Jump to content


A question for the Democrats


The_Godfather
 Share

Recommended Posts

First of all, please don't turn this into a McCain vs. Obama argument, as I have mentioned many times I am not voting for either, in fact at this point I am rooting for an Obama win for a myriad of other reasons. But I have a question for the Obama faithful (you know who you are) regarding his tax plan: I assume none of you make over $250,000 a year, if you do even better..so let's make this a hypothetical question. Let's say you make exactly $250,000 a year, you're not rich, but you live comfortably. Would you rather A. be taxed an additional ten % a year or B. Give an extra $25,000 a year to charity? or maybe C. Start a small business with that $25,000 as seed money.

 

If you choose A, does that mean you trust the government will spend your money better than you could? Would you honestly have no qualms about giving that extra $25,000 when you already get taxed a high rate (let's say 20%) and yet you see that the government (republicans and democrats) has put us in a huge hole? Maybe it's not a question of would you rather, but instead a question of would you be comfortable giving the government that extra money when you obviously know how to make money and the government only seems to know to print money and create debt.

 

I know it seems like a baiting question, but I'd love some honest answers. I think a lot of people who support this plan think just this is just play money and it doesn't matter if some people are going to get taxed more as it isn't one of them...but if it was...how would you feel about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

Nonetheless, this is a pretty interesting question. I think if I made 250 a year, I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes. I would understand that the middle class cannot afford to have a tax increase at this point. I would understand that I can still live extremely comfortably. If it means having to put off buying that new fancy toy, so be it. I would understand that times are tough right now, and that I would have to get rid of the "me first" mentality and do what is best for my country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

 

Yes it is. It's amazing that this is even in debate. I live in D.C., which next to NY and maybe San Fran, is the most expensive city in America. If I made 250k, I'd be living one hell of a life. You may not be mansion rich, but you are far from middle class. Bills don't make you hurt. You're not using coupons. You can eat out anytime you want and not look twice at the bill..unless you're a cheapskate.

 

Not taking a shot at you, but I think this is one of the reasons McCain is not doing so hot. He wants to actually argue that 250k is some sort of middle class line and defend that line in the sand. Most Americans still dont make six figures, let alone 250k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

 

 

Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

 

Yes it is. It's amazing that this is even in debate. I live in D.C., which next to NY and maybe San Fran, is the most expensive city in America. If I made 250k, I'd be living one hell of a life. You may not be mansion rich, but you are far from middle class. Bills don't make you hurt. You're not using coupons. You can eat out anytime you want and not look twice at the bill..unless you're a cheapskate.

 

Not taking a shot at you, but I think this is one of the reasons McCain is not doing so hot. He wants to actually argue that 250k is some sort of middle class line and defend that line in the sand. Most Americans still dont make six figures, let alone 250k.

 

Well, I don't define it as a middle class, but I still don't think it is rich either. I also think that's not the main point, the point being that people who make 250k might better know how to spend that extra money to either create more jobs, more wealth, or through philanthropy than the people who put us trillions of dollars in debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

 

wtf? What planet are you living on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not voting for Obama (obviously), but I will agree with Puma. 250K is rich IMO. I've lived decently for the last few years with my wife not making even 50K a year. So if I were making 250K, I would probably just be happy and somewhat unconcerned about my tax burden to a certain extent.

 

That said, I think you should have made this a poll and simply ask who people trust to spend their money efficiently: government, volunterr/charity organizations, or themselves?

 

I'll throw in also that I was making my below-50K-per-year in the DC area, just over the line into MD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

 

wtf? What planet are you living on?

 

 

again...rich to me is in a different category than comfortable. Rich is when you don?t have to work for your money, your money works for you. 250k will buy a lot of nice things, but it is not RICH.

 

It's a matter of semantics, but for the sake of this argument it doesn't really matter (this is not the point of the thread) and it still doesn't answer my hypothetical question of how you would feel paying an extra 25k a year to the government if you make that much instead of being able to choose how you would spend that money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

 

 

Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay?

 

 

Also, where do you get your figures from? The current top tax rate is 35%, meaning you would pay $87,500 in taxes. Under Obama, you pay 39%, or $97,500, so a $10,000 increase.

 

Now the way I see it, if you make $250k under Obama, after taxes, you have $152,500. If you make $50,000, under Obama, after taxes, you have $37,500 after taxes plus $500 in a tax break, so leaving you with $38,000.

 

So as a person who makes $250k, would I like to keep the additional $10k? Of course. But as a person making $50k, would I also like to keep my $12,500? Absolutely. Fortunately, our tax policy is not based on selfish motives. It's based on who can afford to handle more of the tax burden.

 

So in reality, I would always like to be someone who ends up with $152,500 after taxes than someone who has $38,000 after taxes.

 

I would rather be someone who has no problem paying bills, has a big screen TV, drives a nice reliable car, goes out to eat where I want, and lives comfortably, then someone who has car that breaks down, has to turn off the heat because the bill is too high, and has a 19in crappy tv with no HBO.

 

So if I get to choose, comparitively speaking, Obama's tax's plan isn't the worst thing in the world for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

 

 

Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay?

 

 

Also, where do you get your figures from? The current top tax rate is 35%, meaning you would pay $87,500 in taxes. Under Obama, you pay 39%, or $97,500, so a $10,000 increase.

 

Now the way I see it, if you make $250k under Obama, after taxes, you have $152,500. If you make $50,000, under Obama, after taxes, you have $37,500 after taxes plus $500 in a tax break, so leaving you with $38,000.

 

So as a person who makes $250k, would I like to keep the additional $10k? Of course. But as a person making $50k, would I also like to keep my $12,500? Absolutely. Fortunately, our tax policy is not based on selfish motives. It's based on who can afford to handle more of the tax burden.

 

So in reality, I would always like to be someone who ends up with $152,500 after taxes than someone who has $38,000 after taxes. So if I get to choose, comparitively speaking, Obama's tax's plan isn't the worst thing in the world for me.

 

The 10% figure was hypothetical, but the 10K number works. You say our tax policy is based on who can handle the burden, but my point way of looking at it is shouldn't the people who know how to earn money be allowed to keep more of it in order to spend it on things like job creation or charity? For people who support Obama, does it come down to not trusting these people with their money and you'd rather have the government handle that extra 10k? It's an honest question that I am interested in hearing the answer from people who support the plan.

 

 

BTW - where did you get the figures for Obama's tax plan, and what is his breakdown for the middle class if you have it?

 

edit: just wanted to add that for argument's sake I will absolutely concede that 250k is rich and back pedal on my earlier statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

 

wtf? What planet are you living on?

 

 

again...rich to me is in a different category than comfortable. Rich is when you don't have to work for your money, your money works for you. 250k will buy a lot of nice things, but it is not RICH.

 

It's a matter of semantics, but for the sake of this argument it doesn't really matter (this is not the point of the thread) and it still doesn't answer my hypothetical question of how you would feel paying an extra 25k a year to the government if you make that much instead of being able to choose how you would spend that money?

 

First of all, I know it doesn't relate to the topic, but I already answered the question anyway. I'm just baffled at the fact that someone doesn't think 250k is rich anymore.

 

There is no clear-cut definition of "rich", but I disagree with your definition. My definition of rich is simple; Making a lot of money. Is 250k a lot of money? For most people, yes.

 

I think your idea of "having your money work for you" is called being filthy rich :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

 

 

Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay?

 

 

Also, where do you get your figures from? The current top tax rate is 35%, meaning you would pay $87,500 in taxes. Under Obama, you pay 39%, or $97,500, so a $10,000 increase.

 

Now the way I see it, if you make $250k under Obama, after taxes, you have $152,500. If you make $50,000, under Obama, after taxes, you have $37,500 after taxes plus $500 in a tax break, so leaving you with $38,000.

 

So as a person who makes $250k, would I like to keep the additional $10k? Of course. But as a person making $50k, would I also like to keep my $12,500? Absolutely. Fortunately, our tax policy is not based on selfish motives. It's based on who can afford to handle more of the tax burden.

 

So in reality, I would always like to be someone who ends up with $152,500 after taxes than someone who has $38,000 after taxes.

 

I would rather be someone who has no problem paying bills, has a big screen TV, drives a nice reliable car, goes out to eat where I want, and lives comfortably, then someone who has car that breaks down, has to turn off the heat because the bill is too high, and has a 19in crappy tv with no HBO.

 

So if I get to choose, comparitively speaking, Obama's tax's plan isn't the worst thing in the world for me.

 

Obama would also apply the payroll tax on incomes over $250k so that would be another $15k from someone making $250k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

 

 

Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay?

 

 

Also, where do you get your figures from? The current top tax rate is 35%, meaning you would pay $87,500 in taxes. Under Obama, you pay 39%, or $97,500, so a $10,000 increase.

 

Now the way I see it, if you make $250k under Obama, after taxes, you have $152,500. If you make $50,000, under Obama, after taxes, you have $37,500 after taxes plus $500 in a tax break, so leaving you with $38,000.

 

So as a person who makes $250k, would I like to keep the additional $10k? Of course. But as a person making $50k, would I also like to keep my $12,500? Absolutely. Fortunately, our tax policy is not based on selfish motives. It's based on who can afford to handle more of the tax burden.

 

So in reality, I would always like to be someone who ends up with $152,500 after taxes than someone who has $38,000 after taxes. So if I get to choose, comparitively speaking, Obama's tax's plan isn't the worst thing in the world for me.

 

The 10% figure was hypothetical, but the 10K number works. You say our tax policy is based on who can handle the burden, but my point way of looking at it is shouldn't the people who know how to earn money be allowed to keep more of it in order to spend it on things like job creation or charity? For people who support Obama, does it come down to not trusting these people with their money and you'd rather have the government handle that extra 10k? It's an honest question that I am interested in hearing the answer from people who support the plan.

 

 

BTW - where did you get the figures for Obama's tax plan, and what is his breakdown for the middle class if you have it?

 

edit: just wanted to add that for argument's sake I will absolutely concede that 250k is rich and back pedal on my earlier statements.

 

Are you essentially advocating trickle down economics? Let the rich keep more of their money and when they spend it, jobs will be created? It seems to that, for all intents and purposes, we have engaged in that approach for the last 8 years and we still have major problems as a nation that are going to require spending. There are programs that I would like to see the government undertake, and I see it as the necessary avenue to get things done.

 

I don't buy the libertarian argument that charity can resolve most of our issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money.

 

At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan.

 

If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan.

 

 

Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay?

 

 

Also, where do you get your figures from? The current top tax rate is 35%, meaning you would pay $87,500 in taxes. Under Obama, you pay 39%, or $97,500, so a $10,000 increase.

 

Now the way I see it, if you make $250k under Obama, after taxes, you have $152,500. If you make $50,000, under Obama, after taxes, you have $37,500 after taxes plus $500 in a tax break, so leaving you with $38,000.

 

So as a person who makes $250k, would I like to keep the additional $10k? Of course. But as a person making $50k, would I also like to keep my $12,500? Absolutely. Fortunately, our tax policy is not based on selfish motives. It's based on who can afford to handle more of the tax burden.

 

So in reality, I would always like to be someone who ends up with $152,500 after taxes than someone who has $38,000 after taxes. So if I get to choose, comparitively speaking, Obama's tax's plan isn't the worst thing in the world for me.

 

The 10% figure was hypothetical, but the 10K number works. You say our tax policy is based on who can handle the burden, but my point way of looking at it is shouldn't the people who know how to earn money be allowed to keep more of it in order to spend it on things like job creation or charity? For people who support Obama, does it come down to not trusting these people with their money and you'd rather have the government handle that extra 10k? It's an honest question that I am interested in hearing the answer from people who support the plan.

 

 

BTW - where did you get the figures for Obama's tax plan, and what is his breakdown for the middle class if you have it?

 

edit: just wanted to add that for argument's sake I will absolutely concede that 250k is rich and back pedal on my earlier statements.

 

Are you essentially advocating trickle down economics? Let the rich keep more of their money and when they spend it, jobs will be created? It seems to that, for all intents and purposes, we have engaged in that approach for the last 8 years and we still have major problems as a nation that are going to require spending. There are programs that I would like to see the government undertake, and I see it as the necessary avenue to get things done.

 

 

 

 

I'd argue that by saying that 35% tax rates is by no means 'trickle down economics'. Getting slightly off topic now, but what programs would you like to see the government undertake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue that by saying that 35% tax rates is by no means 'trickle down economics'. Getting slightly off topic now, but what programs would you like to see the government undertake?

 

Well there are two aspects to it. I'd like to see increase education and veterans spending, etc. But I'd also like to see programs that have gaps or oncoming issues shored up instead of having a hatchet taken to them like medicare, medicaid, and social security. I'd also like to see a reduction in the defecit.

 

Do I think everything will happen? Probably not. But I do think it will require a tax plan that does see some increases at least some point. Maybe not immediately so as to not infect the wound further(Obama has already said he would delay the tax increases).

 

Btw, I consider myself a liberal in the sense that I think societal problems should be addressed. But I don't necessarily believe that ineffective programs that are not working should be perpetuated. I think Obama shares that neo-liberal philosphy that government is not always the solution and reasoned solutions should be thrown at problems, not ineffective ones that just throw money or government at the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are two aspects to it. I'd like to see increase education and veterans spending, etc. But I'd also like to see programs that have gaps or oncoming issues shored up instead of having a hatchet taken to them like medicare, medicaid, and social security. I'd also like to see a reduction in the defecit.

I'll agree with you on veterans, but I don't understand this point of view with education, and when I heard Obama on the last debate my jaw was just on the floor at how basically disregarded the point made by the moderator. We spend more per child in public schools than almost any other country in the world, and yet we perform poorly at all levels in all subjects in comparison to the world. If you look internally, you see school systems like in DC, which spends one of the highest amounts of money per student, and yet is one of the worst performing. And yet the first thing you and Obama have to say is more spending on education. I would hope its clear that first of all, a lack of money is not the problem. And if money's not making the difference, why would more money make a difference? Second, there's just no authorization under the Constitution for the Federal government to be involved in education. Not to fund it, not to regulate it, nothing.

And you won't shore up anything or cut the defecit unless you cut spending somewhere.

 

Btw, I consider myself a liberal in the sense that I think societal problems should be addressed. But I don't necessarily believe that ineffective programs that are not working should be perpetuated. I think Obama shares that neo-liberal philosphy that government is not always the solution and reasoned solutions should be thrown at problems, not ineffective ones that just throw money or government at the problem.

I don't think anyone argues that "societal problems" shouldn't be addressed. We just happen to think that government isn't capable of solving these problems, and usually just ends up creating more problems to "solve" with our money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250 k a year, you are rich. You are living way more than "comfortably". You're obviously not an extremely wealthy millionaire, but you probably drive some nice luxury cars and live in a big fancy house.

 

With the devaluing of the dollar, the decline in housing prices and the stock market, I'd argue that 250k is not rich anymore.

 

$250K hasn't been rich in my lifetime. Rich people have money that works for them, and people making $250/year are still working for their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$250K hasn't been rich in my lifetime. Rich people have money that works for them, and people making $250/year are still working for their money.

I guess I'm just unfamiliar with this idea that being rich means you don't need a job. I guess not being rich myself attributed to that.

 

I still would consider myself rich if I had 250K a year. Might not get me a Lambo, but I sure wouldn't have many worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$250K hasn't been rich in my lifetime. Rich people have money that works for them, and people making $250/year are still working for their money.

I guess I'm just unfamiliar with this idea that being rich means you don't need a job. I guess not being rich myself attributed to that.

 

I still would consider myself rich if I had 250K a year. Might not get me a Lambo, but I sure wouldn't have many worries.

 

If you lost your job making $250K, and you had $250K type stuff ($50K car, $1.5m house, gadgets) you would be screwed, just like the rest of us. Nobody would buy your house for enough to cover the mortgage, you couldn't pay your car, etc. Rich people can have money arrive just for breathing.

 

All of this ignores the sole proprietorship that makes $25K/month, but the owner keeps about $5K / month of it. The increased tax rate would likely cost somebody their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...