5 ms·

With $3MM you could just stop working and live in many other nice enough places without ever having to work again.

Retric 1y ago
3% of 3 million is 90k which sounds better than it actually is as you need to pay for health insurance. Plenty of people live in any city with less than that, but it is below the average income in many nice counties in the US.
- justinclift 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Retric 1y ago
    You pay for health insurance in every single county, either directly or through higher taxes.
    - justinclift 1y ago
      Yep. And it's about 2% of my tax, which isn't noticable. Unlike getting anything more serious than a cold in an idiotic, backward country without public health care.
      - Retric 1y ago
        US is an outlier by spending 17% of GDP on healthcare requiring high insurance costs by 9-12% is common in most developed countries requiring not 2% of your taxes by ~10% of your income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_spending_as_percent_of_gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_spending_as_percent_of_... Even in China you’re looking at 6% of income. Of course taxes aren’t evenly distributed, but 90k means enough income to be worth taxing without the political power to offload the tax burden on others.
        justinclift 1y ago
        Looking at that table you shared, it seems the US spends about 50% higher (17.2% vs 12.3% and less) than any other country on that list. And it still has extreme problems for anyone with an illness more serious than (say) a cold.
        Retric 1y ago
        You’re misunderstanding what the issues with US healthcare are. I’ve had significant medical issues in the US and received truly excellent care without significant out of pocket costs, the same is true for many of my friends and family. There’s a reason there’s significant medical tourism to the US and from the US. However on population wide measures like life expectancy you’re better off providing basic care for 100% of the population than world class care for 40%. There’s also major underlying issues like decades of obesity and ignorance around ‘alternative medicine’, vaccines, etc.
    - vkou 1y ago
      In the United States in particular, though, you pay twice - once for the healthcare, a second time for all the bloat and waste that comes with it.
      - Retric 1y ago
        1/3 of US medical spending could be avoided by moving to an efficient single payer system. But, a lost of ‘waste’ is diminishing returns where there’s some benefit to the procedures preformed. It’s easy to say paying 1 million for an extra week is a poor investment, until it’s you making that decision for a loved one.
        sudosysgen 1y ago
        Paying 1m/week is objectively a waste when you're refusing to pay 100k for a year, though. Healthcare is paid through insurance, so there's real meat to the loved one distinction - you're not actually making that decision for your loved ones in 99.9% of cases even in the US.
      - amy214 1y ago
        Yea, exactly. You pay for healthcare in -any- system, even a completely communist/socialist system. Healthcare costs resources which much be allocated to a greater or lesser extent. Problem with the US system is WHOM do you pay. Ultimately, to a degree perhaps greater than almost any other nation - you're paying quite a lot to stock holders, both public and private, stock holders of insurance, stock holders of pharma companies, stock holders of pharmacy companies, stock holders of EMR software (private company, Epic), and I'm sure, many other for-profit companies. Hospitals tend to be the only technically not for profits in the equation, as well as healthcare groups, but even then these groups tend to operate in a for-profit manner in service of ambitions of regional growth
    - pjerem 1y ago
      Except that through taxes, your coverage is not dependent on your contribution and your contribution depends on your revenue. Typically you contribute nothing if you have no revenue and you are still as much covered as the next rich guy. That’s a huge difference. It means that you can see a doctor or have an ambulance transport you to the hospital for an expensive emergency surgery for 0€ whoever you are. And for the expensive drugs you need after that ? That’s still 0€ with no paperwork. But to be fair, I’m exaggerating. You may have a 1€ franchise when you see the doctor.
  - K0balt 1y ago
    This. I moved in a developing nation with a GDP smaller than most US states. I have access to excellent modern healthcare and facilities, get more than 5 minutes in front of my doctor, often 1/2 hour+, and my (nearly 60 years old) health insurance is less than 75 usd a month. Covers 90 percent plus, including mental health, limited dental, and optical. The healthcare sector is private / public hybrid, profitable, and growing. Hands down better in every way than the US state I left.
    - akshitgaur2005 1y ago
      May I ask which nation?
      - pjerem 1y ago
        That’s the description of most European countries.
        nkmnz 1y ago
        lol no. Private health insurance in Germany is ~800-1000 for a 60 y.o. – public insurance might be cheaper, but you need to qualify for that when you move here by working as an employee when you're that old. Working permission will require you to work full time. So you'll end up working full time and pay ~600-1200 (based on your salary) in contributions.
        pjerem 1y ago
        I never said public healthcare is free for strangers. It’s rarely the case. Most of the time if you are not a citizen you need to either work or pay taxes. In fact even if you are a citizen, you may not be covered if you live abroad. It’s relatively easy to be covered as a stranger : in 99% of situations, if you just set up here seriously and not as a tourist, you’ll be covered. I count a 60yo who never contributed to the system or worked here as a tourist.
        1y ago
- AngryData 1y ago
  90K is still 50% above the median income, not to mention the fact that you have twice as much as time available and using just a small amount of that can be used to cut costs significantly in other areas. It is more effectively a $150K income if we add in the median wage from the job you aren't doing.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Nationwide, the US median income for full-time workers is over 62k without considering benefits, but many areas are well above that.
conductr 1y ago
Except you’re a wage slave and your American Nightmare comes with a mortgage, your sizable interest payments are likely funding the retirement income of a boomer too (along with bankers too, they always get a cut)
coffeebeqn 1y ago
Buying a $3M house does not mean they have $3M cash
- gedy 1y ago
  They haven't really "bought" it then though no?

3% of 3 million is 90k which sounds better than it actually is as you need to pay for health insurance. Plenty of people live in any city with less than that, but it is below the average income in many nice counties in the US.

justinclift 1y ago
[flagged]
- Retric 1y ago
  You pay for health insurance in every single county, either directly or through higher taxes.
  - justinclift 1y ago
    Yep. And it's about 2% of my tax, which isn't noticable. Unlike getting anything more serious than a cold in an idiotic, backward country without public health care.
    - Retric 1y ago
      US is an outlier by spending 17% of GDP on healthcare requiring high insurance costs by 9-12% is common in most developed countries requiring not 2% of your taxes by ~10% of your income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_spending_as_percent_of_gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_spending_as_percent_of_... Even in China you’re looking at 6% of income. Of course taxes aren’t evenly distributed, but 90k means enough income to be worth taxing without the political power to offload the tax burden on others.
      - justinclift 1y ago
        Looking at that table you shared, it seems the US spends about 50% higher (17.2% vs 12.3% and less) than any other country on that list. And it still has extreme problems for anyone with an illness more serious than (say) a cold.
        Retric 1y ago
        You’re misunderstanding what the issues with US healthcare are. I’ve had significant medical issues in the US and received truly excellent care without significant out of pocket costs, the same is true for many of my friends and family. There’s a reason there’s significant medical tourism to the US and from the US. However on population wide measures like life expectancy you’re better off providing basic care for 100% of the population than world class care for 40%. There’s also major underlying issues like decades of obesity and ignorance around ‘alternative medicine’, vaccines, etc.
  - vkou 1y ago
    In the United States in particular, though, you pay twice - once for the healthcare, a second time for all the bloat and waste that comes with it.
    - Retric 1y ago
      1/3 of US medical spending could be avoided by moving to an efficient single payer system. But, a lost of ‘waste’ is diminishing returns where there’s some benefit to the procedures preformed. It’s easy to say paying 1 million for an extra week is a poor investment, until it’s you making that decision for a loved one.
      - sudosysgen 1y ago
        Paying 1m/week is objectively a waste when you're refusing to pay 100k for a year, though. Healthcare is paid through insurance, so there's real meat to the loved one distinction - you're not actually making that decision for your loved ones in 99.9% of cases even in the US.
    - amy214 1y ago
      Yea, exactly. You pay for healthcare in -any- system, even a completely communist/socialist system. Healthcare costs resources which much be allocated to a greater or lesser extent. Problem with the US system is WHOM do you pay. Ultimately, to a degree perhaps greater than almost any other nation - you're paying quite a lot to stock holders, both public and private, stock holders of insurance, stock holders of pharma companies, stock holders of pharmacy companies, stock holders of EMR software (private company, Epic), and I'm sure, many other for-profit companies. Hospitals tend to be the only technically not for profits in the equation, as well as healthcare groups, but even then these groups tend to operate in a for-profit manner in service of ambitions of regional growth
  - pjerem 1y ago
    Except that through taxes, your coverage is not dependent on your contribution and your contribution depends on your revenue. Typically you contribute nothing if you have no revenue and you are still as much covered as the next rich guy. That’s a huge difference. It means that you can see a doctor or have an ambulance transport you to the hospital for an expensive emergency surgery for 0€ whoever you are. And for the expensive drugs you need after that ? That’s still 0€ with no paperwork. But to be fair, I’m exaggerating. You may have a 1€ franchise when you see the doctor.
- K0balt 1y ago
  This. I moved in a developing nation with a GDP smaller than most US states. I have access to excellent modern healthcare and facilities, get more than 5 minutes in front of my doctor, often 1/2 hour+, and my (nearly 60 years old) health insurance is less than 75 usd a month. Covers 90 percent plus, including mental health, limited dental, and optical. The healthcare sector is private / public hybrid, profitable, and growing. Hands down better in every way than the US state I left.
  - akshitgaur2005 1y ago
    May I ask which nation?
    - pjerem 1y ago
      That’s the description of most European countries.
      - nkmnz 1y ago
        lol no. Private health insurance in Germany is ~800-1000 for a 60 y.o. – public insurance might be cheaper, but you need to qualify for that when you move here by working as an employee when you're that old. Working permission will require you to work full time. So you'll end up working full time and pay ~600-1200 (based on your salary) in contributions.
        pjerem 1y ago
        I never said public healthcare is free for strangers. It’s rarely the case. Most of the time if you are not a citizen you need to either work or pay taxes. In fact even if you are a citizen, you may not be covered if you live abroad. It’s relatively easy to be covered as a stranger : in 99% of situations, if you just set up here seriously and not as a tourist, you’ll be covered. I count a 60yo who never contributed to the system or worked here as a tourist.
        1y ago
AngryData 1y ago
90K is still 50% above the median income, not to mention the fact that you have twice as much as time available and using just a small amount of that can be used to cut costs significantly in other areas. It is more effectively a $150K income if we add in the median wage from the job you aren't doing.
- Retric 1y ago
  Nationwide, the US median income for full-time workers is over 62k without considering benefits, but many areas are well above that.

conductr 1y ago

Except you’re a wage slave and your American Nightmare comes with a mortgage, your sizable interest payments are likely funding the retirement income of a boomer too (along with bankers too, they always get a cut)

coffeebeqn 1y ago

Buying a $3M house does not mean they have $3M cash

gedy 1y ago
They haven't really "bought" it then though no?