Do you think that someone making 150k and facing AMT is paying their fair share?
My opinion if you want to avoid any issue with it is to simply go to a flat tax. Otherwise you always get in these discussions and people misunderstand what actually happens when you bounce to the next level. It is not taxing all of your income at the next bracket -- just the portion in it. I am not saying you do not get this -- but you would be surprised at how many people do not.
You can even make the argument they are paying more -- depending on whom you compare it to. Etc., etc.
Yes, the more you make the more you pay -- so quite naturally you are paying your fair share -- comparatively speaking and maybe more. Look at how much the rich pay and the folks that pay far less --totally and percentage-wise -- complain they are not paying enough.
All old arguments and again the tax thread addresses these as well.
@wallstreetcappers
Do you think that someone making 150k and facing AMT is paying their fair share?
My opinion if you want to avoid any issue with it is to simply go to a flat tax. Otherwise you always get in these discussions and people misunderstand what actually happens when you bounce to the next level. It is not taxing all of your income at the next bracket -- just the portion in it. I am not saying you do not get this -- but you would be surprised at how many people do not.
You can even make the argument they are paying more -- depending on whom you compare it to. Etc., etc.
Yes, the more you make the more you pay -- so quite naturally you are paying your fair share -- comparatively speaking and maybe more. Look at how much the rich pay and the folks that pay far less --totally and percentage-wise -- complain they are not paying enough.
All old arguments and again the tax thread addresses these as well.
Min annual income is not middle class, that is lower class. It is what is required at a MINIMUM to survive and I would think that is weighted for the metro area. I can tell you this that the figure listed would mean that the family lives in a lower than average priced rental, not owning and for sure not having a car payment.
There was a single parent who has one child who is friends with our family and they had to move from their apartment because the price went up to 1700 a month for a 1 BR apartment without utilities. A family of 4 where I live if they were in a rental would pay closer to 2k for a 2-3 br apartment, if you were willing to live in a bad part of town then you could probably get a less safe rental for 1500 a month. At even 1500 a month that is 18,000 a year before utilities cable food insurance medical and stupid things like clothes or gas or car insurance...lol
58k for a family of 4 means they have zero savings and are living check to check, and is that family of 4 saving for college? The price for ASU tuition this year is over 15k before books and fees and any living expenses. If you think that check to check, no savings and no safety net is a great standard, then maybe you should go live that life here and see how that works for you.
That single mom I mentioned earns less than 40k raising a child alone and is really struggling, has no college savings for the child and if she got ill she would be in serious trouble within three months.
Maybe relying on MIN standards is not a great measure of success or expectation?
Min annual income is not middle class, that is lower class. It is what is required at a MINIMUM to survive and I would think that is weighted for the metro area. I can tell you this that the figure listed would mean that the family lives in a lower than average priced rental, not owning and for sure not having a car payment.
There was a single parent who has one child who is friends with our family and they had to move from their apartment because the price went up to 1700 a month for a 1 BR apartment without utilities. A family of 4 where I live if they were in a rental would pay closer to 2k for a 2-3 br apartment, if you were willing to live in a bad part of town then you could probably get a less safe rental for 1500 a month. At even 1500 a month that is 18,000 a year before utilities cable food insurance medical and stupid things like clothes or gas or car insurance...lol
58k for a family of 4 means they have zero savings and are living check to check, and is that family of 4 saving for college? The price for ASU tuition this year is over 15k before books and fees and any living expenses. If you think that check to check, no savings and no safety net is a great standard, then maybe you should go live that life here and see how that works for you.
That single mom I mentioned earns less than 40k raising a child alone and is really struggling, has no college savings for the child and if she got ill she would be in serious trouble within three months.
Maybe relying on MIN standards is not a great measure of success or expectation?
I think the definitions you are giving for middle class (40-50k) and high earners (100-200k) is off and partly why the lower and middle class are going nowhere in the future. We should be desiring the lower and middle class to be able to retire early, to invest and afford a reasonable living and currently that is not the case especially with the consume now mentality most have.
I do not think you mean what you wrote here as you think it is worded.
No, we should not just 'desire' lower and middle class to retire early. THEY SHOULD DESIRE to and do the things to get them there earlier.
Like you said in one of the other places --LIVE WITHIN their means!
This is something we should 'desire' for a whole class of folks.
Looks at how much MOVEMENT there is between these classes by folks that yearn to succeed and do better. There is constant moving up by ambitious folks.
There is plenty of stuff already in place to help people if they, themselves, DESIRE to get to the point where they can retire early.
No one has to stay lower class or even middle class -- BUT EVEN if they do -- they can still retire early by saving and living within their means.
They simply will not retire at a higher level than they should.
@wallstreetcappers
I think the definitions you are giving for middle class (40-50k) and high earners (100-200k) is off and partly why the lower and middle class are going nowhere in the future. We should be desiring the lower and middle class to be able to retire early, to invest and afford a reasonable living and currently that is not the case especially with the consume now mentality most have.
I do not think you mean what you wrote here as you think it is worded.
No, we should not just 'desire' lower and middle class to retire early. THEY SHOULD DESIRE to and do the things to get them there earlier.
Like you said in one of the other places --LIVE WITHIN their means!
This is something we should 'desire' for a whole class of folks.
Looks at how much MOVEMENT there is between these classes by folks that yearn to succeed and do better. There is constant moving up by ambitious folks.
There is plenty of stuff already in place to help people if they, themselves, DESIRE to get to the point where they can retire early.
No one has to stay lower class or even middle class -- BUT EVEN if they do -- they can still retire early by saving and living within their means.
They simply will not retire at a higher level than they should.
Last thing, I am not going to prove if I am conservative or not because what you are completely missing is that being conservative in my home does not mean I either vote for a "conservative" by political definition OR that there is one which both fits my description of conservative AND that I feel serve the better good of society. I do not vote based on my personal family opinions or views, what I live in my home is not what I expect exists in society, nor would I force my personal views on society if I could. People need to make decisions which they feel is best for them and that is how I vote. I vote based on what best serves the least and those who are in greatest need. My choice to live with conservative views and financial decisions is mine and I do what I think is best for me, and that is the extent to which my conservative views extend into society, they do not. I try to be respectful and kind, I live inside the law and do the best I can and that is all I try to do. I would never take my personal views into the voting booth. Notice I said there is not a candidate that I feel best serves the lesser and is deserving of my vote. I do not think that the GOP is seeking to serve the least especially socially. I think the GOP feels social benefit from the government is a crutch and weakness and something in error, and for society in general not for me personally it does not serve the interests of groups that need it the most.
My questions are not for you to prove it until you insist that you are not Liberal and you keep repeating it.
I am simply curious how you reconcile it.
When have you ever supported any Conservative candidates and policies?
Who would you like to see run now?
I am curious because you have more or less 'proved' that you are Liberal here and support the policies and candidates because you think it is better for society even though you think the opposite at home.
I do not doubt your fiscal Conservatism -- You have 'proved' that by what you say here many times as well.
So, you see how it I can be seen as confusing and/or misleading?
@wallstreetcappers
Last thing, I am not going to prove if I am conservative or not because what you are completely missing is that being conservative in my home does not mean I either vote for a "conservative" by political definition OR that there is one which both fits my description of conservative AND that I feel serve the better good of society. I do not vote based on my personal family opinions or views, what I live in my home is not what I expect exists in society, nor would I force my personal views on society if I could. People need to make decisions which they feel is best for them and that is how I vote. I vote based on what best serves the least and those who are in greatest need. My choice to live with conservative views and financial decisions is mine and I do what I think is best for me, and that is the extent to which my conservative views extend into society, they do not. I try to be respectful and kind, I live inside the law and do the best I can and that is all I try to do. I would never take my personal views into the voting booth. Notice I said there is not a candidate that I feel best serves the lesser and is deserving of my vote. I do not think that the GOP is seeking to serve the least especially socially. I think the GOP feels social benefit from the government is a crutch and weakness and something in error, and for society in general not for me personally it does not serve the interests of groups that need it the most.
My questions are not for you to prove it until you insist that you are not Liberal and you keep repeating it.
I am simply curious how you reconcile it.
When have you ever supported any Conservative candidates and policies?
Who would you like to see run now?
I am curious because you have more or less 'proved' that you are Liberal here and support the policies and candidates because you think it is better for society even though you think the opposite at home.
I do not doubt your fiscal Conservatism -- You have 'proved' that by what you say here many times as well.
So, you see how it I can be seen as confusing and/or misleading?
I think the definitions you are giving for middle class (40-50k) and high earners (100-200k) is off and partly why the lower and middle class are going nowhere in the future. We should be desiring the lower and middle class to be able to retire early, to invest and afford a reasonable living and currently that is not the case especially with the consume now mentality most have.
These are not my definitions. These are the guys that did the studies definitions.
When you say that you 'think' the definitions are off -- of course you do if you see folks not living within their means and not trying to improve their situation.
When the median income is $74,000 and the average annual real wage is $67,000 it is hard not to see that as an indicator of a lower-middle class. Now imagine a two-income household.
Yes, things cost more.
But like I always say look at how much bigger a 'starter' home is now and look at all the conveniences people have now. Look at the cars and the clothes, etc.
@wallstreetcappers
I think the definitions you are giving for middle class (40-50k) and high earners (100-200k) is off and partly why the lower and middle class are going nowhere in the future. We should be desiring the lower and middle class to be able to retire early, to invest and afford a reasonable living and currently that is not the case especially with the consume now mentality most have.
These are not my definitions. These are the guys that did the studies definitions.
When you say that you 'think' the definitions are off -- of course you do if you see folks not living within their means and not trying to improve their situation.
When the median income is $74,000 and the average annual real wage is $67,000 it is hard not to see that as an indicator of a lower-middle class. Now imagine a two-income household.
Yes, things cost more.
But like I always say look at how much bigger a 'starter' home is now and look at all the conveniences people have now. Look at the cars and the clothes, etc.
It is obvious that we differ in what I wrote...when I said WE I mean I...I desire for everyone to invest, to enjoy life, to retire early to have opportunity and chances and to be able to decide how their life goes. You do not feel the same way, I do. I desire for anyone to have the best opportunities and lives, it is not based on if I have something or not it is that if people have opportunities and choices then the theory is that if people can take care of themselves then they are less of a burden to society.
I feel bad that most people are living check to check and have no backup or resources to handle bad situations, that worries me it makes me feel unhappy because nobody deserves to live life not feeling like they can take care of their needs let alone save or afford a vacation or if their car breaks down.
It is obvious that we differ in what I wrote...when I said WE I mean I...I desire for everyone to invest, to enjoy life, to retire early to have opportunity and chances and to be able to decide how their life goes. You do not feel the same way, I do. I desire for anyone to have the best opportunities and lives, it is not based on if I have something or not it is that if people have opportunities and choices then the theory is that if people can take care of themselves then they are less of a burden to society.
I feel bad that most people are living check to check and have no backup or resources to handle bad situations, that worries me it makes me feel unhappy because nobody deserves to live life not feeling like they can take care of their needs let alone save or afford a vacation or if their car breaks down.
That child tax credit number is humorous, you are acting like that figure is something great...lol it is pathetic and way too low for a middle class family.
Again, that is just one of the many that they broke down.
I can make the argument that it is unfair to a single guy/gal or married couple with no kids.
If you are going to have kids --then plan to have kids. Do not depend on your income being 'subsidized' in a way by folks that did those things.
I understand you feel sorry for the under-privileged and the poor. That is a good thing and human nature.
But there are too many of these things in the tax system -- maybe that is one that should stay. But there are so many things in place to help folks already. The tax system should not be overly complicated.
@wallstreetcappers
That child tax credit number is humorous, you are acting like that figure is something great...lol it is pathetic and way too low for a middle class family.
Again, that is just one of the many that they broke down.
I can make the argument that it is unfair to a single guy/gal or married couple with no kids.
If you are going to have kids --then plan to have kids. Do not depend on your income being 'subsidized' in a way by folks that did those things.
I understand you feel sorry for the under-privileged and the poor. That is a good thing and human nature.
But there are too many of these things in the tax system -- maybe that is one that should stay. But there are so many things in place to help folks already. The tax system should not be overly complicated.
Min annual income is not middle class, that is lower class. It is what is required at a MINIMUM to survive and I would think that is weighted for the metro area. I can tell you this that the figure listed would mean that the family lives in a lower than average priced rental, not owning and for sure not having a car payment. There was a single parent who has one child who is friends with our family and they had to move from their apartment because the price went up to 1700 a month for a 1 BR apartment without utilities. A family of 4 where I live if they were in a rental would pay closer to 2k for a 2-3 br apartment, if you were willing to live in a bad part of town then you could probably get a less safe rental for 1500 a month. At even 1500 a month that is 18,000 a year before utilities cable food insurance medical and stupid things like clothes or gas or car insurance...lol 58k for a family of 4 means they have zero savings and are living check to check, and is that family of 4 saving for college? The price for ASU tuition this year is over 15k before books and fees and any living expenses. If you think that check to check, no savings and no safety net is a great standard, then maybe you should go live that life here and see how that works for you. That single mom I mentioned earns less than 40k raising a child alone and is really struggling, has no college savings for the child and if she got ill she would be in serious trouble within three months. Maybe relying on MIN standards is not a great measure of success or expectation?
Correct. Because of the things I mentioned above and you have as well. They need to live within their means. If you did not plan for college then you need to work as you go and for sure start at a CC maybe. But kids can get all manner of scholarships -- the parents need to encourage them to do well in school, etc.
Plus all kids should not go to college -- it is a waste from most.
@wallstreetcappers
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Min annual income is not middle class, that is lower class. It is what is required at a MINIMUM to survive and I would think that is weighted for the metro area. I can tell you this that the figure listed would mean that the family lives in a lower than average priced rental, not owning and for sure not having a car payment. There was a single parent who has one child who is friends with our family and they had to move from their apartment because the price went up to 1700 a month for a 1 BR apartment without utilities. A family of 4 where I live if they were in a rental would pay closer to 2k for a 2-3 br apartment, if you were willing to live in a bad part of town then you could probably get a less safe rental for 1500 a month. At even 1500 a month that is 18,000 a year before utilities cable food insurance medical and stupid things like clothes or gas or car insurance...lol 58k for a family of 4 means they have zero savings and are living check to check, and is that family of 4 saving for college? The price for ASU tuition this year is over 15k before books and fees and any living expenses. If you think that check to check, no savings and no safety net is a great standard, then maybe you should go live that life here and see how that works for you. That single mom I mentioned earns less than 40k raising a child alone and is really struggling, has no college savings for the child and if she got ill she would be in serious trouble within three months. Maybe relying on MIN standards is not a great measure of success or expectation?
Correct. Because of the things I mentioned above and you have as well. They need to live within their means. If you did not plan for college then you need to work as you go and for sure start at a CC maybe. But kids can get all manner of scholarships -- the parents need to encourage them to do well in school, etc.
Plus all kids should not go to college -- it is a waste from most.
There was a single parent who has one child who is friends with our family and they had to move from their apartment because the price went up to 1700 a month for a 1 BR apartment without utilities. A family of 4 where I live if they were in a rental would pay closer to 2k for a 2-3 br apartment, if you were willing to live in a bad part of town then you could probably get a less safe rental for 1500 a month. At even 1500 a month that is 18,000 a year before utilities cable food insurance medical and stupid things like clothes or gas or car insurance...lol
I am not saying they are stupid things. I am saying they get too costly ones the they cannot afford them.
But in this example there are a lot of issues I have. Did the person set out to be a single parent? Are they in school or applying for better-paying jobs?
Should they move? Do they have family/friends/church/community to help them get on their feet?
By an large people put themselves in situations that are not the best.
But things do happen out of their control. It is then they need help to get back going.
Do you have to live in a bad part of town? Can you move to a more rural area that will be safer and cheaper but may have a commute, etc.
I am not saying your friend at all --- but oo many people get I these situations when they should not have.
And it starts early, because their parents did not teach them or they made bad choices along the way.
@wallstreetcappers
There was a single parent who has one child who is friends with our family and they had to move from their apartment because the price went up to 1700 a month for a 1 BR apartment without utilities. A family of 4 where I live if they were in a rental would pay closer to 2k for a 2-3 br apartment, if you were willing to live in a bad part of town then you could probably get a less safe rental for 1500 a month. At even 1500 a month that is 18,000 a year before utilities cable food insurance medical and stupid things like clothes or gas or car insurance...lol
I am not saying they are stupid things. I am saying they get too costly ones the they cannot afford them.
But in this example there are a lot of issues I have. Did the person set out to be a single parent? Are they in school or applying for better-paying jobs?
Should they move? Do they have family/friends/church/community to help them get on their feet?
By an large people put themselves in situations that are not the best.
But things do happen out of their control. It is then they need help to get back going.
Do you have to live in a bad part of town? Can you move to a more rural area that will be safer and cheaper but may have a commute, etc.
I am not saying your friend at all --- but oo many people get I these situations when they should not have.
And it starts early, because their parents did not teach them or they made bad choices along the way.
It is obvious that we differ in what I wrote...when I said WE I mean I...I desire for everyone to invest, to enjoy life, to retire early to have opportunity and chances and to be able to decide how their life goes. You do not feel the same way, I do. I desire for anyone to have the best opportunities and lives, it is not based on if I have something or not it is that if people have opportunities and choices then the theory is that if people can take care of themselves then they are less of a burden to society.
I feel bad that most people are living check to check and have no backup or resources to handle bad situations, that worries me it makes me feel unhappy because nobody deserves to live life not feeling like they can take care of their needs let alone save or afford a vacation or if their car breaks down.
We both do. Just differently. I want people to do better and I want them to invest for retirement and get out of debt.
BUT it is to help them help themselves and once they know what to do -- they do it better then if you just give to them.
Most people are living paycheck to paycheck because of bad decisions. Look at what is going on now that inflation has caused prices to go up. People had way better savings during the pandemic -- now what did they do after? Went out and spent it and now live on credit cards.
The USA is the best country in the world for people that want to get going. You do not have to accept your lot in life. I know a lot of people that want go get there for that very reason and I know a lot that did it and are very successful.
People always have excuses. They blame it on all manner of things. But they sometimes just need some encouragement and some instruction.
Just giving folks more money does not fix the problem longterm.
We always WANT better for folks. I tell you what is the WORST -- when it is your family or friends.
IT is SO tricky to try to help some folks without seeming condescending or a know-it-all.
But it is so REWARDING when you see someone start to make strides and get out of debt and start investing for retirement.
Parents fail to teach this and so do schools. If the family does not teach you this -- it is usually a big cycle.
@wallstreetcappers
It is obvious that we differ in what I wrote...when I said WE I mean I...I desire for everyone to invest, to enjoy life, to retire early to have opportunity and chances and to be able to decide how their life goes. You do not feel the same way, I do. I desire for anyone to have the best opportunities and lives, it is not based on if I have something or not it is that if people have opportunities and choices then the theory is that if people can take care of themselves then they are less of a burden to society.
I feel bad that most people are living check to check and have no backup or resources to handle bad situations, that worries me it makes me feel unhappy because nobody deserves to live life not feeling like they can take care of their needs let alone save or afford a vacation or if their car breaks down.
We both do. Just differently. I want people to do better and I want them to invest for retirement and get out of debt.
BUT it is to help them help themselves and once they know what to do -- they do it better then if you just give to them.
Most people are living paycheck to paycheck because of bad decisions. Look at what is going on now that inflation has caused prices to go up. People had way better savings during the pandemic -- now what did they do after? Went out and spent it and now live on credit cards.
The USA is the best country in the world for people that want to get going. You do not have to accept your lot in life. I know a lot of people that want go get there for that very reason and I know a lot that did it and are very successful.
People always have excuses. They blame it on all manner of things. But they sometimes just need some encouragement and some instruction.
Just giving folks more money does not fix the problem longterm.
We always WANT better for folks. I tell you what is the WORST -- when it is your family or friends.
IT is SO tricky to try to help some folks without seeming condescending or a know-it-all.
But it is so REWARDING when you see someone start to make strides and get out of debt and start investing for retirement.
Parents fail to teach this and so do schools. If the family does not teach you this -- it is usually a big cycle.
The reality is people do not expect that decisions they make will lead to challenges later on. This single mother got married, had one kiddo and the marriage didnt work out and has been responsible for this kiddo for many years and that is not the fault of this person. I have come to realize that MOST people are not making perfect decisions all along the way and most make many bad decisions and it leads to bad paths and makes life difficult. Many people as you stated are not suited for college and this single parent also is not so she is struggling to find work that she can mentally and physically do but she has zero shot at finding a career at her place in life and her skills, she will struggle her entire life and it is not because she makes bad decisions it is that many people will not ever be in that upper middle class, many people are just swimming trying hard to make ends meet and get to the next day. THOSE are the people who need the most from social programs. The more I get to know people the less I am judgmental about decisions and execution and perfect outcomes. I think most people try hard but are not skilled or able to live the kind of life that gives them the opportunities or cushion or the chances that others have.
I will have to discuss more later but I am not a liberal in how I live my life but I am very flexible and considerate as to what I think MOST need and how society exists and that most people need things differently than I do, most act and think and make decisions differently than I do and I cant vote based on how I live my life I have to vote based on what I think serves the best good for society and those different than me. If more people looked outside their lives and their views to what exists in society around them, we might not have this partisan divide that we do. If society thinks of others and the general society more than what they think others should act or choose I imagine we would make greater progress and our focuses would be different politically.
The reality is people do not expect that decisions they make will lead to challenges later on. This single mother got married, had one kiddo and the marriage didnt work out and has been responsible for this kiddo for many years and that is not the fault of this person. I have come to realize that MOST people are not making perfect decisions all along the way and most make many bad decisions and it leads to bad paths and makes life difficult. Many people as you stated are not suited for college and this single parent also is not so she is struggling to find work that she can mentally and physically do but she has zero shot at finding a career at her place in life and her skills, she will struggle her entire life and it is not because she makes bad decisions it is that many people will not ever be in that upper middle class, many people are just swimming trying hard to make ends meet and get to the next day. THOSE are the people who need the most from social programs. The more I get to know people the less I am judgmental about decisions and execution and perfect outcomes. I think most people try hard but are not skilled or able to live the kind of life that gives them the opportunities or cushion or the chances that others have.
I will have to discuss more later but I am not a liberal in how I live my life but I am very flexible and considerate as to what I think MOST need and how society exists and that most people need things differently than I do, most act and think and make decisions differently than I do and I cant vote based on how I live my life I have to vote based on what I think serves the best good for society and those different than me. If more people looked outside their lives and their views to what exists in society around them, we might not have this partisan divide that we do. If society thinks of others and the general society more than what they think others should act or choose I imagine we would make greater progress and our focuses would be different politically.
Yessir. No problem. But I am very curious on why you think most people in society would not benefit more from living life like you do and why you do not support candidates that would help do that.
I also think both sides see the plight of others but simply have differing views on what will help them in the long run.
@wallstreetcappers
Yessir. No problem. But I am very curious on why you think most people in society would not benefit more from living life like you do and why you do not support candidates that would help do that.
I also think both sides see the plight of others but simply have differing views on what will help them in the long run.
@wallstreetcappers Yessir. No problem. But I am very curious on why you think most people in society would not benefit more from living life like you do and why you do not support candidates that would help do that. I also think both sides see the plight of others but simply have differing views on what will help them in the long run.
Been some time now. Have you thought of a way to explain any further your thought process on this and why it might be good?
@wallstreetcappers
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@wallstreetcappers Yessir. No problem. But I am very curious on why you think most people in society would not benefit more from living life like you do and why you do not support candidates that would help do that. I also think both sides see the plight of others but simply have differing views on what will help them in the long run.
Been some time now. Have you thought of a way to explain any further your thought process on this and why it might be good?
This is a great example of what I was talking about earlier. People that have middle-class income but make poor decisions about their money and live above their means. Then when they have something unexpected happen, they have not planned for it and make more bad decisions.
Real median household income was $74,580 in 2022, per the U.S. Census Bureau. Bebe and Paul have a household income of around $113,500, which puts them in the "middle class," according to the Pew Research Center.
Struggling to keep up, the couple maxed out their credit cards. Paul even took out what sounds like a payday loan. He borrowed $750 at an extremely high interest rate which compelled the couple to make $200 bi-weekly payments. Eventually, they spent $3,500 on this short-term loan alone.
Sethi acknowledged their struggles but also highlighted that reckless spending habits had a role to play in the couple’s predicament. For instance, Bebe described her $2,000 mattress purchase as “basic and midline” even though they had to use a line of credit to afford it.
They also have multiple credit cards and frequently use “buy now, pay later” apps to shop. "...before we realize it, all of these monthly payments are his entire paycheck, and we can’t afford rent," said Bebe.
Poor spending habits and excessive borrowing seem to have magnified the problems created by the curve balls life threw at them.
This is a great example of what I was talking about earlier. People that have middle-class income but make poor decisions about their money and live above their means. Then when they have something unexpected happen, they have not planned for it and make more bad decisions.
Real median household income was $74,580 in 2022, per the U.S. Census Bureau. Bebe and Paul have a household income of around $113,500, which puts them in the "middle class," according to the Pew Research Center.
Struggling to keep up, the couple maxed out their credit cards. Paul even took out what sounds like a payday loan. He borrowed $750 at an extremely high interest rate which compelled the couple to make $200 bi-weekly payments. Eventually, they spent $3,500 on this short-term loan alone.
Sethi acknowledged their struggles but also highlighted that reckless spending habits had a role to play in the couple’s predicament. For instance, Bebe described her $2,000 mattress purchase as “basic and midline” even though they had to use a line of credit to afford it.
They also have multiple credit cards and frequently use “buy now, pay later” apps to shop. "...before we realize it, all of these monthly payments are his entire paycheck, and we can’t afford rent," said Bebe.
Poor spending habits and excessive borrowing seem to have magnified the problems created by the curve balls life threw at them.
In a historic decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling marked the first time a court kept a presidential candidate off the ballot under an 1868 provision of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling comes as courts consider similar cases in other states. The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle the issue of whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running.
@Sidehatch
Now Trump is crying to SCOTUS
Quote Originally Posted by Sidehatch:
In a historic decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling marked the first time a court kept a presidential candidate off the ballot under an 1868 provision of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling comes as courts consider similar cases in other states. The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle the issue of whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running.
Quote Originally Posted by Sidehatch: In a historic decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling marked the first time a court kept a presidential candidate off the ballot under an 1868 provision of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling comes as courts consider similar cases in other states. The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle the issue of whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running.@Sidehatch Now Trump is crying to SCOTUS
Word is SCOTUS is prepared to hear the case
Quote Originally Posted by Zeus4par:
Quote Originally Posted by Sidehatch: In a historic decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling marked the first time a court kept a presidential candidate off the ballot under an 1868 provision of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling comes as courts consider similar cases in other states. The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle the issue of whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running.@Sidehatch Now Trump is crying to SCOTUS
Section 3 of 14th amendment bars supreme court from giving an insurrectionist official an exemption. Instead congress may by a vote of two-third in each House remove a disqualification. A supreme court with common sense should just confirm what the law says. However a biased court could find some weak excuse to misread the original text in constitution.
Section 3 of 14th amendment bars supreme court from giving an insurrectionist official an exemption. Instead congress may by a vote of two-third in each House remove a disqualification. A supreme court with common sense should just confirm what the law says. However a biased court could find some weak excuse to misread the original text in constitution.
Section 3 of 14th amendment bars supreme court from giving an insurrectionist official an exemption. Instead congress may by a vote of two-third in each House remove a disqualification. A supreme court with common sense should just confirm what the law says. However a biased court could find some weak excuse to misread the original text in constitution.
@thirdperson
That part I did not know. Thanks, thirdperson!
Will be interesting to see if a conservative-majority SCOTUS finds a way to overrule a state in such a case.
The argument about "let the voters decide" only makes sense when the person in Q is not guilty of a heinous act defined by our Constitution.
For example, if a man was caught red-handed on audio, video, and multiple eyewitnesses murdering a classroom of children, should states have the right to drop that murderous candidate from the presidential ballot even though he has not yet been to court?
If one is NOT MAGA partisan I believe 99% would agree in such a heinous case, states should have the right to BAN such a person from the ballot and not leave it up to his cult to possibly elect his ass.
BUT, that might be more of a moral Q than legal at this point.
SCOTUS will likely decide (by majority) that because adolf has NOT YET been proven of insurrrection in a court of law (likely in THEIR court) then by strictest legal definition he is not technically guilty of the insurrection we all witnessed.
That said, what diff will it make? It's more a smear anyway. Adolf will be defeated in those states which seek legally to keep him off the ballot regardless. I'd put up $$$ on that too! Maine and Colo are but 2 examples where he will lose anyway. There's very little risk a derelict fascist immersed in multiple *CRIMINAL* trials plus fraud would ever win in those states.......so leave him on I say..... It'll just make it appear worse for him after he gets whupped in those states he is fighting to stay on.
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Section 3 of 14th amendment bars supreme court from giving an insurrectionist official an exemption. Instead congress may by a vote of two-third in each House remove a disqualification. A supreme court with common sense should just confirm what the law says. However a biased court could find some weak excuse to misread the original text in constitution.
@thirdperson
That part I did not know. Thanks, thirdperson!
Will be interesting to see if a conservative-majority SCOTUS finds a way to overrule a state in such a case.
The argument about "let the voters decide" only makes sense when the person in Q is not guilty of a heinous act defined by our Constitution.
For example, if a man was caught red-handed on audio, video, and multiple eyewitnesses murdering a classroom of children, should states have the right to drop that murderous candidate from the presidential ballot even though he has not yet been to court?
If one is NOT MAGA partisan I believe 99% would agree in such a heinous case, states should have the right to BAN such a person from the ballot and not leave it up to his cult to possibly elect his ass.
BUT, that might be more of a moral Q than legal at this point.
SCOTUS will likely decide (by majority) that because adolf has NOT YET been proven of insurrrection in a court of law (likely in THEIR court) then by strictest legal definition he is not technically guilty of the insurrection we all witnessed.
That said, what diff will it make? It's more a smear anyway. Adolf will be defeated in those states which seek legally to keep him off the ballot regardless. I'd put up $$$ on that too! Maine and Colo are but 2 examples where he will lose anyway. There's very little risk a derelict fascist immersed in multiple *CRIMINAL* trials plus fraud would ever win in those states.......so leave him on I say..... It'll just make it appear worse for him after he gets whupped in those states he is fighting to stay on.
The argument about "let the voters decide" only makes sense when the person in Q is not guilty of a heinous act defined by our Constitution. SCOTUS will likely decide that because adolf has NOT YET been proven of insurrection in a court of law then by strictest legal definition he is not technically guilty of the insurrection .
Section 3 of 14th amendment doesn't require criminal conviction for disqualification. Evidences from Trump second impeachment are sufficient. Furthermore, Trump engages in insurrection by giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists by calling them political prisoners and promising to pardon them.
Myth is that voters are free to choose whoever they want for president. Actually, constitution has strict prerequisites to be president. 14th amendment doesn't allow voters to decide if an insurrectionist is qualified to be president.
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
The argument about "let the voters decide" only makes sense when the person in Q is not guilty of a heinous act defined by our Constitution. SCOTUS will likely decide that because adolf has NOT YET been proven of insurrection in a court of law then by strictest legal definition he is not technically guilty of the insurrection .
Section 3 of 14th amendment doesn't require criminal conviction for disqualification. Evidences from Trump second impeachment are sufficient. Furthermore, Trump engages in insurrection by giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists by calling them political prisoners and promising to pardon them.
Myth is that voters are free to choose whoever they want for president. Actually, constitution has strict prerequisites to be president. 14th amendment doesn't allow voters to decide if an insurrectionist is qualified to be president.
Hot Forum Topics
