• frickineh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Lol just $1000 extra a month. I agree that no, those people aren’t ultra wealthy, but let’s not act like that much a month isn’t a completely unobtainable amount for many, many people, especially when rent is eating up 50% of people’s paychecks to start with.

    • crypticthree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you’re a homeowner and not wanting to sell or refinance this isn’t a big deal for you. Your taxes go down. If you own a vacation home in the mountains I am just not that bummed that your investment has lost value

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not and probably never will be a homeowner, but I wasn’t talking about the topic of the article, just laughing at the idea that someone could say just save an extra 1k a month for a decade like that’s an easy thing to do.

        • XbSuper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          They were more meaning, these people aren’t rich, just slightly better off than you, and that’s not who we should be fighting with.

      • mars296@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I agree with you but generally but there are unlucky people that will get ducked. There are situations where you HAVE to sell. If someone loses a job and for a million possible reasons can’t get equivalent employment and can no longer afford their mortgage for example. Medical bills, spouse dies, etc.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      No one is pretending that’s the case. Eating this money simply isn’t enough to make the lives of the ones that don’t have it measurably better. There’s a fuckload more extracted further up the chain. Distributing some of that money should be enough to get the ones that don’t have the extra $1000 a month have it. That’s my point. Put differently, if you think the person that can save $1K a month is wealthy, the people that save $10K per month would be happy to offer the $1K guy’s money to you, while they keep theirs, and you won’t find yourself in a significantly better position than before.

      Eating the rich is the way to go, but it can only work if we eat the rich. Not the ones making $10/hr more.