<shrug>
They sure can be. They're an accounting/taxation categorization for "extra" pay, and that doesn't always correlate to uncertainty, like it seems that they do in your experience.
EDIT: Of course, GE said it better:
He's very plainly saying there are certain things that are safe to assume, (or at least factor into financial planning) even if they aren't a sure thing.
Did you smoke some bad fucking PCP lately? Or are you planning on never posting another delusional rant laced with tall tales and warped anecdotes of the k0mm0n man and his j00 oppressors?
Seriously, might be time to consult your primary healthcare professional about adjusting your dosage, or quitting drinking or cutting out whatever the hell substance it is that's got your perception of reality even more bent than usual.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Nobody is disputing the fact better decisions can be made, but bonuses were taken for granted. What I dispute is the notion someone can overnight lose two-thirds of their income without sweating. It doesn't matter how much you earn, it matters how much you earn versus how much you spend.
Reminds me of a great Dickens quote from David CopperfieldI do think he's brought it on himself, doesn't mean that he doesn't have a problem he's got to resolve though.Originally Posted by Charles Dickens
Finally, OG has been won over to my way of thinking! Success!
I mean, I do hope you'll take this new outlook and apply it to future hard luck stories too. At long last we can agree that they brought it on themselves.
We may agree on this case, but in general I think we have differing degrees of how such things are "brought on themselves"
See, when you say stupid shit like this:
as a way to complain that $350,000 a year isn't enough. Then you look like an idiot, and fully deserve to have flack thrown in your general direction.I mean my summer rental is bare bones, it’s not the Hamptons.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Rand, you have the same thing going on in color post quotes that I do, where the text is black instead of white....has something changed recently?
Anywho, the difference between the OP financial guy and other workers is....his benefits and perks. He can lose his job but still have dividend-paying stocks, a 401-K retirement plan, and a platinum health insurance policy that won't lapse for at least six months to a year. He can lose 100% of his income, but still have some income and assets.
That's not true for a middle-low income earners. When they lose 2/3 of their income, they don't have as much to fall back on, and are truly hurting. The income/spending ratio you're using ignores the wealth effect. For one thing, the US doesn't have a NHS. That means the Wall Street guy can still access great healthcare in-between jobs. The minimum-average wage worker can't, since health insurance wasn't part of their "income" to begin with. They have to become practically destitute to qualify for Medicaid.
wiggin, the Day Care dilemma impacts the working poor much harder than professional couples living in expensive cities. There's no real comparison between paying $20k and up for child care, when each parent is earning upward of $50k/year. They still have a profit margin, so to speak.
Families barely surviving on the outer margins are often required to have any job, just to qualify for food-rent-utility subsidies, or subsidized school lunches. Even if that means a $35k annual income for a single parent, spending half their income on day care or child care, and the other half on transportation, food, and doctor visits for basic healthcare.
This is where the welfare-for-work and social conservatives lose their ideological battle, by trying to suggest poor people lack a work ethic or 'family values'. There are plenty of low income families who'd rather have one stay-home parent, saving on day care/child care and transportation costs. They really ARE smart enough to figure out that a second low income doesn't cover the other "costs" to their family. I think they're also 'smart enough' to complain that having a family shouldn't be something only wealthy people can afford.
Uhh, have you done that math for couples in expensive cities?
$100k/year for both parents
- 40k for two bedroom rental in NYC. And that's being conservative
- $20-25k in federal and states taxes assuming child credits and no mortgage deductions
- $20k for said day care
That leaves only $15-20k/year for food and the "wealth taxes" Obama wants to throw at people.
******
That said, I'm just being nitpicky there, as GGT seems to feel that urban professionals are worthy of such scorn. I honestly don't have a ton of sympathy for the unintelligent people who let themselves be quoted in that Bloomberg article. Two reasons-
1) As I've maintained for years, salaries on Wall Street are pretty high. And the culture of being spendy has really taken root there. During the credit boom years, many companies probably overcompensated at various levels (especially in their lower ranks).
This is a very distinct point from saying that the government should be regulating compensation or changing how finance is regulated. I'm just saying that, objectively, the government-created credit bubble also extended into the salaries of finance.
2) Many Americans do have a problem with savings. Personally, this is in full view for me as invitations are coming in for summer weddings.
A friend from college is begging me to come to her destination wedding on the West Coast on Labor Day weekend. Flights are already $700. Hotel is easily $500. Plus gift, food, etc? I just don't think I can go, but some of my other friends (who easily make half my salary) are just going to put it on their credit card and pay it down with their quarterly bonii.
Yes, I like using the word bonii. I think it's a great GGT innovation, I've started using it in the workplace.
I was talking about working-poor and/or lower middle income couples, not locations. And it's not that urban professionals 'deserve scorn' as much as changing the worn out narrative here, that poor people make bad financial decisions and that's why they're poor.
Sometimes the second income is completely consumed by child care and transportation costs, making the second income practically useless economically....and unproductive for the children socially, or the health of a family. (Depending on parenting skills and all that.) I'd agree with you that gov't policy can muck things up. When both parents are working in low-wage shift jobs, just to qualify for needed gov't assistance, the purpose of helping kids and families can be undermined.
The Day Care worker making $25,000/year can get family income up to $60,000/year, but if that means paying $20,000/year for their kids to be in Day Care then it's not such a winning family plan. /tangent
Yes, I like using the word bonii. I think it's a great GGT innovation, I've started using it in the workplace.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I think you're missing your Inanity Club meeting with Being and LD.
<mod hat>Please don't randomly attack people who aren't even involved in the discussion, even if it's as mild as this. You probably didn't appreciate it when it's been done to you, did you?</mod hat>
@nobody else in particular: This thread seems to be getting a bit heated, and I can't put the mod hat on once without mentioning how much I'd like not to put it on again.
Last edited by Wraith; 03-02-2012 at 04:40 AM.
And budgeting with bonuses aren't among those safe things to assume.
What are you saying here, GGT? First you say Cain is arguing that nothing is certain, (which he wasn't) and because of that he's an idiot. Now you're saying that he should recognize that bonuses aren't certain, and because of that he's an idiot. You don't have to talk out of both sides of your mouth if you want to call Cain an idiot, but it sure helps your case if you're doing it because he actually said something idiotic.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I don't think it's that irresponsable to plan on getting bonuses where getting them pretty much has become the norm (as it has in banking), that still doesn't mean that you have to start living outside of your means. And I think you have been living outside your means if one year of bad or no bonus throws you in a tailspin.
Other than that, the guy in the OP clearly can cut back quite a bit before the cuts really start to hurt. A vacation home is nice, but it's not really a necessity. For a significantly lower amount than it takes to have a second home you can have holidays in 5 star resorts with the family for the rest of your life.
Congratulations America
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
It can lower your score for ~7 years, yeah. There is hardly enough information to make a prediction on this man's scores, but the numbers and bitching he is quoted with in the OP and other articles hardly paint him as someone with anything near a perfect score.
on a more personal tangent, my mother's score never dropped below 600 after filing for bankruptcy and then dropping the house into foreclosure. Its already starting to approach 700 and its only been a couple of years.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Workers in the financial industry know how to rent out or sublet the vacation home, and how to file their taxes (so they're not hit with rental income tax or losing their second home mortgage deduction). There are interesting "opportunities" offered for vacation homes---but they're not listed as "jobs" or "rental properties". Rent-free living in exchange for property maintenance and utility bills can be a pretty sweet deal in ski or beach regions.
Since he can afford to pay a tax attorney or CPA well-versed in the loopholes, the 'banker' in the OP can also use bankruptcy options, freeze or cancel debt liabilities, and keep their higher credit score rating. Donald Trump built an empire doing that, and it's totally legal to exploit our crapass tax code that way.
Problem is....lower/middle/average income folks are at a disadvantage, because the loopholes <with its complexity and legalese> tend to favor the wealthy. Same thing applies to workers tapping their own 401-k or IRA plans during hard times, not realizing there are penalty fees, or tax consequences for 'borrowing' from their own damn money.
That won't happen until special committee legislators are "fired" by party leadership, for using their inside positions to makelawsmoney.
Do you ever try to make a coherent point? The legislator angle is utterly irrelevant and bankers (at least ones above entry-level) are routinely not hired/fired for bad credit history.
Hope is the denial of reality
What was incoherent about that point? He's a j00, so he doesn't know suffering like the real, disadvantaged k0mm0n man. Sheesh.
Yeah, stick to talking about shit you know. A bad credit score, or a sudden drop in your credit score can most certainly cost you your job in any number of places, banks and financial institutions being a couple such places. If you look like you're in debt bad enough that you might just "re-appropriate" a few hundred grand to cover your debts, you're not going to be allowed to manage large amounts of money.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.