"Money". Is it Worth it?

[smoothmoniker]

Hell-bound greed is anyone making 10% more than me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

....at what point is the line drawn and self seeking millionaires declared hell bound?

Since hell has all the debauchery that heaven won't allow, it's obviously more expensive. So that extra coin might be needed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

After that, it becomes wants, and then luxuries, then power, and then greed, and finally more is never enough.

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

Nobody "has" money. There is no concrete aspect to the experience of "having" money. You can do or buy things with money, and the value is exactly the value of those things. You can hold some money in reserve for the purposes of doing or buying future things, but at no point does the value of the money cease to be a function of those proposed future things. People who don't have any money think that there is a point where you will "have" some money, but the fact is: that never happens. Money has no intrinsic value. You can't eat it, etc.

The only exception would be that many of those "things" you buy with money are immediately depreciated the moment you leave the store.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

There's a level of $ that is needed to provide what you believe are the necessities of life.
After that, it becomes wants, and then luxuries, then power,
and then greed, and finally more is never enough.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

Ibid

[HungLikeJesus]

Money is like water - it's most useful when it's flowing.

[JBKlyde]

it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.. that's why I prefer to be poor...

[Flint]

Originally Posted by JBKlyde

it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.. that's why I prefer to be poor...

I doubt that this is the reason. It is more likely that to "be poor" is simply the default mode, i.e. it takes effort and a plan to acquire resources, therefore if these conditions are not met (given that objects at rest tend to stay at rest) the natural consequence is one that does not require a philosophical reason to exist.

[kerosene]

Have you ever met someone who is poor by choice or is it always by default? I don't think I have.

[Flint]

Actually one of my very best friends in the world is what I guess you would could call "poor by choice" but I can tell you that he doesn't toss off cliche Bible verses as a half-ass explanation. My friend leads a very simple lifestyle, very downscaled and uncluttered. He lives within his means, does not use credit, and manages to have everything he needs in order to be content.

Recently he got a job making about twice his former pay, and what he did was to maintain his current lifestyle and place the entire surplus into savings. Over time he will "have" some money in this way. It will be through practical decision making--not by laziness or amateur philosophy. Once again, "money" itself has no intrinsic value, it simply serves the functions you consciously direct it towards.

[glatt]

I've met plenty of people who make less money by choice. It's about trade offs. You can choose to make less money and have a better quality of life.

I could work a second job and have more money, but I'd rather be with my family.

[kerosene]

I guess I am not really saying "less money by choice." I am saying poor by choice...but I think that means we have to define poor, then.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

The government.

Luxury, sales and estate taxes are a few. Another is income.

There are several tax brackets below $250k. Those people are at different levels of "not top earners." Everyone above that is a "top earner." But there is a huge difference between the couple of doctors that is bringing home $250k per year and the people bringing home $1M (and $10M, and $100M, etc).

Making $250k per year where I live (Helena, MT) is an incredible living, in Manhattan it is still a damn good living. On the other hand, while $50k per year in Helena is a good living it's much harder to live on in Manhattan, and the quality of life is much lower.

I really think Federal and State income tax rates should vary by where you live as well as by income.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

...


I really think Federal and State income tax rates should vary by where you live as well as by income.

Well, I think state income tax rates do vary by where you live.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Well, I think state income tax rates do vary by where you live.

Not within the state, right?

Edit to clarify:
Where I live you can make $X by working for a local company. In a city 90 miles away you can make $X + $N. In a city about twice that distance away you can make $X + $N + $M. There are a lot of variables wrapped up in that, but it's generally true nonetheless.

There's not really much ability to make more than that and keep the same general duties.

There are also huge differences in population, which effects supply and demand in everything from labor to commodities to services. (It probably makes sense to go by county for this.)

I think if you take it all the way down to the city level, you end up with a system whereby you just pay one income tax and let each level above it in the chain tax the preceding level. So, city taxes you, county taxes city, state taxes county and federal taxes state.

I'm really just talking out of my ass here. I haven't fully developed this idea, obviously.