I write that before ,if you look at the number i am sure that you can only have a regular good life if you earn a salary around 100k before all the taxes.My two oldest sons do that salary and each month they come at home and ask me for money to stay out of the water and they don't have a house,they only rent an appar tand they rent a regular car.
70 k/a salary: alot of money?
- Thread starter malboro_man
- Start date
JSB,
When a "kid" gets to be about 25 you have to let them swim or sink. At some point the chick has to leave the nest. I see people I work with shower their kids with more cash than they really need. At some point the umbilical cord has to be cut. They have to learn to survive on their own and not have Daddy around to bail them out with every wrong turn they make in their life.
When a "kid" gets to be about 25 you have to let them swim or sink. At some point the chick has to leave the nest. I see people I work with shower their kids with more cash than they really need. At some point the umbilical cord has to be cut. They have to learn to survive on their own and not have Daddy around to bail them out with every wrong turn they make in their life.
Tuff, I think the point of this exercise is that $70K is enough to live on for one person. It sounds like your son it at least partially supporting his girlfriend. That makes it much tougher.
Which, of course, is how you handled things with your kids, right? What? Oh, you have not kids, but as usual you're quite willing to tell people who do how they should raise them, because, as usual, you're an expert on all things.
Let me tell you, Beav, parenthood doesn't end at 21; it's a lifetime commitment. Yes, there are some, certainly, who enable their adult children, but there are all kinds of circumstances.
PS. I know a lot of lawyers. I've never met one, before you, who does ZERO pro bono work. Some successful people feel an obligation to society, some don't give a shit about anybody but themself.
I totaly agree ,if you can help your family do that,i never saw a safe following a guy after his death.The life i think is more difficulft now than it was when i strart my carreer
35 years ago.
35 years ago.
Me also i can have a new car each two years if i don't give money to my sons but i have more satisfaction to help them than i will have to buy a new car.
I have no idea where this statement comes from but it's totally false. I worked with Habitat for Humanity building homes for homeless people. I even signed a liability waiver for it. It's not pro bono work per se but it is charitable work.
I posted based on my parents and the way they raised me which I think was the right way. I am entitled to have an opinion on how my parents raised me.
It would be appreciated if you can cease the trolling responses.
Last edited:
Quite an ironic response, considering that a thread had to be shut down last night after you spent the entire day under the bridge.
No, the thread was shut down after I was attacked for stating my opinion and then defended myself. I also received insulting trolling PMs which I did not dignify with response.
Sol Tee it's not only about shopping around ....
My dad bought his first triplex on Le Plateau completly detached in 1973 for 17k.He was working for CNR back then and making 8k a year ,therefore the triplex was twice his salary.The 3 tenants paid for the mortage,paid the taxes and money was left over for him to use on renos.
Now if my son wanted to buy this triplex (his revenue is 68k/ year ,therefore the triplex should be 140k,right but no!!!! it's 950k,plus tax de bienvenue of 1% (10,000$) 7000$/year taxes.It is impossible for my son to buy this property.Thats what i'm saying! Even if every flat was 1200$ a month(you guys say 800$) IMPOSSIBLE even with a 100K deposit!
My dad bought his first triplex on Le Plateau completly detached in 1973 for 17k.He was working for CNR back then and making 8k a year ,therefore the triplex was twice his salary.The 3 tenants paid for the mortage,paid the taxes and money was left over for him to use on renos.
Now if my son wanted to buy this triplex (his revenue is 68k/ year ,therefore the triplex should be 140k,right but no!!!! it's 950k,plus tax de bienvenue of 1% (10,000$) 7000$/year taxes.It is impossible for my son to buy this property.Thats what i'm saying! Even if every flat was 1200$ a month(you guys say 800$) IMPOSSIBLE even with a 100K deposit!
tuff, three comments.
1. You can't compare the Plateau in 1973 with the Plateau today. Then it was a working class neighbourhood; today it's the most desirable neighborhood in the city. Watch the prices there in 5 years after Ubisoft adds another 2,000 jobs. Compare what your dad bought with another working class neighbourhood and the difference will shrink...but
2. What you say is just another indication of the shrinking middle class. The rich get richer, the rest just get the shaft.
3. Yes, 800$ is accurate for the Plateau. I was paying 925$ until I bought just a year ago and I had a fabulous place, fully renovated 4.5, sizeable, on a great street. I could have moved across Papineau and done quite well for 800$.
1. You can't compare the Plateau in 1973 with the Plateau today. Then it was a working class neighbourhood; today it's the most desirable neighborhood in the city. Watch the prices there in 5 years after Ubisoft adds another 2,000 jobs. Compare what your dad bought with another working class neighbourhood and the difference will shrink...but
2. What you say is just another indication of the shrinking middle class. The rich get richer, the rest just get the shaft.
3. Yes, 800$ is accurate for the Plateau. I was paying 925$ until I bought just a year ago and I had a fabulous place, fully renovated 4.5, sizeable, on a great street. I could have moved across Papineau and done quite well for 800$.
Also with the rent who are so hight in downtown Mlt the only place you can live NOW with a regular salary in the south shore(Longueil)
Well i'm far from 70K..... and i pay under 600$ for my 4 and half that is located in an amazing location near Jean-talon market
There are hundreds of millions of chinese and indians who would disagree with you. But I guess they don't count.
Really, I didn't realize that Apple pays a living wage to their Chinese employees and that Adobe has call centers in India in order to pay top dollar.
In China, the average annual income is $2,100. The top 5% earn 23% of all income. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/world/asia/survey-in-china-shows-wide-income-gap.html?_r=0
In India, the average annual income soared in 2011, thanks to inflation, to just over $1,000. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ome-crosses-Rs-50000/articleshow/11707030.cms
So, it is different over there. Just like here, the rich get richer, but the poor just stay poor.
None of which actually contradicts the massively swelling middle class in both those countries.
But I guess I was wrong. It isn't that you don't care because non whites are getting richer. You don't care because it contradicts your pre concived hate mongering ideological view of the world.
But hey if I am anything I am tolerant. Here is some fapping material for you from the cover of Utne Reader. http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/asset/0/064yhq/064yhq.jpg
BTW from the indian article. What matters is the increase in per capita in 2004-05 prices, which is growing at 6.4%.
Also call center jobs in India pay very well and are highly valued. They pay a very livable wage for India.
As for the Chinese article it seems the big take away message is that coastal regions are doing much better than the interior. You know, where those evil apple jobs are.
"Average annual income for a family in 2012 was 13,000 renminbi, or about $2,100. When broken down by geography, the survey results showed that the average amount in Shanghai, a huge coastal city, was just over 29,000 renminbi, or $4,700, while the average in Gansu Province, far from the coast in northwest China, was 11,400 renminbi, or just under $2,000. Average family income in urban areas was about $2,600, while it was $1,600 in rural areas."
"The survey results underscore some of the economic challenges confronting the Communist Party as a result of the growth policies that party leaders have pushed over the decades. The policies have lifted millions from poverty, but have resulted in an uneven distribution of wealth, which was one of the glaring problems of early-20th-century China and contributed to the success of the Communist revolution. "
Lifitng people out of poverty. Hmmm kinda like what I was saying. Hard to get lifted out of poverty without getting moar money. But I suppose they would be better sending 8 year olds to break bricks by hand rather then work in a call center for much more pay.
So lets recap.
I've reestablished yet again your rather pathetic reading skills which seem more devoted to establishing preconcived notions rather then what the text actually says.
Your own links show that people are getting richer and I donno, I think I'll go out on a limb and say that lower poverty levels is a good thing for poor people. I'm a bit of a **** that way.
Also how can you not know of the growing Asian middle class and progress made in poverty reduction?
Getting all your information from the Micheal Moores of the world as opposed to the Rush Limbaughs of the world doesn't actually make you an informed person and not just because both people are characters created and played by America's greatest actor Fred Savage.
All that being said I suspect there is at least a partical link between globalisation and the stagnent wages one sees in middle and lower incomes in the first world for reasons it is utterly pointless to go into.
Interesting that you think $2,100 is a middle class wage. Guess that puts you pretty much in line with Mitt Romney.
And that you don't bold the "uneven distribution of wealth" phrase. Well, guess you gotta keep 'em down, eh? So now we know what "wasisname" really is: Mr. Bain Capital. Sorry, Mitt, $2,100 is an exploitation wage in Chicoutimi or Shanghai or Chennai.
And that you don't bold the "uneven distribution of wealth" phrase. Well, guess you gotta keep 'em down, eh? So now we know what "wasisname" really is: Mr. Bain Capital. Sorry, Mitt, $2,100 is an exploitation wage in Chicoutimi or Shanghai or Chennai.
Similar threads
- Locked
