What financial advice would you give a 25-year-old (working with a nice salary) who still lives with his parents?
My answer may be a bit unorthodox. I suggest that the 25 year-old buck societal norms and continue to live with his parents for as long as it doesn’t hurt their quality of life. People may judge him a loser or a moocher, but, with his parents agreement and support, this is an opportunity to leapfrog other 25 year-olds who don’t share such a luxury.To do this successfully, he/she must focus on a few things while living with parents, such as:Learn to control Spending. Read blogs such as Mr Money Mustache which focus on building a lifestyle that is both frugal and bountiful, often allowing one to retire decades earlier than the national standard.Save as much as you can. To build on the last point, living frugally allows you to save more of your income, and grow your wealth. Even at a meager amount, there is true magic in compound interest. Einstein was once quoted, saying “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't ... pays it.”Decide an initial career path. You have always dreamed about being a pop star or celebrity. I am not suggesting give up on your dream, but what I do suggest is that you choose a career with a definite path to work, and at a salary level that will allow you to live what you consider a comfortable life. It takes 4 years to become an RN on average. Average pay is $71,000 per year. That is an OK start for a single person in most cities in the country. There are so many other careers that are both in-demand, and pay a decent wage — and have an extremely high chance of finding employment. I suggest you choose 1.Realize that work is work, fun is fun. I always loved to draw as a child. The better I got, the more I grew to enjoy it. This lead to a career in media production and publishing where it lost a lot of it’s fun. Now, I still enjoy art and enjoy my job, but that is not because I am “doing something I love”. It is because the work that I do has a potential reward that I consider commensurate with the amount of effort I give. ANY CAREER that pays you what you believe you deserve will make you happy. You may not picture yourself as a cashier, but if they paid you multiple six figures to be a cashier, then your perception may change.After you reach a milestone that allows you to live on your own, while still building your wealth and future, that is truly a great time to leave the nest and continue your life on a strong foundation.
Is it greedy of Sanders to raise the income tax for the wealthy and to use that money to "give it to those who didn't earn it"?
No, your friend has bought into the classic trope about 'makers' vs. 'takers', in which those who work for a living must toil endlessly to subsidize the lazy moochers who do nothing but collect social benefits.The problem with this argument is that it's completely backwards. Yes, the state is complicit in transferring taxpayer money into the pockets of people who didn't work for it, but the recipients, by volume of cash, are overwhelmingly wealthy people. People who can afford to hire lobbyists and write six-figure campaign checks. Yes, more taxpayer money goes to corporate welfare than to social welfare: Food Stamps Are Affordable; Corporate Welfare Is Not | Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs Also, by and large, people receiving social benefits (like food stamps, housing assistance, etc) overwhelmingly work, many at least one job- but are paid less than poverty level wages, too often by multinational corporations that pay their executives exorbitantly. It's not that they 'haven't earned it', it's that they don't have market leverage to get the same level of pay the same sort of work did 30 years ago. In this sense, when taxpayers subsidize underpaid workers, they're indirectly subsidizing their employers (who get the benefit of the work and productivity of that employee, without having to pay them enough to live).There's also this to consider: Sanders doesn't propose to change the income tax rates for people who earn less than $250,001/yr. For context, the taxes he proposes to change are at historic lows: in my lifetime, the top marginal income tax rate was above 70%, today it is 39%. Sanders proposes to shift that as far as taxing income in excess of $10M/yr at $52%.You know what happens when you raise the top marginal tax rate? Those people will still be making $10M+ a year. They'll be fine.So, to your friend's question: is it greedy on Sanders' part? Hardly. Sanders doesn't want to "Give people free stuff". He wants taxpayers to get the benefits from the taxes they already pay.What he's proposing to do with that tax revenue is to direct the enormous amount of money people pay in taxes already... away from corporate pockets, and towards things that will actually benefit taxpayers. You know. Stuff like health care and education, which we pay too much for today.
Why don't most people feel outrage and protest over the extremely unequal high pay received by doctors? How is it ethical for doctors to earn several times more than even the next best job?
I am not a doctor, but I am a medical personnel. At times I get angry over the disparity. But when I think aboutHow much time they spend in school. I have a Neurologist friend who spent 6 years studying neurology after 6 years studying medicine. I have alot of respect for him.The amount of hazards they are exposed to.(doctors usually die first from infections diseases, followed by nurses, then us the med lab guys)The cost of their training and retraining.The number of hours they put in. In under staffed hospitals doctors could do night shifts for weeks, or even to monitor a patient.The amount of life time reading they have to do to pass courses, certifications and updates.Take this pic below as an exampleNational Geographic chose this as the best picture of 1987. The person seated there is Dr Zbigniew Religa, he is keeping an eye on a patient's statistics after a 23 hour surgery. The history of a picture that changed the worldLike one of my lecturers said during our stressful training in the hospital, remember this stress you are going through now, remember this moment when you are offered peanuts for work, remember how stressful your training was, remember today.Another one said “ they can never pay you/us enough for this work, non amount of money can replace the time you spend away from your family, when you wake up and come to this lab, know you are being a humanitarian”ADDENDUMAnd you don't want a hungry, grumpy, tired, underpaid doctor who's 1992 Honda civic broke down twice on his way to pay his overdue rent for his one-bedroom apartment, sticking his finger up your ass for that prostate examination, neither do you want him to perform that triple bypass surgery on your lovely mum do ya?…….well I don't.
You are given 20 million dollars up front in cash, or you are given access to higher education of any sort for life. What would be your choice?
The provision that with the $20M, you can’t make any more, is patently ridiculous. What are you going to do with the $20M on day one - stick it in your mattress? Just putting it in the bank and earning interest would violate this restriction.The next question is time-dependent. Are you assuming the recipient is 18 years old, or do I answer for me (I’m 54). There’s a big difference in making the money last 60 years, and making it last 30.Also, I have a professional designation already. Does that disappear if I take the $20M? Do I have to stop being an accountant?There are very few things you can do with an education that will be worth as much as the $20M, unless you’re very unusual. If being rich, or having and spending money is your goal, take the $20M.For instance, suppose you go to the most elite law school in the country. Suppose you use that education to become a New York lawyer. Let’s say you make $1M/yr. Guess how long it takes you to accumulate $20M? It’s not 20 years. You have taxes (~45%) and living costs (~25%), so you’re only saving $200K a year. Even tax-deferred (I know, an unrealistic assumption) at 5%, it’s 37 years.In the meantime, you’re grinding out chargeable hours, working hard. You may or may not like that work, but you don’t have a lot of choice of what to do with your time.$20M is a lot of money.You can choose a life with that kind of money. It won’t get you into the very upper strata of society, but you can live pretty nicely for a long time on it. A 5% return gives you $1M per year pre-tax - the same as the lawyer, but you don’t have to live in New York, which means you pay less tax, and your cost of living is lower.You can travel, golf, or goof off. You can become a perpetual student. You can donate your time. You can pretty much do anything you would do with an education.My choice? Take the money. Invest it wisely. Then live the life you want - which may include an education.