"Money". Is it Worth it?
 

Despite the recklessness of my own self destruction, I don't see money as the driving force behind my motives. Yes it would be nice to have money, but at what point is the line drawn and self seeking millionaires declared hell bound???????

Now that is a question indeed ....

That all depends on the exchange rate.

Money is just a medium of exchange, though during hard times it's medium rare.

You can do more with it than without it. For myself, pretending there is some higher purpose and some spiritual lesson to learn is better left to the Gandhi's of the world.

Money doesn't make happiness...


...but it makes sadness bearable.




Just ask any heir to a fortune. ;)

Just like anything else, the more you need it, the more it is worth.

There's a level of $ that is needed to provide what you believe are the necessities of life.
After that, it becomes wants, and then luxuries, then power,
and then greed, and finally more is never enough.

I think greed is out of order. Anything after the necessities is greed. If you want it, but don't need it, it's greed. We all have greed.

There is a line that can be drawn and a line that can be seen, but a line that can be drawn isn't always a line that can be seen, and a line that can be seen isn't always a line that should have been drawn. Also, sometimes lines are different lengths, widths, etc.

Flint just can't hide his line eyes.

:facepalm:


When you're making $10/hr cleaning up blood, vomit, and splinting bones, yes it is worth it.

Anyone who feels their money isn't worth it, I will gladly take the burden off their hands.

Nobody "has" money. There is no concrete aspect to the experience of "having" money. You can do or buy things with money, and the value is exactly the value of those things. You can hold some money in reserve for the purposes of doing or buying future things, but at no point does the value of the money cease to be a function of those proposed future things. People who don't have any money think that there is a point where you will "have" some money, but the fact is: that never happens. Money has no intrinsic value. You can't eat it, etc.

At the point where they have no immediate need for more money and their earning will hurt someone else.

Hell-bound greed is anyone making 10% more than me.

Since hell has all the debauchery that heaven won't allow, it's obviously more expensive. So that extra coin might be needed.

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

:thumb: The only exception would be that many of those "things" you buy with money are immediately depreciated the moment you leave the store.:D

Ibid

Money is like water - it's most useful when it's flowing.

it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.. that's why I prefer to be poor...

I doubt that this is the reason. It is more likely that to "be poor" is simply the default mode, i.e. it takes effort and a plan to acquire resources, therefore if these conditions are not met (given that objects at rest tend to stay at rest) the natural consequence is one that does not require a philosophical reason to exist.

Have you ever met someone who is poor by choice or is it always by default? I don't think I have.

Actually one of my very best friends in the world is what I guess you would could call "poor by choice" but I can tell you that he doesn't toss off cliche Bible verses as a half-ass explanation. My friend leads a very simple lifestyle, very downscaled and uncluttered. He lives within his means, does not use credit, and manages to have everything he needs in order to be content.

Recently he got a job making about twice his former pay, and what he did was to maintain his current lifestyle and place the entire surplus into savings. Over time he will "have" some money in this way. It will be through practical decision making--not by laziness or amateur philosophy. Once again, "money" itself has no intrinsic value, it simply serves the functions you consciously direct it towards.

I've met plenty of people who make less money by choice. It's about trade offs. You can choose to make less money and have a better quality of life.

I could work a second job and have more money, but I'd rather be with my family.

I guess I am not really saying "less money by choice." I am saying poor by choice...but I think that means we have to define poor, then.

The government.

Luxury, sales and estate taxes are a few. Another is income.

There are several tax brackets below $250k. Those people are at different levels of "not top earners." Everyone above that is a "top earner." But there is a huge difference between the couple of doctors that is bringing home $250k per year and the people bringing home $1M (and $10M, and $100M, etc).

Making $250k per year where I live (Helena, MT) is an incredible living, in Manhattan it is still a damn good living. On the other hand, while $50k per year in Helena is a good living it's much harder to live on in Manhattan, and the quality of life is much lower.

I really think Federal and State income tax rates should vary by where you live as well as by income.

Well, I think state income tax rates do vary by where you live.

Not within the state, right?

Edit to clarify:
Where I live you can make $X by working for a local company. In a city 90 miles away you can make $X + $N. In a city about twice that distance away you can make $X + $N + $M. There are a lot of variables wrapped up in that, but it's generally true nonetheless.

There's not really much ability to make more than that and keep the same general duties.

There are also huge differences in population, which effects supply and demand in everything from labor to commodities to services. (It probably makes sense to go by county for this.)

I think if you take it all the way down to the city level, you end up with a system whereby you just pay one income tax and let each level above it in the chain tax the preceding level. So, city taxes you, county taxes city, state taxes county and federal taxes state.

I'm really just talking out of my ass here. I haven't fully developed this idea, obviously.

There are usually local taxes as well, so the sum of federal, state, and local taxes varies by location.

Which is why your and the governments $250k number fails.

Is that a joke? $250 might get you a 900 sq ft apt

Depends on your definition of "quality of life".

BS. Everybody should pay a percentage of their income. If you 10k a year and if you make 500k a year, you should pay a percent.

Never said I thought it was a reasonable number. It's just the number everyone talks about and the government seems to have fixated upon.

Okay then, maybe a decent living. You aren't hurting for the essentials in any case.

I agree.

Based on what you said above, you can get an apartment that is 180 sq. ft. on $50k per year in Manhattan. In Montana, that's a 1,200 sq. ft. apartment most places, a decent vacation and plenty of recreation. Anyway, whatever monetary concerns your "quality of life" entails can probably be met here with $50k per year (unless you need a Lamborghini and a second home in Aspen).

First, my thoughts can't be bullshit. They are my own and you have no way to verify them. I'm playing with an imaginary scheme here. If you don't like it, I don't care--I'm not emotionally invested.

Second, I think it would be awesome if we had a little earth in a bubble where we could accurately run simulations with variables like this changed. Eventually, we may get there.

So you think it's a good idea for it to be a fixed percent across the board?

If I'm earning at less than half the poverty line I should pay the same, let's say, 10% as the guy making $500k per year?

In the extreme example, you could drop my tax completely and just up the $500k person's rate by .000002%. That extra thousand dollars might make an enormous difference in my life. The rich guy isn't going to be impacted much at all.

I think the tax percentage should be based on current income in relation to other incomes in your area and the potential to make more money in the prevailing economic conditions.

I'm a software developer so these little complex thought experiments are fun for me :P

Yea, same on my end.

Don't count on it.

Yes.

Yes.

To bad, it makes you invested.

So it should change as economic conditions change? Haaaaaaaaaaa......

I am not, and they are equally entertaining to me.... :D

Also makes the rich guy not particularly invested. Certainly far less than the poor guy.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that everyone should pay something, but that's not mutually exclusive to the idea of a progressive taxation scale either.

I can't support the notion of progressive taxation. It would be smarter to flatten it out and remove the deductions that most really rich people get to takes. What ever "rich" is....

With a system sufficiently simple we could get rid of the IRS, and outsource to commercial collections agencies.

Good idea, then the trashman could break some fingers and kneecaps on his regular route. The trashman knows your standard of living better than most. Save fuel, very efficient, green solution.;)