Take out taxes, transportation, entertainment, medical expenses, etc. Living off of savings for emergencies is inherently not sustainable. Setting aside retirement entirely.
Taxes on $18,000 is $800 in usa. Entertainment we just do for free through torrenting and walking.
Medical expenses, well, we live in the Usa. You just find a way to skate by until you don't. Obviously the political solution needs to be "Medicare for all", but I don't have the power to fight the multi billion dollar insurance lobby :)
Living off of savings is sustainable if you have $50,000 saved and only $1,000 a year in excess spending.
I currently make $50,000 a year. But, I usually get laid off, because I am precariously employed. So, after taxes, I usually only take home about $25,000 a year.
I would be much happier with a guaranteed $17,000 a year instead.
Where do you live to have 25% loss to taxes from the state + City? Your marginal is 25% to fed...
Is this those weird PA taxes? 50% is lol material or you are getting scammed by your accountant.
On a $50,000 salary, I'm keeping $36,000 post tax. But, at least in my personal situation/industry, we face seasonal and unpredictable layoffs.
So the annual rate of $50,000 is inaccurate (Americans always boast about their annual pretax salary). I face usually 3 months of unemployment every year, so 9 x $3,000 post tax per month = $27,000 a year
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I would really prefer to have guaranteed but lower income.
I can see where you are coming from. Ironically I have been working as a group health broker for 6 months now and I can tell you that at least from my inside view, this industry is incredibly, incredibly broken. The incentive structure is perverse.
There is no reason why losing your job should mean the choice between paying $800 a month for Cobra or going uninsured. Medicaid fills this problem ($30 in NY state for those who make I believe below $19,000 a year), but many doctors do not accept it.
So I think it's time to either force doctors to work for less or to force the rich to pay for Medicare for all. Because right now prices are inflated and only the rich/employed can afford relatively accetable care.
And no, even I don't have coverage in this job! XD
I see what you're saying, but I think it's safe to say they were suggesting it is expensive to the individual if they get sick, not to their entire society. The two are very different problems.
Yes, the burden of healthcare costs in places with universal healthcare are spread across all taxpayers, but for that you get a society that can be reasonably confident that getting sick won't bankrupt them (especially if your socialised healthcare nation also has good welfare).
It's easy to dismiss as a "won't happen to me" kind of thing, but in reality it can happen to anyone. A couple of years ago my wife was suddenly admitted to hospital for a couple of weeks and then physical therapy for 6+ months and it didn't cost us anything except her lost income. In the US that could've easily run us several hundred thousand dollars with bad or no insurance. There's a reason medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA.[0]
