After 5 years.....

[blakjedi]

Brilliant man!

I have an interview at Intel next Friday....*figners crossed*. I hope to use my income if I get the job there to possibly go to grad school...and save money of course. I am also hoping that my side business venture goes on well. Waiting to hear from Discovery.....and with income from these 2 places if things work out, it would be a bit like having 2 jobs but the money will be worth it.

Financial freedom for me is not about things (not saying thats what you were syaing mind you). Its about time. I want the time to spend with my family and friends. Time to travel, sleep, learn, teach, raise a family and maybe one day finish SKies of arcadia. Maybe become a Renaissance man one day.

Time isnt money. Time is worth WAY more.

Anyway back to the grind... I still have two full years left!

 

[blakjedi]

Between house, revolving credit and a business I bought in December I'm only like...uh...about $1.8M in debt

The business is worth considerably more, however, and has about $1.2M in assets and receiveables...

Thats what I'm talking about!

 

[Ali]

I managed to do this 2 years ago. Its a strange feeling. I was paying $400 a month, and not covering the interest on my loan, then paid it all off in one fell swoop, and ended up feeling poor, but very self satisfied.

In my case it was better for me to have cash at my work earning 12.5% than paying off the loan that was costing 7.2%

To be honest, in the last couple of years I havent built up nearly 1/4 as much investments as I was expecting, but then again Im enjoying life a WHOLE lot more. Never use to go to restaurants, movies, overseas holidays, skiing, etc, etc. Now I dont even feel a little guilty spending £200-300 on a night out with the wife. In fact, I just got back from a 3 day trip to Iceland that cost ~£1500. Never would have concidered that when we had debt.

Ali

 

[epicstruggle]

congratz. So if someone asked you if you were doing better today than before bush took office (economically speaking), youd have to say yes.

 

[Natoma]

congratz. So if someone asked you if you were doing better today than before bush took office (economically speaking), youd have to say yes.

Actually, before Bush took office I had no debt. So, no, I wouldn't say that.

 

[epicstruggle]

Actually, before Bush took office I had no debt. So, no, I wouldn't say that.

My fault, thought your school loan (et al) were made prior to bush. Well at least your salary quadrupeled thanks to bush. /sarcasm

 

[Natoma]

My fault, thought your school loan (et al) were made prior to bush. Well at least your salary quadrupeled thanks to bush. /sarcasm

School loans were made prior to Bush. However, they were unceremoniously handed to me after he took office. Damn Bush and my parents, but especially Bush, for that one.

As for the salary, yea my husband and I are rich bitches now. I guess we should be voting republican.

We just prefer to remember those less fortunate than us, and try to tailor socio-economic policy to bring them along, rather than give people like ourselves, and those better off, even more tax breaks.

 

[epicstruggle]

We just prefer to remember those less fortunate than us, and try to tailor socio-economic policy to bring them along, rather than give people like ourselves, and those better off, even more tax breaks.

I always found that an interesting, rich people complaining that the rich dont pay enough taxes. Why not donate a greater percentage to charities of their choice?

My family prefers to have a low tax rate across the board so we can spend our money the way we like it and on the charities we feel are in need. I believe we are one of the biggest donors to the mother theresa house in lansing (hospice care), and donated a butt load during the tsunamy/hurricane My hardwork, my money, my choice.

epic

 

[Natoma]

Ahh. But "you" want a strong military, public works, healthcare, R&D subsidizing on renewable energy and medicine, etc etc etc right? Can't have all that while taking the stance "My money, my choice". The money to do all of those wonderful things has to come from somewhere.

Also, charities are very focused in their particular locality/municipality/state/region. Very rarely do charities have the scope of reach that the federal government does. I doubt any do. Maybe the red cross.

 

[Sxotty]

I always found that an interesting, rich people complaining that the rich dont pay enough taxes. Why not donate a greater percentage to charities of their choice?

It is because first it is easier to give away your money when everyone is forced to, second more good is done if all rich people give 10% than one giving 90%, and other obvious reasons. Anyway I am not a rich person now and most likely never will be so it matters little to me.

 

[poopypoo]

I always found that an interesting, rich people complaining that the rich dont pay enough taxes. Why not donate a greater percentage to charities of their choice?

I think it's because rich people tend to be competitive people. If you are always eyeing the profits of your competitors, it's easy to put off donating. When the gov't requires you to pay 40%, everyone (allegedly) pays their 40% and then the truly generous give still more. However, the tax eliminates the excuses not to donate 40%. The downside of course is that many rich still use high taxes as an excuse to swindle everywhere else they can, feeling as though they somehow can't "properly" enjoy the profits the working classes provide them. ;p

 

[hey69]

what is " superb credit rating," is that an American thing we Euros dont know about?

 

[Natoma]

what is " superb credit rating," is that an American thing we Euros dont know about?

This should be of help. It is an american thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_score

 

[Guden Oden]

I always found that an interesting, rich people complaining that the rich dont pay enough taxes. Why not donate a greater percentage to charities of their choice?

It wouldn't work, because most rich people do not donate (much) to charities, and wouldn't donate more even if their taxes were abolished or at least greatly reduced.

Even if they did, like Natoma says, it wouldn't compare to what a government accomplishes through taxes because charities aren't as encompassing/comprehensive in comparison.