The recent spate of rich people whining about their taxes and either being shown to be liars and/or idiots(Ben Stein and Todd Henderson) amuses me.

I'm not sure if this is a parody of them or the most hilarious one yet:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/09/earni...ot-in-my-town/

After all, the core conceit of all of these whines is a fundamental misunderstanding of how marginal tax rates work. Yeah, maybe $250K isn't rich. I mean, it is and it's insulting to claim otherwise, but I'll pretend that it isn't. People making $250k won't see their taxes go up under Obama's tax plan.

One of the more amusing episodes of this lately: NHL goalie Dan Ellis, who recently tweeted "I can honestly say that I am more stressed about money now than when I was in college". He makes $1.5m a year, I believe.

I don't get it

wow we have very different views of "rich"

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that $250K is or isn't rich?

I'm pretty sure that Fly is saying that $250K is rich...

if $250k is rich then rich has lost it's meaning and instead now means "more than me"

$250k is pretty clearly rich imo. It's towards the lower end of "the rich", but they are still rich. It seems unreal to me that people suggest that it not rich.

It's not the best way of measuring stuff like this (though I can't think of a better way off the top of my head), but what do you think the poll result would look like for that question. My gut reaction tells me that a huge majority (like 80%+) would say that $250k is rich, and I think you could get majorities to designate people on significantly less money as rich.

Brian, what percentile of income do you think $250k a year puts you in?

I mean, this is amazing. I'm like "LOL look at these out of touch idiots who think $250k isn't rich" and he literally restates the same thing.

Yeah, I mean, 5x the median family income might as well be peanuts.

Oh well. At least folks like you did well in France circa 1789, so good luck.

Wasn't someone on here the other day claiming that for quite a large number of families, $250k was very little and was living "paycheck to paycheck." LOL

Yeah, it comes up pretty often, like the people in that OOT thread who said that living on $60K/year in New York is basically poverty.

I'm really shocked by how ignorant some people are of what it actually means to be poor.

The hilariously out of touch stuff is great, but I'd rather focus on the core innumeracy and misunderstanding of how marginal tax rates work. Even if $250k isn't rich, that's fine, because you need to make more than that to be adversely affected by Obama's MASSIVE TAX INCREASE.

I had to explain this to some people I work with the other day. They're good liberals, but they still don't understand how taxes work. So they were saying "Well, if your taxes are higher at $250K, why don't people just get paid $249K?" "Well, even if your tax rater is higher, you're still netting more money, because you don't pay that higher rate on all of your income, just some of it." "......."

lol go back to your cake

Monthly take home pay for 250k is probably 12500 or so. A 800k house and leasing two nice cars could easily push 7k/month. Add in private schools, saving for college/retirement, entertainment, and miscellaneous bills and it's easy to see how a family pulling in 250k could be living paycheck to paycheck.

So now living in an 800K house, leasing two cars and putting your kids through private schools isn't rich?

WTF is wrong with you people?

teeheehee

when i encounter people this stupid who are "good conservatives" i usually secretly wish they would tell people they are liberals

my issue with calling $250k rich is that you are using a specific term that is now in effect all encompassing of everything from $250k/yr family doctor to $400M/yr Warren Buffet

Yeah, I mean, I like them, they're friends of mine, and I agree with them on most positions, but they have them for all the wrong reasons.

depends on where you are. an $800k home in San Fran isn't much to look at and the private school may be a necessity (ask Obama)

In a lot of housing markets an 800k house is nothing special. You can call them rich if you want but I was speaking to the fact that many families making 250k are in fact living paycheck to paycheck. And those families aren't necessarily living a lifestyle that is even remotely extravagant.

Well how would you feel about comparing a $30 million/yr health care CEO to Warren Buffett? Is it OK to call both of them rich?

i ninja edited that in my haste on the lol salary of Buffet

yeah, but i mean the term rich has had a connotation of a guy that doesn't really have to worry about money.

When you list a whole bunch of completely unecessary, luxary, expensive crap that people don't need, it's very easy to make rich people seem like they are living "paycheck to paycheck". It seems a complete abuse of language (or at least taking the literal meaning of the phrase to the point of absurdity while ignoring its actual meaning) to suggest that someone on $250k is living paycheck to paycheck.

You know what people on $250k who are living "paycheck to paycheck" can do? Spend less on **** they don't need. Easy.

Many poor people who really do live paycheck to paycheck don't have that sort of luxury **** to shed, they are already living on basics, and shedding any more can often be stuff that is far more necessary to a healthy, balanced life.

Yes, this is the problem. "Rich" includes connotations of a truly luxuriant lifestyle, i.e. mansions and sports cars, etc. Our household income is over $300k (Canadian) but we own one house on a modest lot, don't even have a car, and don't have money just piling up around us. We are definitely upper middle class, but it's nothing compared to the truly "rich", i.e. generic CEOs that take in millions per year.