3 ms·

Ten grand in cash? Wikipedia says the median household income in the U.S. (in 2005, though I can't imagine it's sky-rocketed since then) was about $44k (that's

by faboo 15y ago

Ten grand in cash? Wikipedia says the median household income in the U.S. (in 2005, though I can't imagine it's sky-rocketed since then) was about $44k (that's 1 wage earner, family of 3 (or so)). So $10k every six months would be nearly half their income. They'd be living at $22k/year (before taxes), which is nearly poverty level for a family of 3. Even if you consider middle-middle class, $70-$100k, that's still 20-25% of their income. But that's the United States. Maybe wages are awesome in Canada? "Sources": https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Household_inc... https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poverty_in_th...

fleitz 15y ago
What they're talking about is aggregate, so lets say you have 2K in your chequing, 5K in your trading account, and if you have more than 3K in an RRSP you have to file an FBAR. The FBAR isn't the big deal for wage earners, the big deal is the failure to file.
JoachimSchipper 15y ago
The parent was talking about $10K total, enough to carry them through e.g. six months of unemployment. Saving $20K/year is indeed a lot, but $2K/year for five years is very reasonable (~4.5%) and gets you to $10K.
- jarek 15y ago
  Yes, sorry, I realized now my post wasn't clear. I meant "savings to live off of for six months," not "amount you [most people] would save up in six months." $10k wouldn't be a lot for a family for six months, but it'd be a start.
  - faboo 15y ago
    Ah, yes, that does make a lot more sense. And I definitely agree that $10k is more the size of a rainy-day fund than a "here is my pile of tax evasion money" stash.
spinchange 15y ago
10k aggregate isn't nearly as much as it sounds like - especially for an established adult family or household. Consider that this could be accumulated savings over time and various accounts. Also consider things like employer-sponsored retirement accounts that someone may have had with an American company that they have simply forgotten about. (That happens FAR more than people realize/ would expect) The point is it's a bad rule. Making the line 10k is guaranteed to pick people soldily 'middle class' and not just "rich" people.
- jarek 15y ago
  > Making the line 10k is guaranteed to pick people soldily 'middle class' and not just "rich" people. Yup. If one has a hundred grand or more in fairly liquid assets, yeah, I can see the argument for having them check to make sure all the Is are dotted. (Though even there, with life-long savings, inheritance, etc, it's within reach for "normal" people.) For less than a year's middle class expenses, probably not so much.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  The point is it's a bad rule. Making the line 10k is guaranteed to pick people soldily 'middle class' and not just "rich" people. You seem to imply that a good policy would be to screw the wealthy people and let those of moderate means flout the law. I don't think it's healthy to have a different set of laws depending on a person's income.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Would you advocate no cutoff at all, then?

by faboo 15y ago

fleitz 15y ago

What they're talking about is aggregate, so lets say you have 2K in your chequing, 5K in your trading account, and if you have more than 3K in an RRSP you have to file an FBAR. The FBAR isn't the big deal for wage earners, the big deal is the failure to file.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago

The parent was talking about $10K total, enough to carry them through e.g. six months of unemployment. Saving $20K/year is indeed a lot, but $2K/year for five years is very reasonable (~4.5%) and gets you to $10K.

jarek 15y ago
Yes, sorry, I realized now my post wasn't clear. I meant "savings to live off of for six months," not "amount you [most people] would save up in six months." $10k wouldn't be a lot for a family for six months, but it'd be a start.
- faboo 15y ago
  Ah, yes, that does make a lot more sense. And I definitely agree that $10k is more the size of a rainy-day fund than a "here is my pile of tax evasion money" stash.

spinchange 15y ago

10k aggregate isn't nearly as much as it sounds like - especially for an established adult family or household. Consider that this could be accumulated savings over time and various accounts. Also consider things like employer-sponsored retirement accounts that someone may have had with an American company that they have simply forgotten about. (That happens FAR more than people realize/ would expect) The point is it's a bad rule. Making the line 10k is guaranteed to pick people soldily 'middle class' and not just "rich" people.

jarek 15y ago
> Making the line 10k is guaranteed to pick people soldily 'middle class' and not just "rich" people. Yup. If one has a hundred grand or more in fairly liquid assets, yeah, I can see the argument for having them check to make sure all the Is are dotted. (Though even there, with life-long savings, inheritance, etc, it's within reach for "normal" people.) For less than a year's middle class expenses, probably not so much.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
The point is it's a bad rule. Making the line 10k is guaranteed to pick people soldily 'middle class' and not just "rich" people. You seem to imply that a good policy would be to screw the wealthy people and let those of moderate means flout the law. I don't think it's healthy to have a different set of laws depending on a person's income.
- jarek 15y ago
  Would you advocate no cutoff at all, then?