https://frum.finance logo
Join Slack
Powered by
So as not to derail the previous thread, what are ...
# random
n
So as not to derail the previous thread, what are people's definitions of frum middle class? I never really thought about definitions, but I guess I think of middle class as able to pay bills, but needs tuition scholarship. I'd love to hear others' thoughts
b
agreed. possible additional bullet is not qualifying for gov benefits
which I guess kind of goes with paying bills
m
Hard disagree on government benefits. you can be extremely high net worth and still qualify for government benefits bc you are intentionally taking a low salary one year bc of a roth conversion.
b
How about "needing" govt benefits. You're giving an example of someone so high class.
m
once you get into "needs", the water gets very murky. If someone made decisions that requires them to now need it, is it really a need? Who is the arbitrator?
a couple where both people go into being melamdim versus someone else taking a low salary because of tax optimizations, both made decisions that required government benefits. It just gets messy.
b
I think you're getting into too many details. The question was about a colloquial grouping of middle class. Either you think it's normal for middle class to need govt benefits or you don't.
m
If you are going to create broad definitions that affect language and how we view one another or ourselves, the details are extremely important, because language shapes behavior. If you talk about middle class as not needing gov benefits, then I have a harder time getting someone on it if they need it or getting someone off it when they shouldn't be on them, because people feel bad about it.
I'd avoid using such language that buckets people into categories like this in the first place. As it's misleading and many people have very complicated situations that require nuance to appreciate.
b
Are we creating the definition here? I understood the OP as asking what people's perceptions are.
m
It gets us no where. As the Rebbe said, labels are all for clothing, not people.
šŸ˜‚ 1
šŸ’Æ 1
I have no perception of what these categories mean, and I'd recommend that approach to others to enjoy life a lot more.
šŸ‘ 1
I've said my peace lol, you can all discuss what these words mean to you now šŸ˜›
b
No no, once you've invoked the Rebbe's teachings nothing more needs to be said šŸ˜›
m
I recognize that others might perceive value in these buckets, so please don't let me stop you!
I saw @steep-dog-55906 typing šŸ‘€
plus1 1
s
šŸ˜œ I was going to join the Discourse about benefits by choice and how we might make the definition easier but then liked the "why label people"
But I will say that the "Should I not take a higher salary because I'll lose my benefits" discussion is a real one, and feels like you're crossing a line, and that very much feels like a "I guess I'm now middle class, this stinks," line
Middle class to me feels like I can afford to buy things I need but hardly things I want, without playing games. BH I'm not complaining, but what I mean is: I'm so happy I can afford the things I need bH. But there are people doing such fun stuff with their money, they feel a whole class away
b
lol another definition I was thinking of was you're middle class when you get really upset that the Govt is taking all your money in taxes but you don't get any benefits
šŸŽÆ 3
s
(except I'm not upset that I'm paying for benefits of other people, I'm happy to live in a society where people around me aren't destitute and if that involves govt input then so be it)
šŸ’Æ 2
b
in line with the end of @steep-dog-55906ā€™s comment
m
If relevant, if you hear anyone say they don't want a higher salary bc of benefits, I believe I have disproved this notion and people should always take the salary increase, invest the difference lowering their MAGI, and keeping almost all government benefits
šŸ‘ 1
b
interesting, people should def know about that
šŸ‘† 1
I think it's a standard belief that takign the salary increase isn't always beneficial
m
If I had to label people, I wouldn't use upper, middle, lower. What I see practically is Wealthy, Rich, and Poor, and any of these people might be on government benefits.
b
though if the benefit they get is tuition cuts then this approach doesn't work. On the other hand, if I know anything about @mysterious-tomato-10057, he would never help people invest money to get tuition cuts lol
m
And income is pretty much not correlated with my definitions, and its mostly perspective.
s
Hmmm sounds like we need Pirkei Avos here
b
I assume most people define upper, middle, lower as the 3 labels you gave
That's how I would think about it
m
I absolutely will build someone a solid finacnial plan that has them invest money for their future and then advocate for them to their school that they literally can't survive without a tuiition cut without relying on tzedaka in the future. I provide long financial plan documents to advocate to the school as to why they absolutely can't pay tuition bc they need to put funds towards retirement
I assume most people define upper, middle, lower as the 3 labels you gave
Then you are missing my point. Mine aren't connected to income, but rather, if you are happy with what you have. I took my definitions from Pirkei Avos as Racheli pointed out.
b
I was referring to the idea of investing the increase to stay on benefits lol
m
And I am saying many times they should invest the difference and keep the tuition discount.
b
Ok I guess I don't know you as well as I thought lol
šŸ˜‰ 1
Then you are missing my point. Mine aren't connected to income, but rather, if you are happy with what you have. I took my definitions from Pirkei Avos as Racheli pointed out.
I don't think anyone would practically define it that way. Happiness doesn't pay the bills
m
It drastically changes what bills you have. I have seen it time and time again. Someone happier with less will have an incredible financial plan on a low salary.
I would call them very wealthy, even though they are < 100k income
b
And most people would define that as middle class
No one is asking about happiness, they're asking about social structure
m
i see no value in that definition then. Who does that help? The goal is to use money to create the life you want. If that family did it on 50k, then they are as upper class as it gets to me. Any other definition sounds very anti-Torah and is the reason people struggle with finances and credit card debt.
b
who said we're trying to help anyone. You're talking ideals, which is important but not what I've thought we've been discussing
m
he asked how people define terms. To me, after meeting with clients and seeing the affects of perspective on finance, this is how I would define low, middle, and upper. Low is spending money they don't have, middle is making it work, and upper has the freedom to live the life they want with money being a tool rather than being a barrier. All of these can happen at any income. I know people making 500k in the lower category. This is how I use these terms šŸ™‚
šŸŽÆ 1
b
None of what you just said mentioned anything about happiness lol
I think your definitions are very eloquent
ā¤ļø 1
m
then I am not making myself clear, because it's all about happiness.
Why is the rich guy spending money he doesn't have? It's all about being happy with your lot.
b
ok but you can have people who are unahppy who aren't spending money the don't have. I agree it can affect what category you're in but I wouldn't define it as such. the definition could be the outcome that you stated, which is the level of spending
s
What about the people who are happy spending money they don't have? šŸ™ˆ
šŸ¤£ 3
b
I was about to voice the same thing lol
s
It followed logically from your last post :)
m
They aren't "happy with their lot"
they are happy with someone elses lol
šŸ˜‚ 1
b
thye're happy with someone else's lot šŸ¤£
šŸ’Æ 1
omg literally loling right now, such a great dialogue
n
This šŸ’Æ Crystallized my thoughts more concretely. I guess that was my surprise at the previous thread, since I was projecting my own outlook
ā¤ļø 1
šŸŒ 1
m
which previous thread?
n
m
he is in the middle of getting suckered is different than being in middle class šŸ˜›
šŸ˜‚ 1
n
He is straight middle class
b
What if he's happy being suckered lol
m
so now given my definitions, you agree that he totally might be middle class?
šŸ’Æ 1
b
Objectively yes, but subjectivley I have a hard time saying someone who makes 450k middle class. Doesn't roll off the tongue so well lol
m
again, i know people making 450k and spending 500k, i would call them objectively poor and lower class by all metrics, they are struggling to survive given their current behaviors, habits, traumas, pain, perspectives, etc.
if you don't say this, then it gets really judgey really fast when you start picking this apart.
b
I understand, just hard to say it. Just like in a different thread somewhere where we discussed supporting osmeone who lost their wealth just to keep their image (succinct paraprase, we don't need to jump into that discussion)
m
yes same discussion really
b
Idk if someone making 500k can get a tuition cut, but I imagine a lot of people would be unhappy if they heard that person would get one just because they have bad spending habits
m
in order to say otherwise though, you'd need to start tearing everyone's spending apart into categories of needs and wants, which ultimately good end up with the middle class guy making 200k not "deserving" his tuition benefits, because he has too many "wants". It's very messy. Just spend what you have, and not more and we will all be happy šŸ™‚
b
and baruch will be happy lol
šŸ‘ 1
You should write a book, "Happy path financing" lol
m
"How to Make Baruch Happy" - A handbook to not upset your financial advisor or your Rabbi
šŸ˜‚ 2
2 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by