AverageAmericanGuy: Looks like rich people spend less of their income on housing and food. Poor people ought to take note.
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.
doglover: Poor people can plan for the future. They just can't afford to save for it.
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.
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.
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.
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. =)
ausfahrk: I spent 80% of my pre-tax salary on housing over the last two years./Finally paid off the f-ing mortgage, though.
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...
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 30 2017 07:35:24
Runtime: 0.239 sec (239 ms)