[tinamasak]

http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/fina...n-11000-a-year

Glenn Morrissette, 42, wrote in to say that he lives on just $11,000 a year, and he does it by living full-time in an RV. As a result, he pays no rent, needs no car, and can live wherever he wants. Unlike Joseph Fonseca, the writer we profiled in our "Living Well on $20,000 a Year" article, Morrissette has health insurance. A professional musician, he can work by computer from any location. He might not have a family support, as the teacher living on $40,000 a year does, but we thought Morrissette's story was interesting enough to share. We spoke with Morrissette, who is currently in New Jersey, about his lifestyle, which he also describes on his blog, To Simplify.

He appears to be single and so it's easier when it's just one person but I think I read a story about a family who survives on not a lot of income.

[gugamotina]

I generally agree with you on many things - but this argument is kinda silly.

The man who makes $5 is "compelled" to spend the same as the $10 fellow because the kids need to be fed, clothed, housed... the car payments and mortgage still need to be paid, and of course American healthcare is still monstrously more expensive than anywhere else in the civilized world.

Now granted, the rich man will have "nicer" things than the poor man, but those basic expenses - housing, car, kids, healthcare... those expenses exist no matter what your income is.

The middle class has less to spare, has a harder time "making ends meet" than the rich. Its basic fact that a flat tax rate shifts the burden from the backs of the rich onto the backs of the middle class and poor... which is exactly what the Republicans and the corporations want.

I simply speak of living within one's means. A person has to be well below the poverty line before it comes to the point they can't afford the basic necessities of living. Any member of the middle class and much of the lower class can realistically contribute 80% of their earnings to immediate and necessary expenditures and retain 20% towards savings should they wish to do so. The problem is, many choose not to. They not only buy every new item around them but they put themselves in thousands of dollars of debt (I'm not talking about mortgages here) and pay the minimums. Choices have consequences, I think it no great disservice to require Americans to live with some of the negative consequences of their poor lifestyle choices, it's a far better alternative to enabling dependancy where they continue to languish because they automatically assume they will be taken care of, by an institution that eventually will not be able to afford it.

[zzbust]

If the person who "makes 5$" has so little, then why did they make the incredibly poor decisions to have children and buy a car?

IMO - having children IS an incredibly poor decision.

As for buying a car - how do you propose he get to work? Walk? My job is 20 miles away.

But you see what I'm saying here - a flat tax rate is going to affect a less rich man more than a rich man. That should be pretty obvious.

[DrBrightonone]

I simply speak of living within one's means. A person has to be well below the poverty line before it comes to the point they can't afford the basic necessities of living. Any member of the middle class and much of the lower class can realistically contribute 80% of their earnings to immediate and necessary expenditures and retain 20% towards savings should they wish to do so. The problem is, many choose not to. They not only buy every new item around them but they put themselves in thousands of dollars of debt (I'm not talking about mortgages here) and pay the minimums. Choices have consequences, I think it no great disservice to require Americans to live with some of the negative consequences of their poor lifestyle choices, it's a far better alternative to enabling dependancy where they continue to languish because they automatically assume they will be taken care of, by an institution that eventually will not be able to afford it.

So you really think its fair to INCREASE the sales tax, so the man who has to spend 80% of his income just to put food on the table has to pay even more, while the rich man who can easily live just from spending 5% of his income gets taxed LESS?

[ChyFDjfed]

So you really think its fair to INCREASE the sales tax, so the man who has to spend 80% of his income just to put food on the table has to pay even more, while the rich man who can easily live just from spenindg %5 of his income gets taxed LESS?

I don't have a problem with the concept no.

"McDonalds, how may I help you?

"I'll have Two Double Cheeseburgers and a Large Coke and a Large Fries"

"Ok, that will be $5.80"

"Make it a Medium Fries"

Boy what a tough world we'd live in.

[HugoSimon]

I don't have a problem with the concept no.

"McDonalds, how may I help you?

"I'll have Two Double Cheeseburgers and a Large Coke and a Large Fries"

"Ok, that will be $5.80"

"Make it a Medium Fries"

Boy what a tough world we'd live in.

Perhaps it's better explained like this: I'm a GS-7 Step 1 in the Hampton Roads are of Virginia. My annual income is $38,790.00. I contribute 5% to TSP, so with the tax bracket adjustment, I pay $72 (rounded to the nearest dollar) a month in federal taxes.

Now let's think about this for a second. I spend about $200 a payday on groceries, and I get paid bi-weekly. So my groceries come out to $433 a month.

If you replaced federal income tax with a nine percent sales tax, nine percent federal sales tax on my groceries ALONE comes out to $39 - which is already more than half of the federal income tax that I would have paid. Mind you, I have to buy clothes and other household items, and pay other bills.

The amount of income tax that I would be paying per month under this 999 plan would at least be three times as high as what I'm paying in federal income tax now. AT LEAST three times as high - and I'm just talking about my deduction. You have to consider the fact that even with a federal duction of about $72 a month, I still get a tax return. There's no tax return on sales tax.

If someone wants to surgically attach their lips to the asses of the billionaires who don't give two $#!+$ about them, fine. But that sure as hell isn't me.

[Stetbrate]

I don't have a problem with the concept no.

"McDonalds, how may I help you?

"I'll have Two Double Cheeseburgers and a Large Coke and a Large Fries"

"Ok, that will be $5.80"

"Make it a Medium Fries"

Boy what a tough world we'd live in.

If that's the only purchase you need to make the entire month sure.

[Ephejvll]

Perhaps it's better explained like this: I'm a GS-7 Step 1 in the Hampton Roads are of Virginia. My annual income is $38,790.00. I contribute 5% to TSP, so with the tax bracket adjustment, I pay $72 (rounded to the nearest dollar) a month in federal taxes.

Now let's think about this for a second. I spend about $200 a payday on groceries, and I get paid bi-weekly. So my groceries come out to $433 a month.

If you replaced federal income tax with a nine percent sales tax, nine percent federal sales tax on my groceries ALONE comes out to $39 - which is already more than half of the federal income tax that I would have already paid. Mind you, I have to buy clothes and other household items, and pay other bills.

The amount of income tax that I would be paying per month under this 999 plan would at least be three times as high as what I'm paying in federal income tax now. AT LEAST three times as high - and I'm just talking about my deduction. You have to consider the fact that even with a federal duction of about $72 a month, I still get a tax return. There's no tax return on sales tax.

If someone wants to surgically attach their lips to the asses of the billionaires who don't give two $#!+$ about them, fine. But that sure as hell isn't me.

The 9-9-9 plan is not something I'm particularly attached to myself (as I'm not a Herman Caine supporter by trade), but I'm not opposed to the idea of a fair tax in principle if it's distributed in a manner that doesn't give all the power for imported goods. As it is though, I'm not too worried if you pay more on groceries. But if we stick to this plan your spendable income annually is approximately $35,300, meaning you have about $2,941 monthly for needs and expenditures. Hack out $472 off of that we're still looking at about $2,470 squeeze out a reasonable expected cost of rent, commute and necessary utilities and you're telling me you can't possibly retain $300-$600 during a given month? If you think you absolutely need $2,500 to fill in the gaps I wonder where you've chosen to live and what you choose to drive because I don't even burn that much although I personally have the means to. So quite frankly the fact that you suffer the green eyed monster for those who've applied themselves in life to the point where they can afford a few things doesn't make me flinch in the least. Nor do I bear ill will towards those who have a few more things in life than I do. Quite frankly if they're burning 60-80 hours a week to make that happen I have no problem saying they've reasonably earned it.

[Muhabsssa]

If that's the only purchase you need to make the entire month sure.

It's an example, as very few American people actually need 100% of what they spend their money on regularly.

[SM9WI8oI]

I don't have a problem with the concept no.

"McDonalds, how may I help you?

"I'll have Two Double Cheeseburgers and a Large Coke and a Large Fries"

"Ok, that will be $5.80"

"Make it a Medium Fries"

Boy what a tough world we'd live in.

So, you're thinking then that this 9% sales tax will cause people to buy less stuff ( a reasonable thought)

How then, does that help the economy grow?

[Pippoles]

The 9-9-9 plan is not something I'm particularly attached to myself (as I'm not a Herman Caine supporter by trade), but I'm not opposed to the idea of a fair tax in principle if it's distributed in a manner that doesn't give all the power for imported goods. As it is though, I'm not too worried if you pay more on groceries. But if we stick to this plan your spendable income annually is approximately $35,300, meaning you have about $2,941 monthly for needs and expenditures. Hack out $472 off of that we're still looking at about $2,470 squeeze out a reasonable expected cost of rent, commute and necessary utilities and you're telling me you can't possibly retain $300-$600 during a given month? If you think you absolutely need $2,500 to fill in the gaps I wonder where you've chosen to live and what you choose to drive because I don't even burn that much although I personally have the means to. So quite frankly the fact that you suffer the green eyed monster for those who've applied themselves in life to the point where they can afford a few things doesn't make me flinch in the least. Nor do I bear ill will towards those who have a few more things in life than I do. Quite frankly if they're burning 60-80 hours a week to make that happen I have no problem saying they've reasonably earned it.

Well, see here's the deal.

One of the crying calls from Republicans/Tea Partiers is that nearly half the population pays NO federal income tax.

Under 9-9-9...they'd pay, basically 18% tax (9% of what they make and 9% of what they spend).

If they are currently not pay ANY tax...there is no way 9-9-9 does not raise taxes on the poor.

IF it is, as Cain claims, revenue neutral...and the poor are paying more...then someone must be paying less. I'm thinking it just might be a guy like me, cuz I'm getting killed in taxes right now...but, the rise in prices due to every level of production paying their 9% I'm sure will just pass those taxes onto guys like me anyway...

[ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE]

MM, he's proving your point by what he's saying to me.

Basically, your everyday average people making around the median income will have to start cutting corners in how they live in order keep the taxes under Cain's plan from being greater than they are now; while the rich get to live even better, because they'll be paying even less taxes as a result!

And no, these billionaires didn't apply themselves. Most of them inherit that money, a business, or were born to parents who could afford to send them to the top schools. They were born with the advantage.

[mireOpekrhype]

And no, these billionaires didn't apply themselves. Most of them inherit that money, a business, or were born to parents who could afford to send them to the top schools. They were born with the advantage.

OTOH, a fairly major reason why I go to work everyday is to give my children an advantage in life.

[hechicxxrr]

OTOH, a fairly major reason why I go to work everyday is to give my children an advantage in life.

Unless I'm making a false assumption, YOUR work is a FAR CRY from the "work" that the parents of these billionaires have done.

[Soolfelpecelf]

So, you're thinking then that this 9% sales tax will cause people to buy less stuff ( a reasonable thought)

How then, does that help the economy grow?

The economy grows or shrinks whether the government likes it or not. I never expect anything the government does to have a positive influence towards that. I simply factor in, if you have to have a tax, one that gets people thinking hard about what they're spending their money towards on a regular basis is not necessarily a bad thing.

By "growing the economy" I presume you're referring to our current recession, which has more than a little to do with the growing pains of a globalized market. I think the government is wasting its energy in just about any efforts it makes to affect that. Seems to be the only ones who benefit are the abhorrid wealthy through cronyism. The only thing our government can realistically do to influence our own state of wealth effectively is by levelling the playing field for internal/external participants. If the government creates an environment where our own job producers can realistically compete with foreign competitors we provide the opportunity this country needs to move in a positive direction. After that the rest is on us to step up to the plate, and I do love a challenge as it brings out the best in us.

For the moment we operate at the mentality that we must remain at a "revenue neutral" status which is a fair assessment. You can't cut revenues without eliminating unnecessary forms of spending or debt goes up, that's not a hard concept. Personally if I were to influence tax codes the increments would not be so drastic, as I think that has a better chance of getting us where we need to be in the long run. But if we're going to change it in any fashion towards any specific direction it doesn't hurt to do it in a way that discourages irresponsible spending habits in my mind. We come to this dilemma where our approach to resolving our situation has to be resolved holistically yet we cannot just change it all at once. America wants immediate satisfaction when the proposed solution would probably make the situation even worse if we force it too quickly. My suggestion is to parse it out in steps with a final strategic intention in mind, and evaluate the success or failure of the individual steps not solely on what ails us today but factor in whether they might be necessary side effects for getting us to our long term solution.

[EspanaCamsInfo]

Well, see here's the deal.

One of the crying calls from Republicans/Tea Partiers is that nearly half the population pays NO federal income tax.

Under 9-9-9...they'd pay, basically 18% tax (9% of what they make and 9% of what they spend).

If they are currently not pay ANY tax...there is no way 9-9-9 does not raise taxes on the poor.

IF it is, as Cain claims, revenue neutral...and the poor are paying more...then someone must be paying less. I'm thinking it just might be a guy like me, cuz I'm getting killed in taxes right now...but, the rise in prices due to every level of production paying their 9% I'm sure will just pass those taxes onto guys like me anyway...

You're absolutely right someone will pay more and it's not my argument that nobody will. Caine claims there are poverty provisions in the tax code which is fine I guess. I simply don't flinch a bit if we have a more consistent system in place that levels the playing field. I don't get less votes in our elections than they do so I don't see a problem if I pay percentage-wise an equally proportional amount of my income (although in my mind the ideal number of that is zero) and a proprotional amount of my personal spending at equal levels. I don't want millionaires and billionaires to write me a direct check to level our bank accounts, I want to figure out whatever it was they did to get to that point and see if I can emulate that by earning it myself!

[boleroman]

Unless I'm making a false assumption, YOUR work is a FAR CRY from the "work" that the parents of these billionaires have done.

Which ones are you referring to? If they feel excessively wealthy they seem pretty good at donating a lot of it on their own accords, without a need for the Federal Government to steal it from them in the first place. I like the idea they can continue to do that. If they want to be a miser about it we as consumers can always cut off their source of income.

[HoqCBYMl]

Unless I'm making a false assumption, YOUR work is a FAR CRY from the "work" that the parents of these billionaires have done.

Irrelevant. Believe me, if I could do what they do, I would.

The economy grows or shrinks whether the government likes it or not. I never expect anything the government does to have a positive influence towards that.

While I agree that the govt. is not in control of what the economy does...I do believe it has some influence.

I simply factor in, if you have to have a tax, one that gets people thinking hard about what they're spending their money towards on a regular basis is not necessarily a bad thing. A tax that gets people to buy LESS...will have a negative affect on the economy. Less buying=worse economy.

By "growing the economy" I presume you're referring to our current recession, which has more than a little to do with the growing pains of a globalized market. I think the government is wasting its energy in just about any efforts it makes to affect that. Seems to be the only ones who benefit are the abhorrid wealthy through cronyism. Then no one should be blaming Obama for the economy.

The only thing our government can realistically do to influence our own state of wealth effectively is by levelling the playing field for internal/external participants. If the government creates an environment where our own job producers can realistically compete with foreign competitors we provide the opportunity this country needs to move in a positive direction. After that the rest is on us to step up to the plate, and I do love a challenge as it brings out the best in us. I think we should UNlevel the playing field. Among the things American is best at...we have the largest economy and the largest military. It seems like we do not hesitate to leverage our military might against our enemies, but we don't do the same with our economic might.

Hey...we have the biggest market for a lot of stuff...if you wanna tap that market, pay the man with the funny hat and gold teeth.

For the moment we operate at the mentality that we must remain at a "revenue neutral" status which is a fair assessment. You can't cut revenues without eliminating unnecessary forms of spending or debt goes up, that's not a hard concept. Personally if I were to influence tax codes the increments would not be so drastic, as I think that has a better chance of getting us where we need to be in the long run. But if we're going to change it in any fashion towards any specific direction it doesn't hurt to do it in a way that discourages irresponsible spending habits in my mind. We come to this dilemma where our approach to resolving our situation has to be resolved holistically yet we cannot just change it all at once. America wants immediate satisfaction when the proposed solution would probably make the situation even worse if we force it too quickly. My suggestion is to parse it out in steps with a final strategic intention in mind, and evaluate the success or failure of the individual steps not solely on what ails us today but factor in whether they might be necessary side effects for getting us to our long term solution. I don't get why taxes have to be so damn complicated. They are so complicated because of all the ways there are to get out of paying them...deductions for this and that. Let's minimize those. Tax breaks are really just a form of social engineering anyway...the govt. thinks it benefits society for you be a stable family w/ children...tax break. They think it's good for you buy a house...tax break. Education, good...tax break. Drinking, bad...pay tax. Smoking, bad...pay tax. Giving to church, good...tax break. Watching TV, bad...pay tax.

Take away all of those...maybe lower the rates...and let people decide themselves what's good for them. Why do I have to give the govt. an extra $5K over my neighbor next door because I rent, and he bought? Maybe my job is mobile or temporary and I don't wanna be tied to real estate. So, then because he has that one big deduction...he now gets to deduct all the little things...charitable contributions...wear and tear on his vehicle for work...dry cleaning...etc. etc, but I don't get to cuz they're all supposedly included in the "standard deduction"...screw it, how about if we both just pay based on what we make...and let us spend it how we choose.

Santorum said this is "bad for families" because people won't have children if they don't get the tax break? Really Rick? Do we really want the next generation to be raised by people who had kids in order to get a tax break? I can't believe no one called him out on that...so stupid. I mean, okay, you might wish your kid is born Dec 31 instead of Jan 1...but other than that...tax breaks have no effect on someone's decision to have kids...unless they are galactically stupid.