|
Post by bobbysgirl on May 18, 2011 15:02:57 GMT -5
If you want to read it go to my blog and choose 'series' at the top of the page. Then scroll down to find the post Found it. Nice blog! ![](http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff155/JiminiChristmas/smileys/button49554436.png) Why, thank you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on May 18, 2011 15:10:34 GMT -5
12,000 from the newsletter per year
TEEPEE, 12.00 per subscription and 100000 subscriptions each year for 4 years or more.
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on May 18, 2011 15:15:42 GMT -5
I thought the EITC wasn't made refundable until the mid or late 90s though. Wasn't it included in the whole package of changes in Clinton's workfare instead of welfare thing? A non refundable tax credit wouldn't help them at all since they were living on such a small income they wouldn't have had federal tax liability anyway. If there was no tax liability, shouldn't that be taken into account in the final income figure?
|
|
|
Post by mtshastawriter on May 18, 2011 15:16:43 GMT -5
Isn't it amazing how anxiety regarding health care and health insurance costs has eroded our risk tolerance? Right. Someone earlier in this thread said it is borderline neglect to not provide braces for a child who needs them. How long has this been the standard in the US? Sometimes I think this board contains many well paid people who just plain don't understand what it is to be lower income in America right now.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,951
|
Post by haapai on May 18, 2011 15:24:48 GMT -5
It's not just low-income folks who are unnerved by it and take fewer risks as a result. Even higher income people are thinking longer and harder before saying, "Screw the rat race, we're creative and resourceful people who can figure out another path."
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,533
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 18, 2011 15:29:35 GMT -5
There are quite a few people on here who at one point weren't high earners. DH and I aren't what most people on here would consider "well paid".
What people don't get is CHOOSING to drop down to an income level that is below poverty level and living like that.
Kudos to them for being able to do that AND pretty much have everything they want and if they get their jollies by buying expired food so they have one more dollar in the wallet then that is their business.
But you are going to have people scratching their heads. Most people do not CHOOSE to live on a poverty level income and scrape together every penny.
Then again, they did not get where they are just because she pinched some pennies buying used shoes. They'd not be where they are without his pension, his free health care and her publications.
All those things she did helped them succeed, BUT it wouldn't have been possible without some pretty hefty doses of luck.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 18, 2011 15:33:30 GMT -5
Sometimes I think this board contains many well paid people who just plain don't understand what it is to be lower income in America right now. I disagree. I think that many of us see a difference between being lower income by choice (retiring at 40 on a income well below the poverty threshold) & being lower income without a choice (disabled, low-paying jobs, etc). I think it is fair to judge someone in the first category for not doing enough for their children, but unfair to judge someone in the second who is doing everything they can to improve their life. I also think that standards of living have changed. I've seen several arguments that they are living the way people did 100 yrs ago, while this is true, it isn't 100 yrs ago. Things have changed & we can't judge them based on 100 yr old standards, but need to judge them by todays standards as far as what should be considered minimal care provided for children.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,533
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 18, 2011 15:45:04 GMT -5
Pretty much I object to it being called "the good life". Yeah it is great they have a paid off house and paid for their kids' college, but they are still eating expired food, wearing used shoes, etc. They are still living a life of poverty.
We can argue all day that we do this and we do that from The Tightwad Gazette, but would any of us REALLY WANT to live on $14k a year? Let alone with 6 children?
Implenting her ideas can be helpful towards acheiving finanical balance and meeting your desired goals, but come on do you REALLY want to spend your life eating expired food just because it saves a buck?
There is something a wee bit off about their lives. If it makes them happy and doesn't cause any harm more power to them, but I am not going to pretend they are a totally normal couple who just happened to find the truth that set them free.
They do not "have to spend every dime they earn" like some people jump to the conclusion of. There IS a medium ground between eating expired food and filet migon.
The fact that they are content staying at the poverty line BY CHOICE is rather odd to the majority of people.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on May 18, 2011 15:45:52 GMT -5
I also think that standards of living have changed. I've seen several arguments that they are living the way people did 100 yrs ago, while this is true, it isn't 100 yrs ago. Things have changed & we can't judge them based on 100 yr old standards, but need to judge them by todays standards as far as what should be considered minimal care provided for children. Well said. ![](http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff155/JiminiChristmas/smileys/button29934414.png)
|
|
Frugal Nurse
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 18:19:55 GMT -5
Posts: 988
|
Post by Frugal Nurse on May 18, 2011 15:51:59 GMT -5
Mtshasta: lets not twist words, ok? What I said was refusing to get a paying job and being unable to give your kids braces is borderline neglect. And I do think that providing your kids with what they need is standard in the US, even if it means giving up your own dreams.
|
|
ses
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:18:37 GMT -5
Posts: 654
|
Post by ses on May 18, 2011 17:19:02 GMT -5
I have to admire what this family accomplished 20 years ago before many even knew what a frugal lifestyle was. Today among those who laud making a small footprint on the environment, many of these actions are being used and celebrated. Why is this family who lived this lifestyle 20 years ago being denigrated?
In the last census the median household income in their area was about $38,000/year, their income was probably about $30,000/year(inflation adjusted), with money set aside for college expenses. Not bad for a family with a paid off home, minimal health care costs, and a federal pension income flowing in. Not to mention paying cash for several college educations.
I don't see it as her DH retiring and not working a job. He retired from the Navy and worked in a small family business in the publishing industry, at the same time being very active in their community and church. (I believe he also did some part-time work as an electrician. Have any of you paid the hourly wages of an electrician lately.)
About the "surprise muffins--haven't you ever eaten left overs or made a stir fry from vegetables available in the fridge? I do remember smiling when Amy determined growing carrots in the garden was not cost effective.
"I remember an awful lot of what you call impoverishing her kids from my own childhood and I was never poor. My mother had an extremely cavalier attitude toward food expiration dates and didn't believe in shelling out money to keep kids entertained. They were willing to pay half of any book that we wanted in the bookstore but if we wanted to go fishing we'd have to dig our own worms. I'm 42.
I don't remember seeing that obsessive child-enrichment culture (sports, lessons, SAT prep, application stuffing etc.) take off until the mid-nineties. It was taking off in affluent and urban areas sooner, but it took a bit longer to reach the sticks (and the folks who lived in non-stick-built homes).
Since they lived in a semi-rural LCOL area 20 years ago, judging by my own semi-rural LCOL area today many of those child enrichment options were not available. And if they were involved in Scouts they would have been exposed to more of those experiences than you might know.
Children are not deprived by living in a safe home, with basic food and clothing and a loving family and an opportunity for an education.
I believe this family has accomplished a great deal through long term planning and persistence. I only wish I had been as motivated.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,603
|
Post by giramomma on May 18, 2011 17:38:46 GMT -5
What are today's standards then for "minimal" care for providing for children?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on May 18, 2011 17:44:54 GMT -5
What are today's standards then for "minimal" care for providing for children?
My own opinion:
-Healthy, consistent diet
-Emotionally and physically safe housing
-Reliable transportation
-The best healthcare you can afford (this would include major dental work - JMO)
-At least one sober, healthy, reliable, consistent parent
-Education through a high school diploma - and in this day and age, I would say this includes regular access to computer with Internet (a TV is not necessary, though)
-Sufficient financial resources to provide all of the above without major help from outside sources (or at least a solid plan to one day have sufficient financial resources to provide all of the above without major help from outside sources).
I have very little respect for parents who fail to provide any of the above.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on May 18, 2011 17:50:28 GMT -5
To be fair, I suppose this family did actually provide everything I just mentioned in that list for their children (except the first, which is debatable), and even then some. But IMO they couldn't have done it without enough luck for all eight lifetimes.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 18, 2011 17:59:36 GMT -5
At least one sober, healthy, reliable, consistent parent And that parent needs to have the balls to get the other parent out of the kid's lives if said other parent is an addict or abusive.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on May 18, 2011 18:15:33 GMT -5
And that parent needs to have the balls to get the other parent out of the kid's lives if said other parent is an addict or abusive.
Good addition. I was thinking in terms of single parent households, but yes - providing for a child absolutely includes getting shitty sperm or egg donors out of the picture.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on May 18, 2011 18:17:56 GMT -5
I think this family eats healthier than most Americans. Their garden is 8,700 square feet. They can and preserve everything that they grow to eat all year round. They cook EVERYTHING from scratch -no preservatives. She mentioned taking the family to McDonald's ONE TIME for a special treat. They did buy expired pink and green marshmallows: sugar, preservatives, dyes. She may have made a lot from scratch, but obviously was not opposed to processed foods. From the article: "On this trip, Jim comes to a full stop before a display of green and red marshmallows shaped like Christmas trees. The bag is five months past the sell date, but the price is sweet: 43[cents] for a 10.5-ounce bag. Jim gives a pinch. "They're still soft," he says, tossing two bags into his cart. "I'll use these to make trail mix for the kids." "
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 19, 2011 0:49:45 GMT -5
Mold is probably the only danger and that is on the surface and visible. Mold is only visible at a certian point. Before that there's still mold present, just in smaller amounts. It probably won't make you sick though... probably.
|
|
teppe2
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:52:48 GMT -5
Posts: 73
|
Post by teppe2 on May 19, 2011 4:11:30 GMT -5
Frugalpain,
their initial plans were to charge $1.00 per newsletter and were hoping for 12,000 subscriptions a year. They obviously did much better than that.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 19, 2011 6:30:49 GMT -5
The only dangerous mold that I am aware of is aflaxtoxinUmmm, not quite. Aflatoxin is the toxin that is produced by certain molds and can grow on many other substances as well, not just peanuts. Mycotoxins are also other substances that are produced that can cause harm. Mold is insidious and its spores can go deep into a food, so scraping off or cutting off the moldy part depends a lot on the density of the food that you're looking at salvaging (i.e. hard cheese isn't so much a problem as a soft cheese). There is no way in hell I would eat moldy marshmallows that were thrown in a bin of powdered cocoa. That contaminates the entire container of cocoa with mold spores. In the wrong person - anyone who is in the least immunocompromised via a myriad of reasons (treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, organ transplant, congenital immunodeficiency, etc.) this could be a death sentence for them. www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/molds_on_food/
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 19, 2011 7:40:58 GMT -5
The only dangerous mold that I am aware of is aflaxtoxin There is no way in hell I would eat moldy marshmallows that were thrown in a bin of powdered cocoa. That contaminates the entire container of cocoa with mold spores. www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/molds_on_food/ There is no indication that anyone in this family ate moldy marshmallows. They were 5 months old. On the extreme couponing thread a poster is bragging about buying candy with coupons that she plans to give trick or treaters 5 months from now. She's getting "attagirls" from some of the same people who are deriding the Dacyzcns.
|
|
happyscooter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 9:04:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by happyscooter on May 19, 2011 7:42:30 GMT -5
I found some Easter candy on sale last month. Do you think the chocolate rabbits will be any good next year? (sorry, I had to do that. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ;D)
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on May 19, 2011 8:31:02 GMT -5
I have an issue with the article. It shouldn't be named living the good life on 17580. They aren't. It should be can you retire on $17580 pension, when you have a home paid for, have free medical insurance for life,and have assets of like a million in the bank.
Skippin stupid stuff like marshmellos is there anyone here who honestly thinks they can't? I know I could and I don't live in a LCOL.
And I said "could" not "want". ;D
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,533
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 19, 2011 8:33:59 GMT -5
It shouldn't be named living the good life on 17580. They aren't. It should be can you retire on $17580 pension, when you have a home paid for, have free medical insurance for life,and have assets of like a million in the bank ![](http://us.social.s-msn.com/s/images/emoticons/thumbs_up.gif)
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 19, 2011 8:49:44 GMT -5
It shouldn't be named living the good life on 17580. They aren't. It should be can you retire on $17580 pension, when you have a home paid for, have free medical insurance for life,and have assets of like a million in the bankThey saved up and paid for their home. Then they saved for the kids' college and their own retirement on $17580 - while developing the newsletter business. The free medical ins was part of his military retirement.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on May 19, 2011 9:01:23 GMT -5
It shouldn't be named living the good life on 17580. They aren't. It should be can you retire on $17580 pension, when you have a home paid for, have free medical insurance for life,and have assets of like a million in the bankThey saved up and paid for their home. Then they saved for the kids' college and their own retirement on $17580 - while developing the newsletter business. The free medical ins was part of his military retirement. He wasn't in the military at the time? ![](http://boards.msn.com/Themes/default/emoticons/confused_smile.gif)
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 19, 2011 9:11:35 GMT -5
It shouldn't be named living the good life on 17580. They aren't. It should be can you retire on $17580 pension, when you have a home paid for, have free medical insurance for life,and have assets of like a million in the bankThey saved up and paid for their home. Then they saved for the kids' college and their own retirement on $17580 - while developing the newsletter business. The free medical ins was part of his military retirement. He wasn't in the military at the time? ![](http://boards.msn.com/Themes/default/emoticons/confused_smile.gif) beachbum, Did you read the article? He retired from the navy in 1991 (he had been an electrician). The article was written in 1997. His military pension was the main source of income while they were raising kids, and saving for college and retirement.
|
|
qofcc
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,869
|
Post by qofcc on May 19, 2011 9:22:06 GMT -5
I really don't think this is some herculean feat. I supported a family of 4 with a SAHP on $24K salary in a LCOLA the mid 90's with no government assistance. When you consider what I was paying for a mortgage and health insurance and gas to commute 2 hours/day, I was living on less than $17,580 and so were a lot of my neighbors. It wasn't fun, but nobody was holding me up as a shining example of being frugal either.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on May 19, 2011 9:24:38 GMT -5
"The financial success of Amy's newsletter and of two subsequent books, The Tightwad Gazette and The Tightwad Gazette II (her third, The Tightwad Gazette III, is due out this month from Villard for $12.99), could have made scrimping a nonissue. The Dacyczyns will say only that their net worth is close to $1 million. Here's how the dollars add up: The newsletter, which cost $12 a year and at its peak had 100,000 subscribers, likely brought in several hundred thousand dollars in profit over six years. And the 460,000 books she sold gave Amy an estimated $500,000 in advances. Meanwhile, the family continues to live almost entirely on the $14,000-a-year pension that Jim has collected since retiring in June 1991. "
The article is quite clear. They had additional income. They are just choosing not to spend it for living expenses. which brings me back to my question.
Who here couldn't live on $17k if they had a million in the bank and a paid for house? I know I could and I live in a very HCOL area. This is simply about choice.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 19, 2011 9:29:24 GMT -5
" The financial success of Amy's newsletter and of two subsequent books, The Tightwad Gazette and The Tightwad Gazette II (her third, The Tightwad Gazette III, is due out this month from Villard for $12.99), could have made scrimping a nonissue. The Dacyczyns will say only that their net worth is close to $1 million. Here's how the dollars add up: The newsletter, which cost $12 a year and at its peak had 100,000 subscribers, likely brought in several hundred thousand dollars in profit over six years. And the 460,000 books she sold gave Amy an estimated $500,000 in advances. Meanwhile, the family continues to live almost entirely on the $14,000-a-year pension that Jim has collected since retiring in June 1991. "The article is quite clear. They had additional income. They are just choosing not to spend it for living expenses. which brings me back to my question. Who here couldn't live on $17k if they had a million in the bank and a paid for house? I know I could and I live in a very HCOL area. This is simply about choice. I agree that it is all about choices. But they didn't start out with a million in the bank. I think in the beginning, the house wasn't completely paid for either. They chose to live on half his pension (and what he earned doing electrical jobs on the side and the newsletter which grew as time went by). They also didn't start out with 6 college funds either. The article is about what they accomplished while raising 6 kids -and his pension was the only guaranteed income.
|
|