSir: radarlove: The smart money is actually on the poor.

Might be some truth in that -- the Koch Bros make toilet paper and Warren Buffet makes underwear. Even the poorest of the poor have to wipe their butts and cover 'em up.


Oh it's far more than that- the truly poor are used to not having anything and scavenging to survive.  Should some kind of tremendous economic hiccup happen, they possess a prime position to withstand it (if they even notice that it has happened).  Those with the most, on the other hand, have the most to lose. The more you have, the more you become dependent on what you have.  Should the Koch bros. money be valueless tomorrow, and all their assets decimated, will they be prepared to survive without it?  Will they be prepared to dig in the mud and eat rats for food?  Will they be able to lower themselves enough to beg for water and shelter?  And if they're even a little bit responsible for the situation we'll find ourselves in at that point, would anyone even help them?

No, the poor are set because they have nothing to lose and have their feet firmly planted in the reality of survival.  The rich sit in a terribly precarious position but can't see the cliff's edge because of the fantasy of aristocracy.

It's beginning to look like the meek really will inherit this earth.
 
2013-09-17 02:04:06 AM  
Mine would be much simpler:

Rent: 1/4
Marijuana: 1/2
Everything else: 1/4
 
2013-09-17 02:07:10 AM  

cman: Mine would be much simpler:

Rent: 1/4
Marijuana: 1/2
Everything else: 1/4


Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.
 
2013-09-17 02:07:42 AM  
mrswoodThe american dream is real. If you don't believe it then you are part of the problem.

Spoken like someone who has never had less than $100 in her pocket at any time in her life. Besides, if it is real, what difference does it make whether or not I 'believe' it? The reality is that the 'American Dream' is for those who have something to put into it. If you don't, then it is truly a 'dream'.

/some of us are just not lucky, mrswood, and luck is a major factor in finding any kind of success. Should you deny this is true, then it is you who are part of the 'problem'...
 
2013-09-17 02:13:42 AM  

WordyGrrl: [intobolivian.files.wordpress.com image 628x520]

Which was also Barbara Ehrenreich's opinion at the close of "Nickel and Dimed" as to why it's so hard to get ahead in America.  In order to get and keep a job, you absolutely have to have a physical address. And sure you'd save money by having 10 roomies, but no landlord in his/her right mind is going to allow that many people to share a dwelling. Prices on gas may drop every now and then, but prices on rent always go up.


My rent just went up 10%. Because reasons.
 
2013-09-17 02:16:43 AM  
Transportation costs?  What are these... transportation costs you speak of?
i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-17 02:16:54 AM  

radarlove: cman: Mine would be much simpler:

Rent: 1/4
Marijuana: 1/2
Everything else: 1/4

Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.


You own your housing?
 
2013-09-17 02:18:37 AM  

mrswood: But, we need to get more "poor" people out of the poor me mentality.


I certainly agree with this part.

There should be no shame whatsoever in being poor, and those who live humbly should be admired rather than rebuked.  We should be encouraging people to live with less.

The impoverished should be proud of their strength and tenacity.
 
2013-09-17 02:22:14 AM  

cman: radarlove: cman: Mine would be much simpler:

Rent: 1/4
Marijuana: 1/2
Everything else: 1/4

Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.

You own your housing?


Homeless person and spouse relying on kind souls.  Sooooo...sorta, from a Kenobiesque point of view.  =)
 
2013-09-17 02:28:20 AM  

radarlove: Should the Koch bros. money be valueless tomorrow, and all their assets decimated, will they be prepared to survive without it? Will they be prepared to dig in the mud and eat rats for food? Will they be able to lower themselves enough to beg for water and shelter? And if they're even a little bit responsible for the situation we'll find ourselves in at that point, would anyone even help them?

No, the poor are set because they have nothing to lose and have their feet firmly planted in the reality of survival. The rich sit in a terribly precarious position but can't see the cliff's edge because of the fantasy of aristocracy.



That's quite the fantasy.
 
2013-09-17 02:28:23 AM  

payattention: mrswood -  The american dream is real. If you don't believe it then you are part of the problem.

Spoken like someone who has never had less than $100 in her pocket at any time in her life. Besides, if it is real, what difference does it make whether or not I 'believe' it? The reality is that the 'American Dream' is for those who have something to put into it. If you don't, then it is truly a 'dream'.

/some of us are just not lucky, mrswood, and luck is a major factor in finding any kind of success. Should you deny this is true, then it is you who are part of the 'problem'...


If a farking Pakistani can drag his ass over here, learn English, drive a cab, then go back to Pakistan with a fortune, than so can you.
 
2013-09-17 02:31:46 AM  

radarlove: cman: radarlove: cman: Mine would be much simpler:

Rent: 1/4
Marijuana: 1/2
Everything else: 1/4

Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.

You own your housing?

Homeless person and spouse relying on kind souls.  Sooooo...sorta, from a Kenobiesque point of view.  =)


Homeless? Damn dude, that sucks

I've been there before.
 
2013-09-17 02:35:18 AM  

evaned: You could probably get to 25% around here by getting a somewhat crappy place, but to get below that for me would have required roommates.


I forgot about studios because I'd rather chop of my own foot than have been required to live in one for the seven years I was a grad student (I... am not sure how serious I'm being here, but I would really have to think about that), but that would let you get a bit lower than I said. Combine that with there being cheaper places in even crappier parts of town than I was thinking, and it would have been theoretically possible to get to 17% of my income on rent.
 
2013-09-17 02:46:16 AM  
cman:
Homeless? Damn dude, that sucks

I've been there before.


I dunno...there are definite positive aspects to it.  There are perspectives and benefits to be gained from extreme poverty that would be virtually impossible to gain any other way.  I'm learning to embrace it and in a way, I feel blessed.

The real pain of it is, of course, being unable to provide for the one you love.  That can get extremely demoralizing.  That and the healthcare issues.  Hunger you can deal with, but when you teeth start rotting out of your skull or you injure yourself and have to throw yourself on the mercy of the ER, that gets very psychologically wounding.  The pain from muliple broken teeth is severe, but it comes and goes.  The pain from being looked on as scum sticks with you for a bit.  Still though there's even a positive aspect to that because it humbles you over time.

I dunno...it is what it is.  Sometimes I may have to remind myself of this fact, but I am exactly where I am supposed to be in my life.  =)
 
2013-09-17 02:53:30 AM  

mrswood: Hey! People who make more money may have more drive in life or may have more things they want to achieve.



When I was homeless, I couldn't get a job because I had no street address, and I couldn't get a street address because I had no job. More often than not, my only source of food was dumpster diving at the grocery store, and "shelter" was sleeping under a tarp that I had bought from a farmer.

I did get out of that hole eventually, not because I had "more drive in life", but because I found an abandoned shed and stuck a mailbox out front. Once I had that street address I got hired my a mechanic, and he let me rent an old office shack next door for a rate bordering on extortion.

If your version of "the american dream" includes committing crimes just to get a roof and shelter, then sure, that dream is alive and well. But more often than not, hard work alone doesn't get you anywhere, unless you combine that hard work with luck, pity from someone higher on the ladder, or that silver spoon you had when you were born.
 
2013-09-17 03:48:42 AM  

KidneyStone: I spent the majority of solvent cash on motorcycles and entertainment. They're intertwined in my life

/and lots on charities
/50/50 raffles are charities!!!
//I almost always give the 50/50 winnings back to the charity the raffle is for


volunteered at a fundraising event this weekend where I was the (my terminology) 'raffle whore' selling the 50/50 raffle tickets. Biatch who won clearly spent more than she won on one of her shoes, let alone the pair, but pocketed it with no intention of giving it back.
 
2013-09-17 04:07:32 AM  
MrSteve007:

/no wife, no kids,

You don't say.jpg

/well duh
 
2013-09-17 04:18:35 AM  
The only reason I have never been homeless is because my parents are rich.

Incidentally, I'm doing okay right now, but I am also have a lot of student loans that are unpaid as of yet (they haven't come due). I will likely get on the "pay as you go" plan (no more than 10% of income) or some sort of income based plan, unless I suddenly fall into a pile of money.

It is possible to get a decent lifestyle together, but you have to constantly be looking for ways up and be willing to be poor. I don't have a car, and I don't plan on buying one, even though the bus kinda sucks much of the time. I have a roommate and don't plan on living alone unless my income were to double at least. I buy virtually nothing outside of groceries and some resturant food (either when I go out or when I am too tired to eat at home). At least I can afford clothes - when I got this job, I was super happy to be able to go and buy underwear.

There are things I want, but I understand that $50 here and there very, very quickly adds up to being poor forever. And it's very easy to be poor forever.
 
2013-09-17 07:22:43 AM  
What a gigantic "duhhhhhh" article

Duh
 
2013-09-17 07:48:26 AM  
WordyGrrl:. Prices on gas may drop every now and then, but prices on rent always go up.

What's the driving force behind that?  Real Estate Taxes.
What's the driving force behind that?  School Real Estate Taxes.
What's the driving force behind that?  Salaries and Benefits.
 
2013-09-17 07:58:07 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: WordyGrrl:. Prices on gas may drop every now and then, but prices on rent always go up.

What's the driving force behind that?  Real Estate Taxes.
What's the driving force behind that?  School Real Estate Taxes.
What's the driving force behind that?  Salaries and Benefits.


Unions! Herpaderpa!
 
2013-09-17 08:06:30 AM  
Whoa, poor people spend 4% of their income on 'entertainment'.  Well, maybe if they saved that $1,500ish per year by investing it in a business where the shares are just $1 they would get ahead*

*offer only valid if you have rich friends that will stock said business with high value stocks that mature instantly you purchase the stocks.  This will help you fill your 401K, which all poor have, with more funds in order to evade avoid taxes.
 
2013-09-17 08:08:16 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: WordyGrrl:. Prices on gas may drop every now and then, but prices on rent always go up.

What's the driving force behind that?  Real Estate Taxes.
What's the driving force behind that?  School Real Estate Taxes.
What's the driving force behind that?  Salaries and Benefits.


I know right.  I mean, we keep making more land every year to keep pace with population growth. It make no sense that real estate prices continue to go up!
 
2013-09-17 08:12:20 AM  
Where's the alcohol pie piece?  That's at least 5% for me.
 
2013-09-17 08:18:39 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Looks like rich people spend less of their income on housing and food. Poor people ought to take note.


Poor people also spend more on entertainment than on insurance.

Clearly, the rest of the population should chip in so the poor can continue to watch Love and Hip Hop.
 
2013-09-17 08:30:00 AM  

MrSteve007: I'm a little nutty when it comes to the detail of tracking my expenses and investments. Here's how my expenditures have been over the past 12 months (this doesn't include the 16% gross placed into 401K & 2% into fed savings bonds.

[scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net image 416x314]

-Business services: expenditures for work, which I'm reimbursed (and gives me "free" cash rewards on my credit card - about $500 a year).
-Home: mortgage: solar panel install & waterfront property purchase
-Auto & transport: fuel, car lease, insurance for 5 cars/motorcycle, boat insurance, marina
-Travel: a cruise to the Mediterranean, trip to Iceland, cruise to the arctic, cruise to Tahiti, Disneyworld, and Disneyland a few times.
-Heath and fitness: I include my hobbies in this, so it includes Scuba equipment, marathons, mountain climbing gear, and expense to hire mountain climbing guides.
Food: self explanatory. I eat out a lot, at least once a day.
Bills: power, water, internet
Shopping: shoes, clothes, etc.

Overall I'm pretty happy with this profile. Nothing goes to fees or interest, other than the 3% interest on the mortgage, which works out to be about $200 a month.

/no wife, no kids, no student debt, no credit card debt = has a lot of fun


Who do you go on vacation with?
 
2013-09-17 08:32:12 AM  
I'd like to see that same information with the debt service/financing charges broken out as a separate category.   Financing on  your credit card debit should not be considered "food" or anything else.
 
2013-09-17 08:34:03 AM  
I spent 23% on women and booze, and wasted the rest.
 
2013-09-17 08:39:02 AM  
So the rich spend three times as much on insurance as entertainment, while the poor spend twice as much on entertainment as insurance. Of course they have different things they need to insure, and they don't really define what counts as entertainment. But it makes the "I can't afford insurance" argument look a little silly if you're spending twice that much on funsies.
 
2013-09-17 08:44:25 AM  
Our family's single highest expense by far is taxes, more than housing and transportation combined.  And when we finally buy a house and have to [directly] pay property taxes, that expense will go up even more (around an extra $500/month for property taxes).

I'm not complaining, though.  I'm one of those crazy ass libtards who doesn't mind paying taxes.  Plus, even after taxes, we take home more than most Americans.  In that way, we're quite fortunate.
 
2013-09-17 09:15:33 AM  
I spent my extra money on guitars.  I don't see a pie piece for that anywhere, thanks Obama.
 
2013-09-17 10:04:58 AM  

Ishkur: There is a relative maxima to the kind of life that exists, and anything you earn beyond that doesn't improve your living standards.


The chart wasn't misleading. That was the point of the chart.
 
2013-09-17 10:16:04 AM  

radarlove:Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.

radarlove: Homeless person and spouse relying on kind souls.  Sooooo...sorta, from a Kenobiesque point of view.  =)


Get your farking priorities straight.
 
2013-09-17 10:35:50 AM  
Everyone who is mentioning the taxes... obviously since they didn't list that, I am assuming that this is assumed to be spending on your "post-tax" income.  So, we have to start there.

I see a few people harping on that the poor still spend around the same 5% on entertainment as the rich.  A poor person making $15k a year post taxes.... that is $750 a year on "entertainment" (or roughly $15 a week).  I mean, come on, $15.... if you are harping on them for that, then, you are basically saying you can't have any "entertainment".  Which is fine, but, realize what you are saying.

The other thing I would say is that the definition of these categories leaves a bit of interpretation.  Is "food" strictly "food" (ie, groceries AND eating out, both fast food and "sit down" meals), or is food just your "grocery bill" (which includes other necessities around the house that are not food... paper products, toiletries, etc).    And if "food" is just "any food"... you can make the argument that going out to eat "extravagantly" (ie, bill comes out to higher than $20/person at the meal) constitutes as much "entertainment" as it is "food"... you could have made a similar meal much more inexpensively at home.... you wanted someone else to cook for you, many times to make something better than you could make it, and you wanted someone to wait on you and bring you your food and drink.... that to me to a degree falls under "entertainment".  But, is that being considered entertainment here?  I have no idea.
 
2013-09-17 10:38:45 AM  

Pangea: radarlove:Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.

radarlove: Homeless person and spouse relying on kind souls.  Sooooo...sorta, from a Kenobiesque point of view.  =)

Get your farking priorities straight.


Hey, as long as they aren't directly bothering you or me to be "kind soul's" to their vagabond ways, more power to them.

/I say directly, since, I'm sure in the grand scheme of society/government/etc, we've "supported" them in some way.
 
2013-09-17 11:21:36 AM  
"I mean, come on, $15.... if you are harping on them for that, then, you are basically saying you can't have any "entertainment".  Which is fine, but, realize what you are saying. "

If they wanted to have entertainment they shouldn't have been born poor.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:29 AM  

doglover: Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.


At some point somebody had claimed that making around $50k-$70k used to be a range where you could plan for retirement by "savings," but nowadays there's no way to "save" because you can barely live on that.

At the time this was published and accepted by a bunch of morons as fact, I was living in a rented apartment spending 1/3 of my $60k/year paycheck.  With a car payment too.  I could live on McDonalds part time salary.

Since then I have bought a house and gone deeper in debt, so I am not in a great financial position; I need a year to get myself to a stable point, pay off the car, and I'll be at under $1000/mo in expenses with the mortgage.  If I were poor, I would be spending a lot less discretionary and saving up a lot more; it would be hard, and slow, and really terrible, but over 2-3 years I could have saved enough to have the opportunity to buy a house to reduce my living expenses (mortgage was less than rent, house was bigger than apartment).  I would have also cooked more to save cash (I did this some; I've been as low as $120/mo but usually around $250/mo for just me because I buy too much prepared food... at one point I was spending $660/mo at the workplace cafeteria!).

It sucks being poor.  It doesn't suck as bad as people think; the poor are squeezed, just like the rest of us, by fancy marketing and impulse buying.  We all waste a lot of our money, even the dreadfully poor.  Some folks are really, really bad off; but a large swath of the poverty population can live a hell of a lot better than they are on the money they've got.  It would still suck (look I like my $5000 piano and free-flowing discretionary spending), but it's doable.
 
2013-09-17 11:49:44 AM  

dletter: Pangea: Get your farking priorities straight.

Hey, as long as they aren't directly bothering you or me to be "kind soul's" to their vagabond ways, more power to them.

/I say directly, since, I'm sure in the grand scheme of society/government/etc, we've "supported" them in some way.


You're right in several ways. It doesn't hurt me, plus I don't really think of it as costing me anything. I used to smoke a lot, now I don't, don't care if anyone else smokes, I support legalization, it's none of my business, etc.

I just expressed an opinion because he lamented about it being really hard to feel like he should be the bread-winner and not being able to buy things for his wife, shortly after saying that a good portion of any money gets spent on weed.

No one should feel obligated to refuse the kindness of others when it's offered, I just chose to put my financial priorities in a different order.
 
2013-09-17 12:04:17 PM  

Pangea: dletter: Pangea: Get your farking priorities straight.

Hey, as long as they aren't directly bothering you or me to be "kind soul's" to their vagabond ways, more power to them.

/I say directly, since, I'm sure in the grand scheme of society/government/etc, we've "supported" them in some way.

You're right in several ways. It doesn't hurt me, plus I don't really think of it as costing me anything. I used to smoke a lot, now I don't, don't care if anyone else smokes, I support legalization, it's none of my business, etc.

I just expressed an opinion because he lamented about it being really hard to feel like he should be the bread-winner and not being able to buy things for his wife, shortly after saying that a good portion of any money gets spent on weed.

No one should feel obligated to refuse the kindness of others when it's offered, I just chose to put my financial priorities in a different order.


Hey, I have no problem calling the guy a worthless bum.... just saying, unless he is knocking on my door, so be it.
 
2013-09-17 12:50:36 PM  

dletter: Everyone who is mentioning the taxes... obviously since they didn't list that, I am assuming that this is assumed to be spending on your "post-tax" income.  So, we have to start there.

I see a few people harping on that the poor still spend around the same 5% on entertainment as the rich.  A poor person making $15k a year post taxes.... that is $750 a year on "entertainment" (or roughly $15 a week).  I mean, come on, $15.... if you are harping on them for that, then, you are basically saying you can't have any "entertainment".  Which is fine, but, realize what you are saying.

The other thing I would say is that the definition of these categories leaves a bit of interpretation.  Is "food" strictly "food" (ie, groceries AND eating out, both fast food and "sit down" meals), or is food just your "grocery bill" (which includes other necessities around the house that are not food... paper products, toiletries, etc).    And if "food" is just "any food"... you can make the argument that going out to eat "extravagantly" (ie, bill comes out to higher than $20/person at the meal) constitutes as much "entertainment" as it is "food"... you could have made a similar meal much more inexpensively at home.... you wanted someone else to cook for you, many times to make something better than you could make it, and you wanted someone to wait on you and bring you your food and drink.... that to me to a degree falls under "entertainment".  But, is that being considered entertainment here?  I have no idea.


Because I am fortunate enough to have a job where i can slack off on Fark during lunch, i did the math. Top end of the bottom quintile comes out to an annual income of $24,217 as of 2005 (per wikpedia). That means, 1 out of 5 households in this country spends about $2.65 of their pre tax gross a day on entertainment - and only about a third of those households are comprised of a single person.

Damn.
 
2013-09-17 12:51:52 PM  

ikapoz: dletter: Everyone who is mentioning the taxes... obviously since they didn't list that, I am assuming that this is assumed to be spending on your "post-tax" income.  So, we have to start there.

I see a few people harping on that the poor still spend around the same 5% on entertainment as the rich.  A poor person making $15k a year post taxes.... that is $750 a year on "entertainment" (or roughly $15 a week).  I mean, come on, $15.... if you are harping on them for that, then, you are basically saying you can't have any "entertainment".  Which is fine, but, realize what you are saying.

The other thing I would say is that the definition of these categories leaves a bit of interpretation.  Is "food" strictly "food" (ie, groceries AND eating out, both fast food and "sit down" meals), or is food just your "grocery bill" (which includes other necessities around the house that are not food... paper products, toiletries, etc).    And if "food" is just "any food"... you can make the argument that going out to eat "extravagantly" (ie, bill comes out to higher than $20/person at the meal) constitutes as much "entertainment" as it is "food"... you could have made a similar meal much more inexpensively at home.... you wanted someone else to cook for you, many times to make something better than you could make it, and you wanted someone to wait on you and bring you your food and drink.... that to me to a degree falls under "entertainment".  But, is that being considered entertainment here?  I have no idea.

Because I am fortunate enough to have a job where i can slack off on Fark during lunch, i did the math. Top end of the bottom quintile comes out to an annual income of $24,217 as of 2005 (per wikpedia). That means, 1 out of 5 households in this country spends about $2.65 of their pre tax gross a day on entertainment - and only about a third of those households are comprised of a single person.

Damn.


Correction - 2011 data from the Census Bureau, not 2005.
 
2013-09-17 12:58:56 PM  
I have to spend a lot of money on insurance because the poor people are always looking for ways to sue me.
 
2013-09-17 01:01:44 PM  

WordyGrrl: [intobolivian.files.wordpress.com image 628x520]

Which was also Barbara Ehrenreich's opinion at the close of "Nickel and Dimed" as to why it's so hard to get ahead in America.  In order to get and keep a job, you absolutely have to have a physical address. And sure you'd save money by having 10 roomies, but no landlord in his/her right mind is going to allow that many people to share a dwelling. Prices on gas may drop every now and then, but prices on rent always go up.


It's called a mail drop, and they can be rented for less than $20 a month.
 
2013-09-17 01:09:41 PM  

dbrunker: Transportation costs?  What are these... transportation costs you speak of?
[i41.tinypic.com image 500x392]


The problem with that is:

$500 on the bike.
$300 on the required lights, etc, etc
$125 on maintenance plan (because things are not designed around people of my height and weight, and thus warranties are ALWAYS a good deal.).  If you don't get this, count on about $500 in maintenance in 5 months.
$100 on non-covered maintenance (mostly due to riding under the parked car and a separate non-related busted front bracket).
$5000 in medical bills for when you inevitably ride your bike under a parked car and crack your ribs.

At this point, the car is cheaper.

/Mind you, the bike also took off 15 pounds in 3 weeks, but.
 
2013-09-17 01:11:56 PM  

ThighsofGlory: It's called a mail drop, and they can be rented for less than $20 a month.


We also need a public facility that provides showers and laundering of clothes to the homeless.  Or to the public.
 
2013-09-17 01:25:26 PM  

meyerkev: dbrunker: Transportation costs?  What are these... transportation costs you speak of?
[i41.tinypic.com image 500x392]

The problem with that is:

$500 on the bike.
$300 on the required lights, etc, etc
$125 on maintenance plan (because things are not designed around people of my height and weight, and thus warranties are ALWAYS a good deal.).  If you don't get this, count on about $500 in maintenance in 5 months.
$100 on non-covered maintenance (mostly due to riding under the parked car and a separate non-related busted front bracket).
$5000 in medical bills for when you inevitably ride your bike under a parked car and crack your ribs.

At this point, the car is cheaper.

/Mind you, the bike also took off 15 pounds in 3 weeks, but.


$500 for a bike? Was it made of solid gold?
 
2013-09-17 01:31:52 PM  

Fluid: meyerkev: dbrunker: Transportation costs?  What are these... transportation costs you speak of?
[i41.tinypic.com image 500x392]

The problem with that is:

$500 on the bike.
$300 on the required lights, etc, etc
$125 on maintenance plan (because things are not designed around people of my height and weight, and thus warranties are ALWAYS a good deal.).  If you don't get this, count on about $500 in maintenance in 5 months.
$100 on non-covered maintenance (mostly due to riding under the parked car and a separate non-related busted front bracket).
$5000 in medical bills for when you inevitably ride your bike under a parked car and crack your ribs.

At this point, the car is cheaper.

/Mind you, the bike also took off 15 pounds in 3 weeks, but.

$500 for a bike? Was it made of solid gold?


That was (one of the) cheaper bikes they had.  No carbon fiber, no wraparound handles, etc, etc.

I needed a bike that:
* Could fit my 6'4", 300 lb frame.
* Could go 10 miles a day every day.  (2 to work with train, 8 home without).
* Could mount a rack, water bottles, baskets for grocery shopping on the way home, etc, etc, etc.

I could've easily spent 6 grand (if I had the money) like my boss and my uncle and my cousin and ...
 
2013-09-17 01:55:46 PM  

Pangea: radarlove:Yeah I think ours breaks down to about 1/3 weed, and 2/3 food.  We rarely have either of those things because we rarely have money, but when we do, that's generally how we spend it.

radarlove: Homeless person and spouse relying on kind souls.  Sooooo...sorta, from a Kenobiesque point of view.  =)

Get your farking priorities straight.


Priority One:  Don't die.

Priority Two:  Don't kill anyone else.

Considering our present situation, I'd say our priorities are fairly well aligned.

dletter:  I'm sure in the grand scheme of society/government/etc, we've "supported" them in some way.

We actually don't believe in taking public assistance.  It presents a lot of problems sometimes, but we find making people unwillingly pay for us to be morally questionable at best.
 
2013-09-17 01:55:59 PM  

meyerkev: Fluid: meyerkev: dbrunker: Transportation costs?  What are these... transportation costs you speak of?
[i41.tinypic.com image 500x392]

The problem with that is:

$500 on the bike.
$300 on the required lights, etc, etc
$125 on maintenance plan (because things are not designed around people of my height and weight, and thus warranties are ALWAYS a good deal.).  If you don't get this, count on about $500 in maintenance in 5 months.
$100 on non-covered maintenance (mostly due to riding under the parked car and a separate non-related busted front bracket).
$5000 in medical bills for when you inevitably ride your bike under a parked car and crack your ribs.

At this point, the car is cheaper.

/Mind you, the bike also took off 15 pounds in 3 weeks, but.

$500 for a bike? Was it made of solid gold?

That was (one of the) cheaper bikes they had.  No carbon fiber, no wraparound handles, etc, etc.

I needed a bike that:
* Could fit my 6'4", 300 lb frame.
* Could go 10 miles a day every day.  (2 to work with train, 8 home without).
* Could mount a rack, water bottles, baskets for grocery shopping on the way home, etc, etc, etc.

I could've easily spent 6 grand (if I had the money) like my boss and my uncle and my cousin and ...


Was about to say.... you must not shop for bike's at all (past the bike rack at Walmart) if you think $500 for a bike is "expensive".
 
2013-09-17 02:02:38 PM  

Fluid: $500 for a bike? Was it made of solid gold?


This is how you can tell someone who has no idea what they're dealing with.

Think about a Blendtec Blender.  $350 blender, while at Wal-Mart you can get one for $20 from Hamilton Beach.

Now imagine Orange Julius or Starbucks making their smoothies and frappes in a Hamilton Beach $20 blender.

Yeah, it's not going to function for more than a week.  One busy rush will probably kill it because the motor needs a short duty cycle and cool-down time.  Not going to happen.  What you need here is that $350 blender made for commercial duty cycles, constant on-off usage without the electronics (FETs mostly) and motors burning out.

It's the same with a bicycle.  shiatty $120 Denali bicycles don't hold up.  I knew a fellow who used to bike 15 miles to work every day on one, and every couple weeks it fell apart.  Literally fell apart.  The handlebar came out, the drivetrain failed, whatever.  This was a lot more riding than most folks do in a year, a lot more torque, a lot more intensive and with a lot more abuse.  It's like people who buy a $50 "mountain bike" at K-Mart and ride it through the woods... versus people who buy a $1500 Trek mountain bike and ride it through the woods.  The Trek riders have body armor and might die at any moment; the K-Mart bikes are being comfortably ridden at low speeds over bumpy dirt and mud and the occasional gravel.  I know people who have hit and killed deer on their bicycles and sustained serious injury... and people who routinely come to a 1.5 meter high cliff and just drop off because fark it.

A bicycle can be used as a serious commuter or sports machine.  Around the $400-ish range, you start getting stuff that holds up; you need to get around $800-$1200 to start getting acceptable quality tourers and commuters.  A $500 bike is going to be okay if you're doing 5 miles or so to work; but you'll do it in half as long on a $1500 bike that weighs a lot less.  I have both:  a $450 GT Tachyon 3.0 and a $1400 Trek Domane 2.0 with $600 Revolution REV-22 wheels (light wheels, due to momentum required to accelerate by turning the rim, which is more significant than actual bike weight); the Domane takes easily half as much energy to move, so I can sustain 15mph cruising speeds where I'm dragging my ass at 6mph on my GT.

Looks like this guy needs a bike that can hold him (300lb jesus dude I hope you have overbuilt 40 spoke wheels) and hold up to constant commuting use (i.e. baseline duty cycle with high amounts of use, not hammering the shiat out of it like heavy mountain biking or BMX or racing with ridiculously high torque).  $400 is underspending, but it'll at least not fall apart under him and kill him in 2 or 3 months.
 
2013-09-17 02:15:45 PM  
I have to admit, what you're describing here is a completely alien situation to me. Never had a bike fall apart, no matter how cheap, and I doubt I could cause it to do so if I tried.  I'm suspecting we must be talking about completely different kinds of bikes here.

/And then there's the people around here that just pay a hobo ten bucks to acquire a bike, but that's neither here nor there
 
2013-09-17 02:49:06 PM  

Fluid: I have to admit, what you're describing here is a completely alien situation to me. Never had a bike fall apart, no matter how cheap, and I doubt I could cause it to do so if I tried.  I'm suspecting we must be talking about completely different kinds of bikes here.

/And then there's the people around here that just pay a hobo ten bucks to acquire a bike, but that's neither here nor there


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-m_WMKMjuY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m287jpJketI

It's often front wheels (quick release, poor construction or poor adjustment) or handlebars.  I've seen drivetrains completely fall apart, though.  Parts somehow work themselves loose sometimes--a poorly adjusted QR skewer is your own damn fault, but once in a while you get a poorly constructed QR skewer that slowly loosens itself up as you ride around (they screw down, then they're set with a cam lock; the cam lock will not pop open, but the nut may unscrew).  Most QR screws are made such that the nut bites into the fork and so can't move--it has bumps that press into the surface, providing extremely high pressure (and biting into the paint) and thus higher friction than if you mated two smooth, flat surfaces.
 
2013-09-17 03:20:27 PM  

bluefoxicy: Looks like this guy needs a bike that can hold him (300lb jesus dude I hope you have overbuilt 40 spoke wheels) and hold up to constant commuting use (i.e. baseline duty cycle with high amounts of use, not hammering the shiat out of it like heavy mountain biking or BMX or racing with ridiculously high torque).  $400 is underspending, but it'll at least not fall apart under him and kill him in 2 or 3 months.


Yeah, the bike isn't the greatest, but it works.  Among other things, I wish it was the next size up (It needs MUCH higher handlebars), but they don't let you take the next size up onto the train.

And at this point, as the original parts fail, I replace them with the next rung up.  So when I cracked the shiatty pedals, I went and bought the good $100 pedals that stick to your shoes.  Next step is to get a higher handlebar with those undergrip bits.   So now all I have to do is figure out why my front bracket is squeaking AGAIN (despite having been replaced twice in 2 months and recently oiled), and it's all good.  And then of course we have the cracked ribs bit, so that's nice.

All I'm going to say about the 300 pounds is this:

[Talledega Nights Ricky Bobby Prayer Voice]
Dear Lord Baby Jesus, I thank you for making me 6'4" and wide, so that when I was pulling 3 all-nighters a week in school and doing it by eating WAY too much food (At one point, I was eating a pint of ice cream and an entire family-sized bag of chips every night along with my hour of pigging out in the dorm cafe (If you went at 3:00, you could catch both lunch and dinner)) so that I never needed sleep (Food, sleep, water, pick 2) and never going to the gym because I didn't have farking time between 2 jobs (7 AM shifts yay) and 16 credits, I became merely fat instead of landwhale.

And I thank you for having Dad work at a physical job and be a big believer in nepotism (at $8/hour starting at 5 AM 7 days a week).  Because when I gained my Freshman 40, I was able to lose it all in 4 months while still being a filthy decadent slob.   And that way, when I gained my sophomore 60 (because of the 2 jobs and 16 credits), I was only up to about 300.  And when I went back to the golf course after I got back from Seattle, I was able to drop 10 pounds in 3 weeks which basically made up for the 20 pounds I gained junior year (0 jobs, 16/12 credits, but those were some farking HARD credits), and the 10 I gained senior semester while jetting around the country for interviews.

And I thank you for kicking me out of my apartment (month to month lease got cancelled) just as my work moved to become much less convenient by car (FU Palo Alto) and much more convenient by train.  Also, I thank you for doubling the length of my bike ride home when I moved to be next to transit (and bars.  Can't forget the bars.  Going drinking and dancing for 4-5 hours is usually good for a couple of pounds, especially if you drink vodak instead of beer).  Because now even on my "lazy days" where I take the train both ways, I'm walking/biking 3 miles, which is 2 miles more than I was walking on good days in college.  And when I decide to bike home, it's a minimum of 8 miles, and could be more than 10 if I go via Shoreline.

Amen.
[/Talledega Nights Ricky Bobby Prayer Voice]
 
2013-09-17 04:01:43 PM  

leadmetal: What about "government"?  That's one big expense that isn't in tfa. 
Guess people aren't supposed to realize just how big of a bite government is taking from them.


Yes, and good luck finding a place to live and work that doesn't require you to give some money to the government. I'll especially enjoy watching you come begging for help like those assholes who keep requiring rescue because god wants them to drown but is apparently too nice to really tell them that....
 
2013-09-17 07:05:34 PM  

dletter: Everyone who is mentioning the taxes... obviously since they didn't list that, I am assuming that this is assumed to be spending on your "post-tax" income.  So, we have to start there.

I see a few people harping on that the poor still spend around the same 5% on entertainment as the rich.  A poor person making $15k a year post taxes.... that is $750 a year on "entertainment" (or roughly $15 a week).  I mean, come on, $15.... if you are harping on them for that, then, you are basically saying you can't have any "entertainment".  Which is fine, but, realize what you are saying.


I don't understand why so many people insist that "entertainment" is a valid budget category. There are plenty of ways to amuse yourself and/or your family that do not cost $300 a month, though I would understand if that $300 a month was being saved up for a big vacation once a year.

I get most of my entertainment from the internet at a flat $36 a month: free movies, tv, Fark, email, Skype, college courses, bill-paying, etc.

As for food? That's all grocery store stuff, and I try to keep it under $100 a month.  I might dine out with a friend maybe once every three or four months at best. And yes, I do budget enough for a sixer or two of good beer twice a month. That's budget item is called "therapy," and it's non-negotiable.
 
2013-09-17 07:31:21 PM  

WordyGrrl: I don't understand why so many people insist that "entertainment" is a valid budget category. There are plenty of ways to amuse yourself and/or your family that do not cost $300 a month, though I would understand if that $300 a month was being saved up for a big vacation once a year.

I get most of my entertainment from the internet at a flat $36 a month: free movies, tv, Fark, email, Skype, college courses, bill-paying, etc.


To a certain extent, it's MISC, but slightly more explicit.  Doing NOTHING but work, even when it's NOT physical or backbreaking just sucks.  Especially if you're dealing with shiatty mass transit.

So you take $X/month, and say "This is mine".  And then when the new movie comes out, you can say "Do I have $5 to go see the matinee?".  Or the new Dresden Files book comes out for $8.99 on Kindle and you can get it without feeling guilty.

And it just makes life a little easier.
 
Displayed 104 of 104 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report