ST. LOUIS (First Alert 4/Gray News) – A former teacher at a high school in St. Louis who resigned after her OnlyFans page was reported to district officials has been fired after just days on a new job. Brianna Coppage was a teacher for five years, spending two at St. Clair High School. She was ... R...
The important piece of this to me is this: She made $1 mil on OnlyFans and $42k/year as a teacher. She wants to be a teacher despite making plenty of money from other sources. This tells me that unless you have other evidence of impropriety she's someone we want in the classroom. It also reinforces my stance, along with plenty of other studies that have been performed, that a universal basic income won't stop people from working.
Pay people better and we'll just keep working because we like it. It's part of being human, but we shouldn't be suffering to survive at the same time.
Add in that id you don't blow it all, you get to count the interest income. A long term investment gets about 6-7% per year. That's actually more than the teaching job pay.
To go the other way, her tax bracket is a lot higher than the base salary alone would be. And if it's $1m in a year, almost all of that will be in the highest bracket.
If shes single, her combined effective federal and Missouri income tax is around 40%, so she took home roughly 600k. If she's married, then her total effective tax is 25%, so she took home 750k.
For the 600k investment at a conservative 4%, which right now you can get in some savings accounts, her interest alone would be 24k/yr. For the 750k, it would be 30k/yr.
With a more realistic return of 7-8% in today's high interest rate markets, both of those sums would net more than her old salary of 42k/yr.
People probably will choose to work on different things though. It's harder to exploit a workforce that isn't as desperate. That's the real reason why UBI isn't happening.
My school had a sex ed class although I can't honestly remember anything that we were told in it. But basically if students managed to get to the end of formal education without getting pregnant that was generally considered to be a success.
They seriously had no real interest in educating students at all.
yeah - we had a sex ed class in highschool too - it didnt take. small town but close to 35% of my graduating class dropped out due to teenage pregnancy (or died because of drunk driving).
Depends if the school's in Texas or not. But more broadly In my experience the problem is that they go on and on about no sex outside of marriage which is an unrealistic expectation, and don't actually ever explain things like preventatives.
While I'd trust this person to do a good job better than the teachers hired by Catholic schools, being an Only Fans performer doesn't really qualify you for that.
Ditto. Ive met countless older people now who kept up doing the work they were passionate about, even if it in time became a hobby that they did at a loss. People like to work. They like to see the fruits of their labor take shape before their eyes, and they like feeling like theyre doing something that benefits someone other than themselves.
As it stands, the rules we live by only reward the infinite pursuit of profit, but that doesnt align with the values people find themselves holding whether they like it or not.
I was fired at the beginning of the year. I had sufficient funds I coulda retired if I wanted to. I’m not quite 40.
It’s been 2 months and I am so fucking bored I got a job. I didn’t go get a part time job to fill my time, I got a job in my field continuing to work at “my level” because it fulfills me.
I’m now able to do what I want because I want to rather than because of some existential need. My work product is WAY better.
a universal basic income won't stop people from working
A bit offtopic, but I came to the same conclusion during a somewhat philosophical discussion with a friend who expressed skepticism with the increased automation aspect of the world, and we extrapolated this into a hypothetical world where almost everything was automated.
His concern was that one day humanity could find themselves dependent on an automated system over which they had no control.
My response, being a bit of a techno-optimist, was that:
We kind of already do
Someone has to keep this system running
Even if I was paid an UBI, I would still like to be part of #2.
I'm the kind of guy who makes the little gears spin so that the cog can turn, and I derive entertainment from reviving broken complex systems, and I wouldn't want it any other way
I completely agree. I tinker and change my PC to parts because it's fun. Did it make a difference to performance? Kinda. Was the effort put forth because of performance alone? No. People like making Legos and just put them on a shelf. There are consumer products where the customer is paying to do the work themselves for little gain above the fun of the journey. Why wouldn't it expand to many other areas? And if there's not enough people willing to do something, make it worth their while to fix it, but that's already a problem and UBI isn't the big smoking gun people claim it to be.
We ARE dependent on systems over which we have no control, since a LONG time, the hell are you on about? One cog in this machinery busts, and you die, and you won't be able to do a thing about it.
Edit: jesus I was drunk when I wrote this shit, sorry
Average investment returns are (conservatively) 8% per year, with a safe draw down being 4% per year. Which means she can safely withdraw $40,000/yr indefinitely without her investment decreasing in value over the long run.
Easily enough to retire in a decent cost of living area if she wishes, or work a small side job to boost her income to support a higher cost of living.
Especially considering she was making $42k annually as a teacher (according to another comment, I didn't actually read the article). So she was able to live on roughly that amount already.
Realistically, she could continue to create OnlyFans content for some time and make and invest more than the initial $1m.
The safe withdraw for an extended early retirement is 3.5%
With 4%, while the chance is small, you could end up running out of money.
Someone did all the numbers for 35-40+ years looking back historically, and there were 4 or 5 years where if you started then and didn't adjust your plan, you'd run out of cash.
yea but you can teach all life long, whereas on Onlyfans you... uh,... nevermind
y'all misunderstood my post, I think. I was trying to joke about the fact that even if you're getting on in years, there will always be an audience for your OnlyFans. Anywayyyy
Yeah, except she can go makeinimum wage working full time for benefits and call it a day. You can live on minimum wage if you also have a mil in the bank to start. One door closed but a bunch of others opened. She can do that job you want that you don't do because it doesn't pay much.
You also have a weird notion about benefits, and employers willingness to give full time hours so you even qualify. But that's not even the slightest bit related to this discussion.
Most folks with the degree and certification required to teach can find another full-time job that offers benefits, e.g. health insurance (which even a million dollars will get burned up quickly if a serious medical issue arises and you have no insurance).
But I think the point you're missing is that she can continue making shit loads of money on OF for as long as she can while also working another job, as OF isn't exactly something you need to 8 hours a day to do (though, some models probably do when you factor in advertising and getting your name/rep established).
You can't pay for groceries with your net worth but given million bucks I'd retire immediately. That amount of money invested to the stock market pays around 50 - 70k interests every year and you get to keep the million.
Someone else calculated that $1 million is about 30 years of the teaching salary. So you cannot retire on a career either.
If I were forced to choose I'd take the $1 million up front over a low-paying career and let it grow in the market while I found other work to avoid using it. $1 million up front over $1.3 million across 40-some years is a very good investment. Consider the decreased value of future money.
I have no idea why you're being down voted. You're absolutely right. You can't live on back interest from $1M, so you have to invest it, and while some years you'll make more than 10% average invested in the stock market, over 10 years you'll average 8% because some years you'll not only make no returns but you'll lose some of your investment. Which means if you're living off those returns, some years you'll have to eat into those investments, slowly eating down the money you have making money for you. You're paying taxes on those returns, and if you're living off them, they're considered short term investments and you pay a higher tax rate - because you pay taxes on returns on your investments.
Rich people get richer because they have other income and can leave the money and the returns untouched; they aren't living on the returns until they have far more money invested than $1M.
You’re paying taxes on those returns, and if you’re living off them, they’re considered short term investments and you pay a higher tax rate
(US tax info) Investments are taxed as long term (the lower tax rate) if you hold them for at least a year. Meaning, after the very first year, there is no reason to every pay the higher short term capital gain rates. A solid strategy is to invest in index funds and hold them for decades. If you aren't retired, put the dividends back into more index funds. The long term trends earn you (conservatively) 8% per year average.
The capital gains which you are, supposedly, drawing off of to live on (this was the original premise) is short term capital gains. The amounts you draw in your loss years are, yes, long term, and taxed at a lower rate, but that's the hole in the boat causing your revenue stream to sink - the bigger problem is that what you draw from ROI is taxed at the higher rate.
You don't get taxed on losses, or on loss years, whatever that means tax-wise. You get taxed on gains, period, which is the increase over your basis. Less than a year held is short-term, more than a year is long.
Yep, people acting like it's plausible for someone to retire and live the rest of their life renting a room, at the same income as they got fresh out of college.
Plus they're citing studys aimed at 35-40 years life expectancy, for someone retiring in their 20s, maybe early 30s.
And in one breath will decry the inflation calculations being cited by the government to show we have a "healthy" economy. And in the next, try to pretend cost of living isn't sky rocketing and someone can live the rest of their long life on 40k/yr.
That's lemmy for you, though. No point fighting the tide.
Edit - also, I'm sure those studies probably included some amount of social security helping out, which you're not getting if you retire in your 20s.
I think they just mostly don't understand economics, taxes, or have spent any time thinking about these things. Which isn't surprising, because why waste time thinking about it when it's increasingly unlikely to happen to you? Not understanding it is one thing, but thinking and then voting with your hormones is another.