I have the same question as the previous commenter — doesn’t piano fall into hobby? If not, whee do you put it?

Rich and poor seldom opt for the same materials. Rich usually will make more demands, want more contact time, and may well be slower in paying.

Best thing to do is ask the buyer what they have planned to pay, and begin negotiations from there.

Many businesses do a little under-the-radar price reduction for low income people, and/or sponsor one or two for free or at cost, as a service to society or their spiritual beliefs. Probably an equal number will cheerfully overcharge someone known to be an SOB.

Sounds a lot like me! Here’s one trick my wife came up with you might enjoy: buy a treadmill and a laptop stand. She did a bit of frugal shopping and found Sears selling a good model for less than half price. Now, combined with the laptop stand, she spend an hour every morning walking fast while checking e-mail, reading her friends’ blogs, etc. This turns previously “unproductive” time into productive time! I’ve started using the treadmill too when I don’t have the energy to do my usual workout, and I get caught up on the TV news while I do. Highly recommended.

<>

Another way to consider renting vs. buying is exactly the same logic used when evaluating leasing or buying a car: what is the net expenditure (payments minus equity) at the end of the time period?

If you rent, the total expenditure is your monthly payment (rent, heating, electricity, etc.) multiplied by the number of months. You earn not a penny, so all of this money is pure expenditure. Net payment: total payments minus profits (zero) = total payments.

If you buy, the total expenditure is similarly calculated (as above, plus homeowner insurance, taxes, etc.) multiplied by the number of months. But at the end of this period, you own the house, and in a normal (non-bubble) real-estate market, your investment has actually appreciated. It’s easy to compare the equity in your home with the total amount you paid to earn that equity. Net payment = total payments – equity when the mortgage is retired.

It should be relatively rare that your net payment (even including interest) is more than you would pay from renting a comparable home, but it can happen in many ways: high mortgage interest, low downpayment, long mortgage term, collapse of a house price bubble, etc. There are also opportunity costs: if your house increases in value by 10% but you could have earned 20% in the stock market, then you should consider that too.

There’s no shortcut: You have to do the math to see whether buying makes more sense. But on the whole, buying makes more sense than renting if you can afford the monthly payments and your house will retain its value or increase in value.

We both agreed that progressive tax is (up to a limit) fair, because rich people get more value out of the government. But he managed to convince me that income taxation is bad.

What he proposes is this:
- give every citizen a flat amount per month (say 500 for children, 800 for adults; 1000 for pensioners)
- eliminate all tax on income, but raise sales taxes significantly (he claims that with costs going down by eliminating , a product could stay at the same price as now, but have a higher sales tax.
- that sales tax is kind of regressive: primary goods taxed at 10%, luxury good(and goods with negative externalities): 32%

If those numbers check out: i’m all for it….

Unless you work as a personal assistant, or your company is owned by one person, you’re working for the shareholders. Shareholders != rich people.

“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.”

“Not all people benifet from government equally.”

Like those of us paying the taxes?

If I ran my household budget they way the U.S. government runs it’s budget, well, you get the point.

I do realize I am being a tattletale, but I also feel that you are entitled to know what people think of your blog, good and bad, so that you can make changes accordingly, if you so desire.

While income tax is staggered such that the richer you are, the higher percentage you pay.

So a flat $50 parking ticket for someone who is a milionaire is inconsequencial; but for a welfare recipient they would get the same ticket regardless of their wealth, and it may mean no cable bill gets paid that month.

But the millionare pays ~50% of his income in a year to income taxes, while the welfare person actually collects money rather than pays it to the government.

Obviously extremes, but its a compromise.

And my income is well above the national median, so the suggestion that I’m some kind of hypocrite for wanting the rich to pay more falls flat.

Trent, I’m curious what kind of compromise you think can be reached on this issue. Either people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage, or they pay the same percentage. What middle ground is there?

The rich usually pay more simply because they can afford it. As far as taxes are concerned, folks who don’t earn much can’t fork over much in taxes.

Not all people benifet from government equally. If a brilliant enterprenuer is born in America, she can become a billionaire. If she’s in Somolia, her talen is effectively wasted. Steve Jobs can earn billions of dollars in America because the American government has provided the infrastructure and security neccessary for businesses to thrive. Somolia, not so much.

Talented people get more benifet from the government, so talented people should pay more taxes.

Interesting link on the MMORPG. My take is that they are a very frugal lifestyle choice (adding the cost of upgrading your computer is a bit specious reasoning imho) BUT ultimately not worth it since your overall quality of life can go downhill extremely fast if you become severely addicted (which happens more than people like to admit!).