$500 is still less than the one-time price of Photoshop back when it was sold in boxes. Photoshop is well worth $120/year if you're able to use a big enough fraction of its power.
One way to look at it, then, is that you don't use enough of what Photoshop can do to be worth it, so you can stick with whatever simpler tool you prefer and save the money. Another option, though, is to realize that there's a lot of power there to be had, and it's worth spending the time to learn to harness it.
I put it that way because I keep coming across people who talk about their favorite image editor as "just as good as Photoshop" for their purposes while they clearly have no idea what all Photoshop can do. Here's a tutorial I did for Photoshop once that probably can be done only in Photoshop:
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/57233/4141
Now, I don't expect you to need to retexture pictures of couches, but I'll bet if you read through that tutorial, you'll be surprised that such things even could be done in off-the-shelf software. Then realize that I'm not even a full-time professional in graphical arts. If I can pull off such tricks, what can a real expert do with it?
By the way, Lightroom was another $120 or so for the initial license when it was last sold in boxes.
Then there's all the upgrades, which you also now get as part of the subscription.
Your $50 just isn't apples-to-apples.