zlacker

How much does $17k cost for a celebrity or wealthy person compared to someone making $75k-$100k? It would be interesting to see comparisons with an average celebrity or multi-millionaire, but it seems hard to define without getting into crazy wealth.

>>wil421+(OP)
$17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

What do you mean by "cost"? They both have to pay the same price, one might have to spend less time to make that amount if that's your point, but that's kinda obvious.

>>wil421+(OP)
If you have 150M, then you can spend about 15k per day forever without much risk of ever running out of money, even without any further income.

>>tibors+K2
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

Maybe if there were no taxes or utilities, food, housing, etc.

$50-60k in taxes (my take home is about 40% of my salary). $2k/month in rent/mortgage, so about $25k/year. $1k in utilities and food ($12k). So, we are up to $96k and haven't even touched on car payments, clothing, entertainment, etc.

>>tibors+K2
Cost is generally a more holistic concept than price. If you use money (or any resource) to do X, then you can't use it to do Y. So if your money supply is limited, every purchase is more costly to you because of what you must forego to make it. For the same reason, a 10k raise when you make 1M is not worth nearly as much as a 10k raise when you make 30k. It's the same 10k dollars, but has very different worth depending on who's dollars they are.

>>tibors+K2
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

At $100k, $17k after tax is maybe 30% of your income (and I don't mean disposable) for a year.

I think you would be hard pressed to find financially stable people in this income bracket who would consider this deal "affordable".

>>thfura+V2
And yet it's still not enough for nearly every single person who made it to that point

>>tibors+K2
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

Hmm, I'd disagree.

$100K salary takes home $78K, i.e. $6,500/mo.

I don't know that a watch that costs nearly 3 months of every cent of my take home pay is "in the affordable range".

>>jstumm+05
At $100k per year many people can probably have whatever they want in life after a few years. Why not pop $17k on a watch? Of course this particular one is a bad choice, but buying a good watch could be considered an investment.

Probably affordable was a bit of a stretch, I meant that it's not out of the question of buying, like a $50k Rolex.

>>tibors+v9
>(my take home is about 40% of my salary)

Then I'd guess you either don't live in the US or make far more than 100k.

>>thfura+gw
DC takes 8.5% of anything over 60k. That's just one city. You could live in Yonkers and pay through the nose for city and state income taxes. If you have a family and pay for health benefits, that comes out of your paycheck, too. All that is before federal income tax. Some states tax your health benefits as income, too so your state-reported income is higher than your federal.

>>hiatus+zB
>DC takes 8.5% of anything over 60k.

And even so, at 100k, the effective tax rate there is under 30%