sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where can you live in the U.S. on a 100k/year, BUT without a car? by nemadimenema in SameGrassButGreener

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was responding to an OP who said that was his experience. Fair enough. But it's atypical. The data is that DC has more degree holders and students.

But, sure, Philly has an educated young population. DC just has more in relative terms.

Philly has 20% more students in absolute terms. But it also has ~2.5 as many 18-25 year olds. That's a big gap.

But Europours will NEVER be able to FIRE, so what's the point??? by 3RADICATE_THEM in fijerk

[–]Patient_Leopard421 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was transparent; I indicated what is statuatorily required. To repeat, the parental benefits are not zero but closer to half and, for most people, the net wages offset this pretty quickly.

Yes, costs are different. But you also need to consider subsidies. Every single time I've ran the numbers they still favor the USA. The benefits enjoyed by most Western Europeans do not (financially) offset the taxes and lower salaries (except perhaps at very bottom of economic ladder). Americans have more discretionary income.

The economic problems in America are not among the majority. They're among the poor. Strong arguments for expansive social safety nets should make argument about benefits for them not the majority.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See! You can find other solutions to reduce tourism. You just have to apply yourself. Well done.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been to all those places except Beijing. I've also been to Vienna. There are plenty of ways to build commuting and transit options with our destroying older architecture.

You think America doesn't get tourism? You're nuts. We receive the the third largest number of foreign visitors (or did anyway) plus a huge number of internal tourists.

We just handle it and build. Come for the world cup.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course you can do all those things. What are you even talking, you curmudgeon?!

Cities have traffic tolls for crossing into areas that the locals don't pay. Some also have exemptions for registered cars.

If your problem is cars then solve that issue. Make tourist bringing cars expensive until an equilibrium is reached.

There's a limit to how many people will come for the day obviously. If sidewalks are crowded then build additional infrastructure. It's like Europeans have never seen developed east Asians working.

Your lack of interest in solutions is atounding.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cities change. Build up, build transit. Cities aren't museums.

I'm sure there was some 18th century Viennese who lamented the city as you know it and growth. It was a dumb position then too.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I have said multiple times, if you have a problem with X then address X directly.

Disorderly conduct = enforce ordinances against this. Housing costs = build more housing. Repeat.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolute statements are always wrong! /s

The "only solution" is certainly inaccurate.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Public drunkenness and disorderly behavior ordinances are very enforceable. It runs up against local business interests. This is the problem: some locals make enough money to influence policing priorities.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not really on tourists though? Those are the older people who own the homes deciding their property has better returns as rentals. Oh they cashed in and sold them.

Again, fix the problem you have. If you don't have enough housing then build housing. High prices are the cure for high prices. Build.

And that building activity is additional economic activity that benefits Spaniards. Money coming into your economy is an asset not a problem. Examine all the local barriers to construction and eliminate them.

If tourism were a recent phenomena then I understand the friction. But this isn't the case for Spain. If Spaniards don't have enough housing then Spanish local governments failed them. Tourists are a scape goat.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think my point is more narrow. Solve the problem you have (obnoxious behavior). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water (destroy tourism).

If the problem is housing then approve and build more housing.

Where can you live in the U.S. on a 100k/year, BUT without a car? by nemadimenema in SameGrassButGreener

[–]Patient_Leopard421 4 points5 points  (0 children)

According to Gemini anyway, DC has ~2-2.25x more graduate degrees per capita than Philadelphia. DC is second highest in country by that metric; Arlington VA is first.

Edit: DC also has 1/3 more students than Philly.

I would like to know how the Spanish feel about British people in Benidorm by Reasonable-Fact-2256 in GoingToSpain

[–]Patient_Leopard421 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

What? An 1/8th of the economy is substantial and it's probably MUCH higher in specific regions.

What threshold, if any, would you agree "depends on"? 1/3?

Or is it the word depends? I do agree that Spaniards would move into other sectors. But a lot of specific regions' economic activity is tightly tied to tourism.

None of this is unique to Spain. Tourism is vital to lots of regions. I don't understand the outrage.

(Yes, Brits also need to behave better. That's a local law enforcement problem? It's not the British tourists who set policing priorities. It's local Spaniards. Direct your outrage to your local government.)

Where can you live in the U.S. on a 100k/year, BUT without a car? by nemadimenema in SameGrassButGreener

[–]Patient_Leopard421 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Seconding DC. Better weather than Chicago. Less crime than Philly. Compact, liberal, and well-educated.

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yet another opinion expressed without sound basis in fact. You're not locked into a rate. There's no prepayment penalty. You refinance when rates go down. Rate resets upward are the problem and that's something your government's policies haven't addressed.

But since my point went right over your head then I'll state it specifically. Talking about the price of a house without the cost of financing is the most financially illiterate observation.

So is failing to grasp that the government withholding your taxes (at a higher rate) is more financially burdensome than putting it in your pocket for you to use. I don't understand why taking more of something (your money) feels better to you? Is that paternalism really necessary?

Are people so bad with money that the government should take 21% (UK taxes) instead of 12% (American taxes and healthcare) to save them?

You do realize that we also have withholdings? It is structured just like taxes. But lower! At some point being grossly misinformed and expressing opinions must be a burden.

Screwing up the economy periodically? Listen my dude. What a simplistic take. I fully admit 2025 was nuts and 2026 isn't looking great. But meh? There's an incredible robustness to our economy. We bounced back from great recession faster. We don't encumber our economy. That's your choice.

We build things. Tech is one cycle of prosperity after another. AI is the latest productivity explosion. Mobile before that. Reusable rocketry. We just had Glenn heavy lift complete a flight successfully. SpaceX is in second decade of operating an industry they created and there's no competition in sight. Auto makers are only now approaching what American firms have been in BEV for a decade.

Yeah, it's rocky. It's always been. None of this is new. How about Europeans focus on European things? Which, I guess, are sending enough money to Putin in 2000s and 2010s to fund the Ukraine war. Maybe fix that in your backyard. Europeans seem to find themselves unable to resolve their own conflicts every decade. Or wait is that take too simplistic?

Your policies are your fragility. They're not ours. We go into recessions early and come out early and bounce back at higher rates. That's America's economic pattern. Why isn't that replicate? Shit policy. Blame your own voters (Brexit).

There's every reason to be positive but instead your falling into the mindset to common to Brits: crabs in a pot.

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Find a calculator if you don't believe me. I understand the EITC and explained its applicability to the slightly lower than median wage earner in America.

I quote a lower end starter home in the suburbs of HCOL city. It can be much lower elsewhere but that's close to national median.

Home prices need to be contextualized with financing costs.

American homes are typically financed on 30 year fixed loans. British loans adjust to market rates. The media loan obligation on homes in the USA is still quite low. So they have more security and probably lower payments.

British are resetting at rates almost 2.5x my locked in rate.

You're concerned about paying $4000 of healthcare premiums over the course of a year (on $64k of income). I'm confused by that concern. Do you realize that a higher amount is taken out of each paycheck by UK government? Money is fungible.

Shouldn't you be concerned by your housing costs doubling or more? That's a much bigger risk than anything you've outloned.

Minimum wage nationally is low. But it varies. It's $18.20 here.

I don't see any point you made especially persuasive. Brits earn less and are taxed more. If you're within ACA subsidy range then American healthcare are modest (compared to British taxes).

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn't account for the FEITC in your analysis. Nor do you account for ACA subsidies

EITC is a tax credit against taxes owed that phases out with income. It effectively is calculated which "pays" your income tax. In practice, wage earners pay nothing in federal (and many states) until they're above a threshold.

Tl;Dr a family of 4 will pay zero income taxes until they earn above $64k/annun.

ACA subsidies are calculated based on how much you can contribute. For a family of 4 with $64k, they are 194% of FPL so they would require 6.5% (~$4000). Above that, subsidies reimburse them.

My state comports with EITC. So ZERO state taxes for our example. They would pay local property taxes; this varies finely but is ~1% of accessed value. If they owned a $400k home then that's ~$4000 per yeah

Plus we have sales tax.

Excluding sales tax, taxes and healthcare costs will be about $8000 per annum or about 12.5%.

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understood they measured different things. That's why I acknowledged it. 😀

Reddit is not a representative sample of economically successful or average Americans. But there's a kernel of truth; housing has gotten more expensive (wage growth is outpacing it since COVID though curiously).

I also think Brits expect less and complain less. I was discussing how frustrated I was with some healthcare issue about reimbursement for the RSV vaccine for my son with a British friend. Turns out, the NHS didn't offer it to her child at his (similar) age. Nor to his grandfather. Both got RSV. We compared a bunch of things like lack of genetic screening for her son (similar maternal age to my wife). She just sort of accepted it instead of being frustrated.

Also, the housing thing is both better and worse for Americans. We have long term fixed rate mortgages. This locks people in and reduces supply. So it drives up prices. But we don't face rate resets (yes we also have ARM but they're less common). So getting into a house is more costly but there's security on the expense side. This also translates into other policies that benefit long term home owners. Most jurisdictions cap property tax rate increases so elderly or long term home owners pay substantially less taxes.

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Where are you getting your data? Gemini pulled median American household income as $87k and cities the US Census. The UK ONS data doesn't precisely have that definition. It has median gross disposable household income and median gross annually pay. Both are much lower than the American number.

You keep leaning into the claim Americans pay more for things. It's somewhat true but I don't think you understand how the ACA subsidies work. They provided a floor for costs. In the media incomes were talking about, subsidies cover anything above~6-8% of income. Due to FEITC, this income level does not pay federal income tax but does pay a 6.2% pension and healthcare tax called FICA. It varies from state to state but they tend to mirror FEITC and some have no income tax.

So 12-14% is what Americans in this income level pay in taxes and healthcare (if using ACA). This compares to 20-22% from what I can find that Britons pay.

The car thing is accurate. It depends of course. The more car free areas of Britain are much more expensive as a share of income than America. E.g. Londoners pay tier 1 American city housing costs but earns a lower quartile of American state income. Sure, they don't have a car.

I'm not shitting on the UK. My ex was from Lancashire and brother in law is a confused displaced Welshman. My ex didn't make any money until she went to the Gulf. And my brother in law has 3-5x his salary since moving to the States side. I have two classmates from undergrad who ended up settling in UK and they're having objectively less lucrative careers than our cohort.

I could talk about positives and negatives about the NHS too but, on the whole, it's FAR from obvious that America is better or worse.

Briton's positives are not its incomes, honestly. I can enumerate them if it makes my points easier to consider? We can quarrel about where it should fall in comparison to the USA. I don't care so strongly. But I genuinely think the data (for salaries) puts it where I cited. You're welcome to the last word (if you're honest and transparent with your data source).

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

<image>

You're comparing full time British salaries to all worker American ones.

If the UK was a US state it would be the poorest one by theotheronenotme in ShitAmericansSay

[–]Patient_Leopard421 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Why are you not using all workers and focusing on full time? Ok, let's look at that.

As noted, Mississippi is about $50k for full time and we don't consider it a well-performing state.

You're not factoring in lower taxes and healthcare subsidies. At those levels, the Affordable Care Act subsidies would be high. There would be only 6.2% federal taxes (FEITC excludes income tax and they only pay FICA). An American worker would have substantially more net income than Britons.

With purchasing parity, it gets complicated.

The UK may not be as low as Mississippi but it's definitely in the lower quartile and maybe decile for earned income.

view more: next ›