Why do Americans pretend they're not broke when most Americans are in debt?
-
In debt doesn’t mean broke. People with a mortgage that they are easily paying off have debt. Millionaires and billionaires have millions and billions in debt. Debt itself isn’t bad. Debt can be good.
Just a small correction there: debt can never be good.
But debt can be necessary, but that is only because some financial institutions have made it so, because many of them make their money from peoples debt.
So they spread the myth that debt is good, despite the fact that the world would be a far better place without debt.
-
when y’all are just as fucked in Europe
I'm sorry, is this some joke I'm too publicly health insured and 6 weeks of paid holidays by law and so on to understand?
Perhaps you can explain it to me while my children aren't being shot at.
Are you pretending that no one is broke in countries that have mandatory paid leave and “free” public health systems? As someone who lives in one of those countries myself I can, with 100% certainty, say you’re incredibly wrong.
-
It's debt regardless of whether or not one pays interest. Debt isn't linked to interest. Just means that you have an obligation to pay money to someone.
EDIT: Though in fairness, if one never actually uses a credit card at all, then one never takes out debt, so I suppose it's probably better to say "if one has a credit card that one uses".
EDIT2: Though all this is not to diminish your point that not carrying credit card debt from month to month is generally a pretty good rule to live by.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Here in Australia if you have a credit card with an outstanding balance of $0 with a maximum limit of $10k, that actually acts as $10k of debt when you go to take out any loans etc.
-
Just a small correction there: debt can never be good.
But debt can be necessary, but that is only because some financial institutions have made it so, because many of them make their money from peoples debt.
So they spread the myth that debt is good, despite the fact that the world would be a far better place without debt.
No, debt can be good. If you’re making more money from an asset than the interest on the loan used to buy that asset, it’s good debt.
-
No, debt can be good. If you’re making more money from an asset than the interest on the loan used to buy that asset, it’s good debt.
Good for who?
-
The average American is living paycheck to paycheck with bad, high interest debt and killer monthly minimums. Many people roll their underwater car loan into a new underwater car loan. The housing market is taking a turn.
People are mostly broke.
Based on statistical average, or based on your imagination?
I get that we say this culturally, and it's common. But it's not that simple.
-
I shop with credit cards that give me 2-5% back on purchases. I pay off my balance every month and have never paid one penny in interest or penalties in over a decade. My credit cards therefore pay ~$1,500/year tax free.
I don't really have anything to add as this is pretty much all spot on to how the wealthy live, but on this one I'd like to point out that you're not actually making money - you're just taking back part of the money that you already paid. That money isn't paid by the credit card companies, they'd never be dumb enough to leave money on the table like that. They pay it through increased transaction fees for the businesses, who eat the extra cost through higher prices. There are states that do something similar with their recycling programs. They give you 5 cents per bottle you recycle at the center, but you paid a 5 cent bottle deposit when you bought them at the store. You're not making any money, or even making back some of what you paid the store. You're just getting your deposit back.
Maybe you somehow reduce your taxes by cycling that money through a cash back program? I'm not well versed on finances, so I won't even try to theorize on that, but it certainly isn't free money or something.
Yes, the credit card spending is technically a rebate, hence why it is tax free. However, I am going to purchase an identical basket of goods and services whether or not I use credit, so it is functionally identical.
-
Good for who?
For the person holding the debt.
-
Larry Ellison likes controlling Oracle and being a billionaire. Rather than selling stock of Oracle to fund his lifestyle, he instead borrows against the value of the stock. As Oracle appreciated, he got to keep the gains he doesn't trigger capital gains taxes.
I never really understood this. He still has to pay the loan, and he isn’t doing that with his symbolic $1/year salary. What part am I missing?
As I understand it, one way is to just borrow again against similar stock. He borrows against stock bundle A for a while, and when that loan comes due, repays with a fresh loan against stock bundle B. A and B can be the same amount of stock, but as long as the line goes up, the loan against B more than repays the loan against stock A.
There's intricacies and details in the process, but that's how I understand the basic process goes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Who's pretending?
We're all broke. Unless you're a boomer trying to sell a $0.50 house you bought in the 50s you paid for on a gas station cashier salary. They're ok for the moment. But even a lot of them are going broke now too. Highest demographic of newly homeless last I heard.
-
Good for who?
Rich people always say never to use your own money to start a business.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
The US is big on wealth inequality, like most third-world countries. Yeah, lots of people are broke, but lots of people are also making 200k/year. Overall we're definitely struggling, but that doesn't mean everyone is struggling.
Lemmy also leans both older and into the tech demographic, which tend to be higher paid.
-
Okay. Thanks. That makes sense.
I guess the cycle continues if you will the stock to your children. So it could be decades until anyone pays taxes.
And if the stock tanks, then I guess you declare bankruptcy.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I guess the cycle continues if you will the stock to your children.
In the US at least, there is what's called a "step-up in basis", where when you do this, they receive the stock as if they had just bought it, instead of 'inheriting' the parent's accumulated capital gains. In other words, if I bought a stock for $10 and it becomes worth $100, then I sell it, I'd pay capital gains tax on the $90 I made. But if the stock goes to my kid while it's worth $100, it's treated as if they bought it when it was worth $100 (which, in a way, is true, it is worth $100 at the time they gained possession of it), so if they sell it right after inheriting, they would pay no capital gains.
This is probably a large part of the reason that 70% of generational wealth is gone in two generations, and 90% in three, on average.
And if the stock tanks, then I guess you declare bankruptcy.
Yeah, ultimately, it is kind of a ‘house of cards’. The only way this strategy works at all is if the market value of the assets being used as collateral continuously increases, and not just increases, but increases at a greater rate than inflation and the interest rate on the debt, combined.
-
I don't know anyone pretending they aren't broke in America...I know a lot of good people struggling paycheck to paycheck and that's it. I love how Lemmy has become this echo chamber of hate for Americans when y'all are just as fucked in Europe and other countries too with so many similar or different issues. Imagine a little compassion for all people rather than assuming "America bad because America". Just so incredibly sad and stupid to see how dumb so many people are.. that kind of thought process is exactly the same type of people that vote for trump that have this same attitude about "insert race or country here". Y'all need a reality check, yesterday...
wrote last edited by [email protected]Speaking of "paycheck to paycheck":
I certainly have compassion for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they're struggling to make ends meet, but not those living "paycheck to paycheck" who have the ability to save, but choose not to. And, despite popular belief, the majority of people in the "living paycheck to paycheck" category are actually the latter. But it's easy to assume the former meaning (it's more intuitive, after all), so those two 'subsets' are almost always (basically everywhere other than within the depths of the methodology of the research that yields the figures) conflated, and so "living paycheck to paycheck" is often used to great effect in rhetoric as a result.
The fact is, on average, Americans have more of an overspending problem, than an underearning one. Did you know that 48% of consumers earning over $100,000 a year, and over a third earning over $200,000 are "living paycheck to paycheck"? Meanwhile, 25% of those earning less than $50k aren't living paycheck to paycheck (a demo I was part of until I eclipsed $50k a few years ago)—maybe it's time to more closely examine what those people are doing, and follow their example.
It's absurd that anyone making less than $50k a year is saving more money than someone making $200k.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Do we count mortgages as debt here?
-
This post did not contain any content.
crazy how people in brazil used to look up to American living standards, but it turns out americans have more inequality, violence, worse education, health system, worse food, and the list goes on
-
The US is big on wealth inequality, like most third-world countries. Yeah, lots of people are broke, but lots of people are also making 200k/year. Overall we're definitely struggling, but that doesn't mean everyone is struggling.
Lemmy also leans both older and into the tech demographic, which tend to be higher paid.
Cries in near minimum wage UK tech work. The only upside is minimum wage is actually pretty good
-
In debt doesn’t mean broke. People with a mortgage that they are easily paying off have debt. Millionaires and billionaires have millions and billions in debt. Debt itself isn’t bad. Debt can be good.
I would rather no debt, but I kinda need a house because it's illegal to buy a field and live there in a yurt
-
Broke, poor, and in debt are three different things.
Broke just means no cash on hand. You can have tons of cash flow and assets but at the moment you are lacking liquidity to pay cash for things. You may or may not have debt. You might have just blown all your cash on a big purchase.
Poor means you have little and earn little and can do little. Debt is often a factor here but you can be poor and not in debt.
People in debt owe money. They might not be struggling at all. Sometimes rich people borrow money because it costs them less than the interest they receive on the cash they have. Or it could be the opposite, it could be crippling every aspect of their lives.
Americans carry a lot of debt on average. My only debit is my mortgage plus the last two weeks of credit card spending. I pay off my card in full every month. I only use the credit card because it offers purchase protection and I get rewards. Not all debt is bad debt, but a lot of it is.
I used to be comfortably poor with no debt. My income, expenses and living standards were low.
Now earning a little over minimum wage and fucking hell life is easy, but largely because I was poor and just got used to not having things. I continue that now.
-
crazy how people in brazil used to look up to American living standards, but it turns out americans have more inequality, violence, worse education, health system, worse food, and the list goes on
I swear the biggest lie is that America is somehow a better country because it has houses that are expensive and fast food so that it can import what essentially accounts to slave labor when they finally come over excited to work for lower wages and live in cramped housing without their social networks other than the other slave laborers.
Its probably how we make it how people not climbing financially can still feel superior. No one has to pay the debt if you can keep getting new people on a lower rung.
