3 ms·
In my early 20's I had a girlfriend who was raised in Colombia and immigrated to the US in her teens. I remember one day recounting some bullshit middle-class s
by ryanmarsh 8y ago
In my early 20's I had a girlfriend who was raised in Colombia and immigrated to the US in her teens. I remember one day recounting some bullshit middle-class slogan about how "it's better to be poor and happy, than rich and sad". She slapped me across the face and yelled at me. Passionate as she was she'd never done anything like that before. She told me what it was like growing up so poor you can't afford toothpaste. She basically gave me the whole "you know nothing John Snow". She described what a hard life it was. She'd take anything over that life.
She also wasn't poor in a 1st world country with community pools and libraries. Being poor in a 3rd world country is a whole other level.
- cm2012 8y agoYou're both right. Research shows that more money doesn't make you happier - after around 80k a year in family income. Before 80k a year (depending on location, etc, I think that was the average for the USA), every dollar absolutely makes you happier with a linear line graph. This is also a great argument for more marginal taxation.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y agoIf 80k/yr is considered poor, then sure, but that’s absurd. She was right. He was wrong.
- cm2012 8y agoTotally agree, I should have phrased it better.
- zaroth 8y agoThat’s funny, because when I read “every dollar absolutely makes you happier with a linear line graph” I immediately thought of marginal tax rates. The fact is that marginal effective tax rate approaches 100% at various points on the first $80k of household income. If you are a family of 4 and require any health care, the first $80k is practically treading water. This is because you lose out on $500/mo in food stamps, at least $2,000/mo in healthcare subsidies, and pay over $17,000 in total taxes. That’s not including various other programs you might qualify for as a family of 4 with zero income versus programs you no longer qualify for after earning $80,000. On top of that, it actually costs a lot of money to go out and earn that $80,000 (direct, indirect, and opportunity costs) which eat into the very little money that actually remains after taxes and disappearing subsidies. Here’s a CBO analysis on marginal effective tax rates for a single parent with a single child which shows gross income vs effective income — see how it flattens out? [1] The marginal effective tax rate is higher the more children you have. This analysis does attempt to take cost-sharing subsidies for health insurance into account, although it’s not clear what level of health care utilization they are modeling. The most fascinating thing about the curve on slide 6 is how “After-Tax Income” starts at about $19k (the value of the govt subsidies) and by the time the parent is earning $60,000 has only increased to about $40k (66% effective tax rate), and there is a point on the curve where slope is negative — earning more leaves you worse off! [1] - https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-06/54093-taxrates.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-06/54093-taxrates.pdf
- roel_v 8y agoMost of that research has been shown to be bunk.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y agoYou’ve got yourself a keeper. She sounds incredible. Your disease is called neoliberalism. Get some help.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoHonest question, what's a neo-liberal and how do I demonstrate that? This is something new to me.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mixmastamyk 8y agoColombia, right?
- ryanmarsh 8y agoFixed, thank you.