That's awfully cynical... I approve! But at the same time it's OK to enjoy the attempts to make you happy at work. And maintain the polite fiction that there's more than just a business relationship. It's way better than the alternative! Even if there are mimes. /shudder
@MemphisBlues It would be an immense privilege to avoid income tax - but apparently that's not the case per SterlingCooper. It looks instead like the money would be double-taxed? Which doesn't sound right either - who would bother? Tax before or tax after... but tax only once. (well, there's also sales tax...) As an aside, the Canadian prime minister is going to double our contribution room in our (equivalent to) Roth IRA. While it's great for people who have the money (I love it!) it does nothing for those who don't. While I'll benefit from it, it's another tax break for the relatively well-off.
Paying more and getting less, instead of cooperating with family seems counterproductive. You can be independent by paying your share (heh, or sharing your Netflix account!) if you want.
Sigh, I have some free attractive business cards that lists my occupation as 'part time diety who ignores your prayers for 10% less'. Of course, I'm too wary of giving offense to hand them out. So that's useless.
@Nicole B. Weaver There's HOUSEKEEPING? Tell me more! Heh, this actually sounds like something I'd enjoy if I were eligible (all of it, not just the housekeeping) $275/week doesn't sound that affordable, but I guess when including meals and internet and New York, maybe it's not that bad.
@steponitvelma Thanks for the clarification. I'm in Canada, where our equivalent, RESPs, are taxed going in (ie contributed with after tax dollars). I never realized that in the States, 529s are basically a way for people (or people's rich parents) to avoid taxes. It's understandable that people whose privilege is threatened would react defensively. Income should be taxed. Income free vehicles favor the wealthy who have money to put in. The incentive should be limited to income free growth, not tax avoidance.
@deb of last year Haha, ok... here's the flip side. I worked all through high school and put the money into savings bonds. My parents had me put them as 'co-owners' so that if I died they wouldn't have to go through probate. Scholarships and savings took me through university, living at home and commuting. When I went to cash the bonds, I found that they already had and considered it was to cover my living expenses while I was in school for 3 years (residence would've been about the same price...) Then, when I started working after school (32k gross), I paid them $750/month in rent which they said they needed for my sister's tuition. Finally when she graduated, I moved out to a cheaper basement apartment (although expenses in total were higher). Nowadays, the money isn't significant, and even back then I didn't really care about the money. And I'll take responsibility for being a doormat. But there was a lot of manipulation going on and nowadays I only help from an emotional distance and with a physical escape route.
@SnarlFurillo I think, personally, that it would be prudent to save (or apply extra to debt) 50%-ish of whatever she's making - just so as not to get used to having near-100% disposable income. There's nothing wrong with living at home, I think it would be nice if it was purposeful and not making you dependant.
Heh, you do you. My parents would LOVE me to move back in with them. Personally, I'd suggest trying to save ~35% of your income or something CLOSE to what you'd be spending on shelter on your own. Otherwise, you might become accustomed to a percentage of disposable income that you'll never have again.
I've found out that I enjoy just staying home on my vacations. It's not that I don't have fun traveling and doing exciting things - but I find that it doesn't recharge me like staying home and relaxing. I usually end up needing to rest after traveling!