RealGM

Scase wrote:

mihaic wrote:

Mr Funk wrote:And for reducing taxes on their income, they take advantage of business tax write-offs, tax-sheltered investments, purchasing permanent life insurance and donating to charities.

Koloko isn't wealthy yet professional athletes at his level are compensated quite generously and their income taxes are not severe.

Their income taxes for income received from basketball are probably in the highest bracket if (My guess) they are employed directly. Even as contractors, what could they write off? They probably already have travel and most meals on the road paid by the team, right? Not sure how much they can deduct without CRA or IRS bring on their case.

Perhaps Harden could write off the strip clubs in entertainment expenses

This is what I meant by people have a low understanding of how exactly wealthy people get away with this stuff. Wealthy people typically have very little to no actual income. NBA players as you stated are no different than your normal employee at a company, they just make more money.

People think rich = never pay any taxes. And while I maintain the sentiment of eat the rich, I make a very healthy living, but I still need to work every day. The wealthy don't.

Exactly.

PerkinsFor3 wrote:"Save $300/m at 18, for 8 years until you're 28"

Huh?

You might buy a nice used car with that

YogurtProducer wrote:

agkagk wrote:

YogurtProducer wrote:C.a does not even exist anymore either.

You want to be an accountant? You got to school for at least a couple years then get into a firm. You don't walk out of highscool and "Get a job in the mailroom" and get paid to learn

Sounds like you are basing your ideas of how accountants work from the 70s - or are confusing accountants with bookkeepers.

And you clearly dont get paid to read with your childish misrepresentation of what i wrote.

As i alluded to, im aware of the cash grab changes to the cpa.


Bye.

the only misrepresentation here is you thinking you can start your career through the mail room. This isn't 1972 anymore.

You do you bro

you can still get into a grad program with a bachelors earned at night?


There is no one cookie cutter path.

was hoping for actual Koloko updates instead find 3 pages of verbal diarrhea posts.

agkagk wrote:

YogurtProducer wrote:

agkagk wrote:

And you clearly dont get paid to read with your childish misrepresentation of what i wrote.

As i alluded to, im aware of the cash grab changes to the cpa.


Bye.

the only misrepresentation here is you thinking you can start your career through the mail room. This isn't 1972 anymore.

You do you bro

you can still get into a grad program with a bachelors earned at night?

There is no one cookie cutter path.

I am quite aware you can get a degree working at night, I did it for a half decade plus.

But you are just kind of out-of-touch on how it works. Most places do not hire you without any education - I got real lucky I was able to get in with a 2-year diploma and then finished my last 2 years at night. However, there was zero chance I was getting hired without some schooling experience. And then in terms of the employer actually paying for it? Not everyone gets that luxury and it was not until I had proven myself as an employee and showed some potential that I was able to negotiate that in to.

You make it sound like anyone can get a mailroom job with a tailored dress shirt and a firm handshake and move up the ranks. That simply is just not that case. University is the new standard. Very, very few people will ever go anywhere meaningful without it. That being said - don't take a dumbass degree you won't ever use.

Also when you say things like:

That 50k invested simply would set them up for life.

Is just laughably wrong. Even if you got 10% a year (spoiler - you never will) - you are making $5K in interest. That is so laughably far away from "setting you up for life".

Thats without even getting into the "how is a 17 year old getting $50K to invest" anyways.

50k invested sets you up for life? Maybe in 1950.

50k setting u up for life hahahahaahah

I got 3 pages of Koloko and 2 pages of people with no life experience.

NeoDragonKnight wrote:was hoping for actual Koloko updates instead find 3 pages of verbal diarrhea posts.

The update is...there is no real update. There, you're welcome.

Duffman100 wrote:50k invested sets you up for life? Maybe in 1950.

In today's age, in Toronto, if you have less than the means to give yourself $200k/year for the rest of your life, you're not really comfortably setup for life (for people ~40 yo who are likely thinking about future retirement, and wanting to never work again). Assuming you have another 40 years to live, that's about $8m you will need in uninvested liquid assets, or about $5m invested in a 4% return investment. Inflation is going to eat into most of that $200k/year you will be making by the time you pass so that instead of being upper middle class, $200k/year will be a middle class household income.

Yes you can retire with less yearly income, but it's not "comfortably". You can't really do everything you want, and Jihyo forbid that you have dependents or other obligations like child support/alimony etc.

Forget $50k invested, $50k/year in income isn't being setup for life. In 20 years, that might not even be enough to pay for rent/living expenses.

ontnut wrote:In today's age, in Toronto, if you have less than the means to give yourself $200k/year for the rest of your life, you're not really comfortably setup for life (for people ~40 yo who are likely thinking about future retirement, and wanting to never work again). Assuming you have another 40 years to live, that's about $8m you will need in uninvested liquid assets, or about $5m invested in a 4% return investment. Inflation is going to eat into most of that $200k/year you will be making by the time you pass so that instead of being upper middle class, $200k/year will be a middle class household income.

Yes you can retire with less yearly income, but it's not "comfortably". You can't really do everything you want, and Jihyo forbid that you have dependents or other obligations like child support/alimony etc.

Forget $50k invested, $50k/year in income isn't being setup for life. In 20 years, that might not even be enough to pay for rent/living expenses.

Wow settle down there.

You need only half that much to live comfortably if living in a small rent control apartment.

DelAbbot wrote:

ontnut wrote:In today's age, in Toronto, if you have less than the means to give yourself $200k/year for the rest of your life, you're not really comfortably setup for life (for people ~40 yo who are likely thinking about future retirement, and wanting to never work again). Assuming you have another 40 years to live, that's about $8m you will need in uninvested liquid assets, or about $5m invested in a 4% return investment. Inflation is going to eat into most of that $200k/year you will be making by the time you pass so that instead of being upper middle class, $200k/year will be a middle class household income.

Yes you can retire with less yearly income, but it's not "comfortably". You can't really do everything you want, and Jihyo forbid that you have dependents or other obligations like child support/alimony etc.

Forget $50k invested, $50k/year in income isn't being setup for life. In 20 years, that might not even be enough to pay for rent/living expenses.

Wow settle down there.

You need only half that much to live comfortably if living in a small rent control apartment.

Jihyo = god?

That's my point. You're putting in caveats. "small rent control apartment" is not what I consider "living comfortably" and they're not so easy to find nowadays. Most people don't dream of living in a small apartment outside the city core as their retirement. Also considering the average family of 4...$100k/year household income ain't gonna cut it, even for 2 people as the kids leave the nest, $100k/year household income will be firmly lower middle class in 10 years (especially since the Canadian government is hellbent on destroying the middle class, but that's another issue).

Yes, god Jihyo.

YogurtProducer wrote:

maternal85 wrote:

ontnut wrote:He's def not set for life. He will have to work still as that money's not gonna last until retirement age lol. Anything less than $10m career earnings is not really "set for life" imo.

After 3 years of service, you're entitled to a NBA pension at the age of 55 years. 3.3 million, he probably net 1.5 million. You can buy a decent house in a cheap state like Texas, for let's say 700k. Then live off the interest of the other 800k. He can live a comfortable life if he Invests/ manages the money wisely. Mortgage/ rent is one's largest monthly expense. He shouldn't have neither.

Live off the interest of 800k? What?? He is gonna live off of 40k per year (at 5% interest) and just not work?

You want him to buy a decent house for $700K - that house has utilities, property taxes, insurance, etc. he all still needs to pay- plus he still needs a car most likely, and if he is not working he is going to have to do something all day long.

It is just not reasonably feasible to assume he is going to be set for life. He will 100% be working again.

One of these two guys pays bills

Scase wrote:I mean sure, but Koloko probably receives zero of those benefits. So his tax rate is closer to 51%, like I'm not here saying the wealthy shouldn't be taxed more or anything, but there is a huge lack of understanding of how the wealthy get away with paying nothing in taxes.

An NBA player is typically a worker and not a business owner with creative ways to write stuff off. He's a 22/23 year old, he likely doesn't have tax sheltered investments outside of things the regular public does such as RRSPs/TFSA etc. lol. Like sure he could have an accountant or something to help, but there is a limit to how much a salaried employee can do this stuff man, it's not just "With this one simple trick you can pay no taxes!".

At the end of the day, his career earnings are not enough to live off of for the remaining 60ish years of his life. They would be a phenomenal nest egg to start retirement savings, or use to invest in real estate etc for sure. But it's not like he magically found a way to pay zero taxes and is going to live off 3mil for the rest of his life lol.

I completely agree. NBA players are just highly compensated workers/entertainers who don't own and control the means of production. I was just disagreeing with the narrative that wealthy people are overly taxed.

Mr Funk wrote:

Scase wrote:I mean sure, but Koloko probably receives zero of those benefits. So his tax rate is closer to 51%, like I'm not here saying the wealthy shouldn't be taxed more or anything, but there is a huge lack of understanding of how the wealthy get away with paying nothing in taxes.

An NBA player is typically a worker and not a business owner with creative ways to write stuff off. He's a 22/23 year old, he likely doesn't have tax sheltered investments outside of things the regular public does such as RRSPs/TFSA etc. lol. Like sure he could have an accountant or something to help, but there is a limit to how much a salaried employee can do this stuff man, it's not just "With this one simple trick you can pay no taxes!".

At the end of the day, his career earnings are not enough to live off of for the remaining 60ish years of his life. They would be a phenomenal nest egg to start retirement savings, or use to invest in real estate etc for sure. But it's not like he magically found a way to pay zero taxes and is going to live off 3mil for the rest of his life lol.

I completely agree. NBA players are just highly compensated workers/entertainers who don't own and control the means of production. I was just disagreeing with the narrative that wealthy people are overly taxed.

I think the definition of wealthy is where the breakdown came from. I would say most/all of us here would agree wealthy people don't get taxed remotely enough, but rich folks probably get hit decently hard.

mihaic wrote:

PerkinsFor3 wrote:"Save $300/m at 18, for 8 years until you're 28"

Huh?

You might buy a nice used car with that

Learn to invest.

https://www.fidelity.ca/en/growthcalculator

Before a 17 year old commits to a 50 - 100k purchase they should learn to balance a cheque book first.

Learn how money works…before you spend it.

Spoiler warning: yogurtproducer is going to rant about how he knows better

But how do you save money at 18 for 8 years until you're 28?

PerkinsFor3 wrote:"Save $300/m at 18, for 8 years until you're 28"

Huh?

You spend like hell for two in between?

This should have been mandatory reading everyone's last year of high school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber

PerkinsFor3 wrote:But how do you save money at 18 for 8 years until you're 28?

Live in mom's basement and realgm instead of socialize.

ontnut wrote:

DelAbbot wrote:

ontnut wrote:In today's age, in Toronto, if you have less than the means to give yourself $200k/year for the rest of your life, you're not really comfortably setup for life (for people ~40 yo who are likely thinking about future retirement, and wanting to never work again). Assuming you have another 40 years to live, that's about $8m you will need in uninvested liquid assets, or about $5m invested in a 4% return investment. Inflation is going to eat into most of that $200k/year you will be making by the time you pass so that instead of being upper middle class, $200k/year will be a middle class household income.

Yes you can retire with less yearly income, but it's not "comfortably". You can't really do everything you want, and Jihyo forbid that you have dependents or other obligations like child support/alimony etc.

Forget $50k invested, $50k/year in income isn't being setup for life. In 20 years, that might not even be enough to pay for rent/living expenses.

Wow settle down there.

You need only half that much to live comfortably if living in a small rent control apartment.

Jihyo = god?

That's my point. You're putting in caveats. "small rent control apartment" is not what I consider "living comfortably" and they're not so easy to find nowadays. Most people don't dream of living in a small apartment outside the city core as their retirement. Also considering the average family of 4...$100k/year household income ain't gonna cut it, even for 2 people as the kids leave the nest, $100k/year household income will be firmly lower middle class in 10 years (especially since the Canadian government is hellbent on destroying the middle class, but that's another issue).

Yes, god Jihyo.

The income measurement doesn't really matter when the majority of the money goes into mortgage.

If you are making $100k/year and already owned a house, you are perhaps making as much as someone with a mortgage in the $200k/year.

Also, for someone who is making $200k/year at age 40 ($110k/year after tax), they should pay off half of their mortgage, and should have a property by the end of their retirement. Then the living cost of retirement with government provided income, you may only need about $50k/year (your actual income after tax is much higher, closer to $35k/year).