3 ms·

We are talking about people making above >150k/year here right ? At no point does 10-20% inflation mean they are better off growing their own food or some shit

We are talking about people making above >150k/year here right ? At no point does 10-20% inflation mean they are better off growing their own food or some shit like that. Your point is probably applicable in less developed economies/low paid positions. For highly specialized well paid positions if this was the case you'd probably have a societal collapse.

makerdiety 4y ago
Actually, increasing rates of inflation do mean people are better off sustaining themselves and leaving the credit based economy that has a rising inflation rate with its credit based currency. The weak buying power of an individual currency unit, like a United States dollar, indicates a geopolitical state and economy that is beginning to lack the ability to sustain further revenue increases in a generalized shareholder account of wealth. And middle class or bourgeois laborers are those general shareholders in the hypothetical credit based economy and state I'm talking about here. Basically, a credit bubble is naturally popping to combat real overpopulation and making a lot of money (like a billion dollars, actually) here might actually be a fool's game. So investing in outside assets, relative to the indicated failing state and the credit based assets its domestic production offers its domestic shareholders, is the rational move to make in this theoretical game. So the question now is: what can we do and invest in as part of our survival motivated escape from the failing society?
than3 4y ago
Lets do some basic math, and then afterwards I think it will be clear how it might be better to grow your own food. Also, not everyone makes that much, and you seem to think that's a lot but its really not, especially if inflation is eating away at your stores regularly (over a greater time period than a year). So, here comes the basic math available from looking up some publicly available figures. I only say this because some people have past trauma associated with math in general, but its really critical to make any kind of rational comparison. The Federal tax rate above 89K is $15,213.50 in taxes plus 24% of the amount over $89,075 for Federal up to ~170k, and then you also have State taxes which may be as high as 13.3%; more if you own property (% based on fixed value), plus its counted as ordinary income so social security and medicare take off another 15.3%. Anything you buy has sales tax so another ~7%, and fuel/vehicle taxes. Overall, at 89K ordinary income, 15213 = ~17% +15.3%+13.3% = ~45.6%, nearly half of what you get paid on goes to the government. Now comes along 20% inflation, and this is a tax because they printed too much money and couldn't balance a budget. So 65.6%, assuming inflation is at 20% and not much higher, then there's taxes on various goods you have to purchase such as fuel and general sales tax, property taxes, it varies, but we'll say 7% or more on any dollar you spend, and depending how much you have to drive, that could be about 3% (to make it round), since vehicle costs and taxes are non-deductible. So factoring in all taxes on that income you receive, somewhere between 65 and 75.6% with 20% inflation goes to government. If you are self employed, you have more options to make certain costs deductible, and if you are not its about half of that 15.3% less so there's some leeway. So, you can work 80 hour weeks, stressful job, making that 89K/year or more, and only take home ballpark around 30,616 after factoring in inflation, and taxes. If you don't reinvest in an asset that sheltered from inflation you lose that much or more of your surplus/stores the following year and each subsequent year thereafter whereas business simply passes it through to you in higher costs. Alternatively, you can grow your own food, produce your own products, work less, and keep 100% of what you produce and use, and if you have surplus sell some of it if the price is right and they'll tax you on that small amount. Should you trade 4160 hours of your life for 89K, when, by the time you get it and can spend it, you only take home about 30K and the prices may have risen just as quickly during that time to net 0 or negative. That's part of the horror of hyper-inflation, and while it hasn't by definition hit 50%/month yet, nothing fundamentally has changed to stop inflation despite what the news may be saying. Those that have lived through similar situations know they have to invest their efforts in producing their own goods such as raising chickens, goats, milk and cheese. Without food security and having people who have specialized labor that can help out, you are at the mercy of creditors and the producers you depend on for daily necessities and they will pass inflation costs on.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  That's not a very relevant response to a comment that began by saying > We are talking about people making above >150k/year
  - than3 4y ago
    I included all the information needed to extend the basic calculation up to 170k, care to explain why you think that's somehow not relevant?
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      Because all your emotional arguments and scary numbers are based on half that amount.

makerdiety 4y ago

Actually, increasing rates of inflation do mean people are better off sustaining themselves and leaving the credit based economy that has a rising inflation rate with its credit based currency. The weak buying power of an individual currency unit, like a United States dollar, indicates a geopolitical state and economy that is beginning to lack the ability to sustain further revenue increases in a generalized shareholder account of wealth. And middle class or bourgeois laborers are those general shareholders in the hypothetical credit based economy and state I'm talking about here. Basically, a credit bubble is naturally popping to combat real overpopulation and making a lot of money (like a billion dollars, actually) here might actually be a fool's game. So investing in outside assets, relative to the indicated failing state and the credit based assets its domestic production offers its domestic shareholders, is the rational move to make in this theoretical game. So the question now is: what can we do and invest in as part of our survival motivated escape from the failing society?

than3 4y ago

Lets do some basic math, and then afterwards I think it will be clear how it might be better to grow your own food. Also, not everyone makes that much, and you seem to think that's a lot but its really not, especially if inflation is eating away at your stores regularly (over a greater time period than a year). So, here comes the basic math available from looking up some publicly available figures. I only say this because some people have past trauma associated with math in general, but its really critical to make any kind of rational comparison. The Federal tax rate above 89K is $15,213.50 in taxes plus 24% of the amount over $89,075 for Federal up to ~170k, and then you also have State taxes which may be as high as 13.3%; more if you own property (% based on fixed value), plus its counted as ordinary income so social security and medicare take off another 15.3%. Anything you buy has sales tax so another ~7%, and fuel/vehicle taxes. Overall, at 89K ordinary income, 15213 = ~17% +15.3%+13.3% = ~45.6%, nearly half of what you get paid on goes to the government. Now comes along 20% inflation, and this is a tax because they printed too much money and couldn't balance a budget. So 65.6%, assuming inflation is at 20% and not much higher, then there's taxes on various goods you have to purchase such as fuel and general sales tax, property taxes, it varies, but we'll say 7% or more on any dollar you spend, and depending how much you have to drive, that could be about 3% (to make it round), since vehicle costs and taxes are non-deductible. So factoring in all taxes on that income you receive, somewhere between 65 and 75.6% with 20% inflation goes to government. If you are self employed, you have more options to make certain costs deductible, and if you are not its about half of that 15.3% less so there's some leeway. So, you can work 80 hour weeks, stressful job, making that 89K/year or more, and only take home ballpark around 30,616 after factoring in inflation, and taxes. If you don't reinvest in an asset that sheltered from inflation you lose that much or more of your surplus/stores the following year and each subsequent year thereafter whereas business simply passes it through to you in higher costs. Alternatively, you can grow your own food, produce your own products, work less, and keep 100% of what you produce and use, and if you have surplus sell some of it if the price is right and they'll tax you on that small amount. Should you trade 4160 hours of your life for 89K, when, by the time you get it and can spend it, you only take home about 30K and the prices may have risen just as quickly during that time to net 0 or negative. That's part of the horror of hyper-inflation, and while it hasn't by definition hit 50%/month yet, nothing fundamentally has changed to stop inflation despite what the news may be saying. Those that have lived through similar situations know they have to invest their efforts in producing their own goods such as raising chickens, goats, milk and cheese. Without food security and having people who have specialized labor that can help out, you are at the mercy of creditors and the producers you depend on for daily necessities and they will pass inflation costs on.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
That's not a very relevant response to a comment that began by saying > We are talking about people making above >150k/year
- than3 4y ago
  I included all the information needed to extend the basic calculation up to 170k, care to explain why you think that's somehow not relevant?
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Because all your emotional arguments and scary numbers are based on half that amount.