Slashdot Mirror

The interest paid on the mortgage you'd otherwise have is every bit as pissed away as the rent on the apartment.

No, it's not. At least not necessarily.

Especially with very low mortgage interest rates we have had for the last ~decade, you can in theory make more money by investing the money.

For example, using simple interest, if you have $1000 mortgage at 3.5%, in a year you pay $35 interest directly on that $1000. But you're not really paying the full $35, you're getting part of it back due to deductions, which lower your total taxes due. According to http://www.moneychimp.com/feat..., if you earned $100,000, you were in the 25% tax bracket.. and since that is deducted from your income to get AGI, you're effectively getting 25% of that $35 back. So you effectively only paid $26.25 in taxes.

If you can make more than 2.6% interest on that money (safe bond funds can do that, or some dividend paying stocks, depending on how much risk you want), then you are better off to borrow the money and invest it rather than effectively paying more.

Bloody hell, did you even read that? Did you notice the part where it didn't pass? This was a proposal. We don't have a rule that tries to get the top 0.3% of the populace to pay at least 30% of their income to federal taxes. And so if they're rich enough to hire someone to hire an accountant (they are), they don't pay that rate. Are you aware that the top tax bracket is only 39.6%? That's for anyone making over $400,000. And remember that's a bracket. They're not taxed 39.6% on the first $400,000 dollars of income they make. The effective tax rate for a millionaire is ~35%. This was a proposed rule that would get them to pay at least 30%. It failed due to GOP opposition.

So how about you read that again and notice that the average effective tax rate (income+payroll) GOES DOWN as people make more than a million dollars. That millionaires pay a larger share than billionaires. (well, ok, 100xmillionaires). That the super-rich have had their tax rates drop way the fuck down. Now look me in the eye and tell me that if our nation somehow got twice as productive and for some reason the super-rich reaped all the benefit that it would be a "good thing". That it would be real economic growth. That you actually refuted anything that ebno said.

The proposal is named after Warren Buffett, who is appalled about how he can dance around the tax code. Come on dude.

Yes, your point stands. And I stand by my original standing by of it. Magically double the GDP and it would be a good thing. But if these trends continue I'd have a REAL hard time saying the outcome would be anywhere near the realm of what 99% of the populace would consider "fair".

IMHO:

When talking about the supposed benefits of "organic" food, you also need to consider the cost, which is 50% to 100% higher off the shelf (not counting the added costs of those foods being more perishable). That difference could be a couple thousand dollars per year, which could have been saved and invested - creating very considerable added wealth by the time you retire! Having this much added money for health care would do far, far more good for your health than the marginal benefits (if any) of eating organic.

When seeking to improve your health through non-medical lifestyle choices, you have to start with things that have the greatest impact. Quitting poisons (smoking, alcohol, too much caffeine, etc) is the first priority - that actually saves you money. For a person with a sedentary lifestyle, getting some regular low-intensity exercise is the second priority - which can actually make you money if you're doing a part-time job or a home business. (Instead of going to a gym, I got a physically intense part-time job at a local factory to get me away from the computer ~25 hours per week, in addition to a 10 minute daily routine of pushups and dumbells at home, plus walking to the store instead of driving.) Eating the proper amount of calories with proper food choices (balance of protein / fat / carbs, with particular attention paid to carb quality) is the third priority - which can save you money as well. These things make a mountain of difference to your health, while any benefits "organic" foods may or may not have, in spite of their great cost, are tiny in comparison!

Eating healthy actually costs very little money. Plenty of non-organic green vegetables cost under $1.50/lb, most dried beans and grains are under $1.50/lb (can be a lot less in bulk), several types of frozen fish are under $4/lb, etc. Other low-price nutrition champs you can buy in bulk include: canned tomato paste, canned sardines, wheat gluten and pea powder (amazingly cheap protein), and certain dried spices. Multivitamin supplements cost pennies per day. Drink more water. Read up on every food you eat (WolframAlpha > FDA nutrition labels) - including the glycemic load, acidity, mercury levels in various species of fish, etc. Make a spreadsheet to calculate what gets you the best nutrition with best taste at lowest cost. Overpriced exotic fruits, processed cereals, soy crap, and other "health food" actually add very little nutrition - just eat more kale instead!

Make exceptions and indulge once in a while - all things according to measure. Avoid religious extremes - both "low carb" (below 150g/day) and veganism are unhealthy. The danger of animal fat, in of itself, is greatly overstated - just avoid processed meats, and limit portion sizes to ~30 grams of animal protein per meal. Avoiding "junk carbs" greatly reduces your risk of diabetes, but you do need some "good carbs" for energy (more if you're physically active). Maintaining a proper sodium (less) to potassium (more) ratio is a very simple thing that can solve most people's blood pressure problems, which can then lead to heart problems - learning to use nutrition-rich low-sodium spices is the best kept secret of healthy cooking. When you get in the habit of using slow-cookers (one for meat and legumes, another for grains), with a couple of minutes of prior planning, you can grab a hot healthy meal in less time than it takes to microwave a junk-food product!

These are just some "healthy lifestyle hacks" that I've found. Avoid fads, do your own research, track and analyze your data, and think for yourself.

--libman

Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).

You omitted Medicaid (2.9%, uncapped) and SS ( 10.4% up to 110k). So, if the extra 11.44k makes up for the phasing in of the highest rate (not willing to do the math), the highest rate is actulally 47.2%. Which makes GP closer.

Also factor in unemployment/disability, and possible city taxes.

For someone living in California, the top tax bracket is 48.3% for salaried income.

Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml

Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).

So you think the average US household struggling to make ends meet with $50,000 per year should pay 25% of their income in taxes, but Apple computer should pay less than 10% on $34,000,000,000?

BULLSHIT. Use a real tax calculator. married couple, no kids earns 50,000 would pay about 9% tax rate.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/1040-form-tax-calculator.aspx

And from the NYT article:
"In Apple’s last annual disclosure, the company listed its worldwide taxes — which includes cash taxes paid as well as deferred taxes and other charges — at $8.3 billion, an effective tax rate of almost a quarter of profits. "

So you think the average US household struggling to make ends meet with $50,000 per year should pay 25% of their income in taxes, but Apple computer should pay less than 10% on $34,000,000,000?

Not quite. 200% represents a tripling ($100 becomes $300; the difference is $200, or 200%). The present value of $300 over 20 years at about 5.65% is $100. But, oh wait. Inflation has averaged only about 3% over the last 20 years.

Guess what? The future value of $100, in 20 years at a rate of 3%, is about $180.60. So $80.60 of the increase is due to inflation, and $119.40 of it was due to something else. I'd call that a pretty severe dysfunction.

References:
Annual Inflation Chart
Present Value Calculator

I currently make 67k a year, and in Pennsylvania, I am taxed at 25%. And that is only federal. linky

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Here's a tax calculator: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes.

And 400 people control more than half of the wealth in the country. You don't see an inherent problem here?

So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich.

If you define "the rich" as people who make above $114,000 per year. Which still doesn't account for your lousy math and inability to calculate the crucial percentage of individual income number from what you claim above.

Meanwhile, Democrats have defined "the rich" as people making above $200k/year individually or $250k total household income. Republicans insist that these people are "not making all that much." What was your point about who the "rich" are again? Please do define your terms so that we can have an actual discussion here.

The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.

Funny thing about that: if you are making below $33,000 per year at today's prices, you have almost no disposable income to start with: you are making the equivalent of $6000 in 1970 money (feel free to run some other calculations yourself. This is especially true if you are a single parent or have someone else (aging family member) to support. The phrase you are looking for is "blood from a stone."

Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.

Please get an education and learn to stop lying. All you have to do is hold an "investment" for slightly longer than a year to get it taxed at a mere 15% instead of your actual income-tax rate. The more money people have, the more money they simply funnel through "cycling" schemes that contribute NOTHING to the economy, in order to take advantage of this loophole.

Capital gains taxes need to be eliminated, pure and simple, and any money gained that way treated as what it is, INCOME and taxed accordingly.

Not according to this site The taxes came out to $6,187 for $39,999 and $6,188 for $40,000.

"Even if the car is electric, they still will not save money in terms of the total cost of ownership, over buying a regular old car that's fuel efficient. Look at things like the Chevy Volt versus a Toyota Corolla. Even assuming no gas, ever, the Corolla is still more affordable."

Same could be said about the Prius but look how well they're selling.
2010 Prius MSRP = $22800 to $28070
2010 Corolla MSRP = $15,450 to $20,150

Price difference = $7350 to $7920 = $7635 average

Prius mpg = 51/48 = 49.5 mpg average
Corolla mpg = 26/34 = 30 mpg average

195,000 miles / 49.5mpg x $3 average per gallon = $11,818 dollars
195,000 miles / 30mpg x $3 average per gallon = $19,500 dollars
$19,500 - $11,818 = $7682.

So basically, you'd have to drive 195,000 miles in a Prius to break even compared to the price of a Corolla. Until you surpass 195,000 miles the Corolla would have saved money.

This also doesn't figure the interest you could make on $7,682 while you're driving your Prius to reach 195,000 miles. If it takes 10 years to reach 195,000 miles that $7,682 at 5% interest would be $12,513.17.

In summary, the new Corolla will always be better than the new Prius. Of course this is assuming you're deciding between the two cars comparing gas prices only, not size of vehicle, status, smugness, etc.

This is why most modern governments have a system of progressive taxation, which, just so we know we're talking about the same thing, means that the more you make, the higher your income tax rate becomes. In the US, you're taxed only 10% on your first $8,000 or so if you're filing as single (although deductions and credits often reduce this amount further), and then your next $25,000 or so is taxed at 15%, and the rate continues to increase on increasing amounts of income. (See also this.)

Such a system of taxation has been endorsed by that notorious commie Adam Smith: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

To restate the first paragraph in a different way, an additional 1/9 of your income goes much farther when you're making very little than when you're making very much. I hope this explains why there is no crack and no cognitive dissonance required to say that the difference between an income of $90 and $100 is much more significant than the difference between incomes of $9,000 and $10,000.

State tax laws will vary, but as a general rule, yes, we have a progressive tax system. Found a handy link on google that shows the federal tax brackets. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm When I lived in CA, my total tax burden (fed+state+social security+medicare) was close to 40%.

Is apple willing to pay the taxes on all that for you? Seriously that gotta be at least 13K in prizes for which the US gov will want ~ 50%.

There's no 50% tax bracket, and AFAIK there hasn't been one for a long time. The current top federal tax bracket is 35%. You have to make over 164,000 to get even into the 33% tax bracket. (There USED to be a 39% tax bracket, but our last president eliminated that. Then we ran up a huge deficit. No correlation between the two, of course)

I don't believe there's any extra tax on prizes, but I don't know for sure.

I found my information here:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

You're right about the future value / interest calculation. I mistakenly used the paydown for a $37K 30 year mortgage to cost $136K in interest. The proper calculation shows that $37K would earn about $136K over 30 years at only 4.43% annual compound interest. Which is a little lower than the low mortgage rates today, so financing it with a mortgage is a net loss, but not a big one, with no (annual) cash flow impact. Better than leaving that equity in the home not working for you.

But the real investment of $58K (according to the article, not $55K) gets about $21K subsidies repaid within a year or so, atop the energy savings. Yes, various people in large amounts have to pay those subsidies (tax rebates, etc), but they are paid. If everyone were just directly buying unsubsidized systems like this one, the economy of scale (and increased R&D improving operating ROI) would probably at least equal the 31% subsidy. The purpose of the subsidies is to jumpstart the massification of the industry. That's how we get the "green feeling" before we're fully green.

I just wrote a post below about tax brackets and rates, and it just so happens that I'm a dual US-Canadian citizen, living and working in Canada now but most of life was in the US. Out of curiosity I wanted to compare US vs. Canadian income tax rates, I was surprised to find that Canadian income tax rates are slightly lower across the board than the US.

Canada 2009:
- 15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
- 22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +
- 26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +
- 29% of taxable income over $126,264.

US 2008:
- 10% of $0 to $8,025
- 15% of $8,025 to $32,550
- 25% of $32,550 to $78,850
- 28% of $78,850 to $164,550
- 33% of $164,550 to $357,700
- 35% of $357,700 and up

The US figures do not count FICA which is 6.2% up to $102,000. My additional taxes on my Canadian payroll check do not come close to matching FICA plus other non-Federal taxes that I paid in the US.

The place where I feel overtaxed in Canada in comparison to the US is not on my income, but with the GST/PST, and the slew of fuel, booze, etc., etc., taxes which contribute overall to higher cost of living here.

Excellent post. I can't tell you how many people I know who misunderstand tax brackets and think they can be substantially penalized for earning an extra $1 if it puts them into a higher bracket.

Another factor I would add that even further detracts from that myth, since I saw you mention it, is FICA. (For non-US residents unaware of FICA, it is a separate federal payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare.) For 2008, an employee pays 6.2% up to $102,000 for FICA. If you compare to the US income tax brackets, any money you earn over that $102,000 up to $164,550 is being effectively taxed at 6.2% less than the $78,850 to $102,000 earned (considering Fed Income Tax plus FICA, the vast bulk of most payroll tax). The $164,550-$357,700 bracket raises the rate 5% on additional dollars earned, which still leaves you paying 1.2% less and only when you enter that top bracket are your additional dollars effectively taxed at a whopping 0.8% more than you were taxed for $78,850 to $102,000.

Bottom line, under the US federal tax system you never lose money by making money. In fact, it really doesn't look so progressive when you spell it out like that.

Odds are you have not considered the time-value of money in your calculations.

I thought I had but it's interesting argument. Investing the difference between the two payments at 3.5% for 30 years in a vehicle that compounded 12 times a year would yield around $100,927.75 in interest according to this. That would seem to make up for the $95,916 in extra interest expense and one would think that you could probably do better than 3.5% if you tried

The flip side to that is all that interest income is probably taxable. If it is you've just negated your mortgage interest deduction. In the end it's probably a wash -- although doing all the calculations on taxes and what not are beyond the scope of my attention span at this particular moment ;)

No.

I am forced to put in 6.2% of every paycheck. My employer is likewise forced to put in 6.2%.

Let's make the math simple and use a flat, inflation-adjusted salary of $50,000 and a 4% inflation-adjusted real return on investment. With forty five years of working life that comes out to $755,223.41 in today's money.

(50000 * .12 = $6000 per year contribution, then plop that in to a compound interest calculator).

How many years will that last? Remember that the unused portion is still gaining interest as you're in retirement. So don't just divide $755,223 by $50,000 (that would give you only 15 years which is still a low ball).

Really? and who pays for things? Unless your goal is to live as a squater in a mud hut and wallow in ignorance, we need social services.

That means taxes. This is something you benefit from. Also, everyone with income pays taxes.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Federal spending is cut deeply into the meet. Critical things are falling away.

The president doesn't control taxes, congress does. If you are truly worried about taxes, then use that when selecting which congress person to cote for, not the president.

It is such a stupid thing for the president to do, but the public doesn't seem to understand one whit about taxes, so the candidates need to talk about this instead of important issues.

The real question for me is, who is the president going to surround him self with?

Like it or not, the republicans have surrounded themselves with anti-intellectuals.
This country needs more science, we need a president that has science advisors, we need program for strong math and science programs.

Math and science are critical, far more critical then taxes.

Social program are an investment. What we get out of the investment is far stronger then the very few who abuse it's intent.

We ahve to have a road to the next class and people need the opportunity to travel it.

That is the corner stone to having a free and civilized country.

Just so u=you know, on almost every program the government has less waste then the private sector.
This is provable, just look at the books.

Frankly, I'd pay 50 cents more per gallon of gas if at least 40% went to the local schools.
I don't like spending money, but god damn it, if we don't fix education the only future we will ahve is working 16 hours a day for hardly any money building Chinas and europes electronics, and outr chuildren will be trying to get to Europe so they can have a better life changing sheets in their hotels.

We where the global player when there were more taxes, fewer poor and people paid for a well rounded public education.

Sorry for the rant, but I have looked at countries with low/no taxes. From a quality of life, they are worse off then 'social' countries with a 50% tax for everyone.

Anywho, Taxes are not a reason to choose which president to vote for, policy is.

Now they [the rich and super-rich] pay a significantly less percentage than working people. And that is before all the specialized tax breaks hidden in the 1000-page appropriations bills that no congressman ever reads. The only way that ordinary people are going to get tax fairness, i.e. the same rates as the super-rich, is to cut corners, zap the books, write in extra kids on their W-2 forms, Yes, to cheat.

Wrong. The "ordinary people" already get lower tax rates. Observe. The rich get taxed more. Furthermore, if you look back at the last 8+ years, you will see that the average joe saw his/her taxes drop repeatedly under Bush. Of course, it makes good (read: popular) press to say that Bush only helps the rich, but that's not true - go read it yourself.

Yes, tax loopholes exist. Yes, I agree that they have been abused (by both sides of the aisle), and should be greatly reduced. But the fundamental premise of your argument is wrong.

If Buffet really wanted to help his gardener, he'd let him use his (Buffet's) tax attorneys/accountants. Are you seriously advocating tax evasion because of perceived injustices?

The truth is that the middle class does better under Republicans than Dems on taxes. Look at tax rates under Clinton. Then look at the last 8 years under Bush. Anti-Bushies will be shocked to see that the lower and middle classes got tax cut after tax cut (both through lower tax rates and higher limits to those brackets) since he got into power.

Obama is planning to spend a lot of money on social services ... you can't tell me that's not going to hit the little guy.

I am somewhat sympathetic to your argument, but I don't buy it. It can be entirely reasonable to play the lottery, though not very regularly.

Let's say that once a month you get a Powerball ticket with Powerplay, costing (according to Wikipedia) $2. You do this for 50 years. (In other words, you play the lottery starting when you are 20 until you're 70.)

According to this compound interest calculator, if you aggressively invested that money instead and got 10% annual return for that timespan (probably entirely ridiculous), at the end of that you'd have $30,727. If we were to assume an already-optimistic 7% rate of return, that's only $10,500.

If you were to play every other month (or not get powerplay) and get 10%, you're at $15,500, and at 7%, $5,200.

In addition, you're not really going to be out all that money... on average, Wikipedia says the powerball has about a 50% rate of return. Which means that the $15,500 and $5,200 numbers are actually more realistic if you pay $2/mth.

While it's not exactly a shabby sum, it's also not that much money if you've been wise with other investments. Giving up that amount of money is probably not really going to change your lifestyle. You might lose out on a couple vacations you could take when retired or something. (If we are even a little more conservative with how much we spend on the lottery... you play for 40 years instead of 50, spending $1/mth but getting back half, and could get 7% otherwise, you're looking at $1,200. That's barely enough for one "fancy" vacation.)

Now, at the same time, in the very very remote chance you were to actually win a jackpot, your life would change. If you won even a million dollars -- let alone tens of millions -- you might be able to retire now (depending on how old you are), go buy a farm, do almost anything you want monitarily.

It is not unreasonable to say "I'll take one less vacation when I'm 70 in exchange for an almost-zero-but-not-quite chance of a totally life-changing event."

(The fact that a lot of lottery winnings result in people blowing through the winnings quickly, sometimes result in failed families or other bad effects, or that a lot of people don't play the lottery this way and actually put significant money into it is beside the point that playing the lottery isn't necessarily an irrational move.)

No, they did not. They took effect in 2001. Don't you remember Bush sending out all those checks? http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.ht m Here, on the bottom chart, you can see that tax rates went down from 2000 to 2001. And secondly, tax revenues were lower in 2003 than in 2002. So you're wrong again. Really, do you check anything before posting it?

I mean, my Federal income tax has been plummeting over the past 6 years of Republican rule.

Is there any way for a person born into the 'middle class' of American society (access to education, minimal crime suburban living) to make 20 million, much less 35 million, before they are too old to go to space? Let's arbitrarily choose a cutoff age of 60.

Don't forget the power of compounding interest. Of course, the bank is going to have to have some pretty tantilizing interest rates (i.e., ~7.2%) to have your money double in ten years.

Actually, I believe what you're looking for is net revenue, which is the total after expenses. Gross revenue makes a few exceptions for returned merchandise and how much stayed sold, but overall it is how much cash was raked in, period. Movie numbers are released in gross dollars.

And remember, you always want a cut of the gross, not the net, because movies never make any profit.

The Washington Post had an interesting article today. Here it is. It's basically a critique of Bush's tax cuts.

It all boils down to this: Bush wanted lower taxes. He lowered all the brackets that were in effect in 2000 and added a 10% bracket (details and comparisons can be found here). This ends up 'costing' the nation money, because the revenue that would have come from the additional taxes isn't going to be there. Whenever you see 'Bush's tax cut cost $X.YZ billion over 10 years', that's what it means. Also, some tax cuts are temporary. Congress passes them for a window, say 10 years, and then they have to be made permanent down the road.

Clinton presided over a ridiculous boom in the economy, one that caused the market to surge and provided us with a surplus. When I got out of school in 2000, I was coming into the job market at the tail end of the boom. People were handing out jobs like candy, and salaries were ridiculous. It's debatable what caused that surge to end, but it had to. If you look at numbers, and I don't have any handy, but looking at the numbers from the first part of 2001 on (when Bush was innaugurated), it's pretty clear that everything had slowed down and was continuing to slow down. September 11th happened, more bad news for the economy. Whenever stuff like that happens, the markets get shaken up and tend to go down.

Additionally, there is a tax loophole that allows multinational corporations to shift tax burdens around and decrease the amount of taxes they pay in this country. Some people claim this leads to outsourcing, since it's cheaper for them to pay workers in other countries, claim profits across multiple countries yet still claim expenses here. This article is a little lengthy but explains that more.

Jobs aren't really part of the job of president, but unemployment is seen as a bad thing. The president (really, him combined with congress) can only "promote" job growth by giving companies tax credits for new hires, or by reducing their tax burden or by making it more profitable to hire people here rather than other countries (ie, outsourcing). Kerry's economic plan (read it here) wants to drop that loophole above and use it to give corporations a 5% cut in corporate taxes (that's important...not all companies PAY corporate taxes, only about 8% do). He also wants to give a two-year new jobs tax credit to companies.

If you're a Kerry supporter, Bush has a net loss of jobs, is running a deficit because he cut taxes for the rich (he cut the top tax bracket from 39.5% to 35%, saying last week on O'Reilly "Nobody should pay more than 35% in taxes") and is a spendthrift on the war.

If you like Bush, a lot of this was bound to happen anyways. The war is contentious, obviously, but tax cuts are typically viewed favorably by Republicans because money back for everyone is a good thing.

That's my take on the economy. And as a caveat, I'm a Bush supporter. I don't think Kerry has the money to enact half the things he wants. If you look at his website, he wants a "Pay as you go" policy, which means that if he gives a 5% tax cut for corporations totalling $12billion over 10 years, we need to cut something or raise taxes so that it's on the books...no deficit spending. It's a great idea...it also rarely gets talked about in his speeches and, to me, sounds like a cop out so that next year he can say "The Republican Congress wouldn't reduce spending here, so I can't give you health care like I promised. Sorry."

--trb

A few people have replied saying invest your money, which is a much wiser investment (rather than buying a wireless network).

Invest in a Roth IRA. Investing $7,000 for 45 years at 10% interest (the average return rate, it takes ~7.2 for your money to double). Investing so, and not adding a single penny more, will accumulate to $510,233, a pretty hefty sum.

Don't believe me? Go to this Roth IRA calculator, enter in 7,000 for the current IRA balance, 10% for the interest rate, and years until retirement as 45 years. Don't worry about the tax bracket as that doesn't involve Roth IRA's.

Let your money work for you, not the other way around.
-Vic

Sheesh! Any economist will tell you that frictional unemployment is 6%! What that means is if you have 100 workers and 100 jobs, at any given moment 6 of them will be unemployed (going to school, bumming around Europe, dropping a kid, "finding themselves", or just jerking off). Anything less than 6% indicates a shortage of workers!