I really thought I identified in principle with the principle of a completely free market. But the idea of someone on 250k/yr saying to themselves 'grr they only spread the myth that i'm rich so that they can feel better about stealing my money' makes my stomach turn for some reason. Maybe it's jealousy. Hope not.

That is true, but what I am saying is if you are considered fat in America, you are definitely considered fat in Ethiopia.

Again, someone who is rich in Ethiopia may not be considered rich in America, but someone who is rich in America would definitely be considered rich in Ethiopia.

Yes, really. They are all talking about taxable income. Some guy decided that the proposed tax plan where income tax rate for taxable income above $250,000 goes up, but not for any other taxable income is ridiculous or whatever because he has more than $250,000 in taxable income and he doesn't feel rich. This became a minor internet scandal, which led to the original poster making a post about it.

Obviously there are degrees. I just disagree with your view of where 'rich' starts. Grossing 250k only puts someone in the well-off category. What if you just went from poverty to signing a $1 million 4 year sports contract? THat's 250k/year gross, but there's no guarantee you'll have any income after the 4 years. You're not rich by any reasonable standards.

Also, weighing 400 lbs is the fatness equivalent of being worth hundreds of millions imo. To me this is closer to you calling a 230lb guy fat just based on him weighing 230lbs. Maybe he's a 6'+ bodybuilder!

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

- Frederic Bastiat

As far as your sports player is concerned, you know you can be 'rich', and then 'not rich', right? People win the Powerball and are bankrupt a few years later. Does this mean they were never rich? Defining rich as something that has to be permanent is not very productive.

Secondly, I am willing to concede that the 'fat' example was a bit off. So let's change the size to 275 lbs. and the adjective to 'big'. Is that better?

I don't see being rich as something that absolutely has to be permanent, but I think you should take the long term into account and look at the whole picture. When you're grossing 250k/year you don't feel rich. The money is coming slow. It's a mere $500 or so per day after taxes.

Powerball example seems disingenuous. The prizes are so big nobody would try to argue the winner isn't rich. That person needs to be incredibly irresponsible to go broke.

Oh well. Stupid thing to argue about.

Rich is something like smart and 250K is like being average at an Ivy league school. Yes that person is "smart". But yes there is nothing amazing about that person and they are much closer to the average person than say a faculty member at the same school. But people are not that restrictive when they use the term smart.

This all devolves into a sort of notion that:
$X/year taxable income in the US= rich, regardless of all variables.

It also disregards the fact that if $250k/year is rich, $249k/year would be middle class (upper or not). The income disparity would be much larger amongst the rich than the poor and middle class.

A family of five with one household income
$25k/year = poverty
$26k-$249k/year = middle class
$250k/year - $2 billion (and including all possible income up to ∞) = rich

Disparity among the classes
$2,400k/year* - $25k/year: lowest income 9.6% of highest income
$26k/year - $249k/year: lowest income 10% of highest income
$250k/year - $2b/year: the people some call rich may earn 0.0125% of the people at the higher end of "rich"

*I used $2400 as an extreme minimum for survival in the US for the family of 5

Just off the cuff.

And I avoided using infinity for obv. reasons.

Of course. That's how it should be. That is true for smartness as well. English is already pre-made with this in mind as you can say things like very rich or incredibly rich which wouldn't apply to most people making 250k/year. Aslo, we should really talk about the average salary a person makes from 25-50 or something like that. If you are 50 now and averaged 250K in that stretch, rich is a reasonable term.

There is also poor and incredibly poor. I am saying the disparity is making people hone in on a low number. We also have dumb (below average IQ) and incredibly dumb (legally ******ed etc). English has that built in as well, this not justify or lend reasoning to any gap outside of poor goes to $0 and rich goes to the sky in dollar terms.

Yes, establishing an average would help.

I have no idea what you are talking about (probably from lack of effort on my part). There should be more difference in income/wealth amongst rich people themselves than the lowest difference between rich and poor or the lowest difference between rich and middle class. If not only a handful of people could be rich.

I agree, based on the floor for poor being $0 and the ceiling for rich being billions of dollars ($1 trillion etc).

Yeah, so 250K is probably enough to be rich just like having a BA from Harvard is enough to be smart.

I just feel the real disparity lies in the classes of the rich. Also using yearly income totally discounts inherited wealth. If Citizen X makes $160k/year at a law firm but inherited $175million last year, he is rich.

It is as generic to say that. So in general I won't disagree with that as a generalization.

I change my mind!

I'm rich!

I don't think 'feeling rich' is a very good quantifier either. Just because many people who are obviously rich don't feel it.

Also, the 'mere $500 per day after taxes' thing sorta made me chuckle.

Well, a lot of people think that anyone making 250K a year would be irresponsible to go broke.

Of course it is.

The only reason I'm posting here is out of the shear absurdity of some of the statements made by people who make around this sort of money complaining about getting taxed.

Don't get me wrong, I really have no interest in tax rates on the rich. I really couldn't care much less about finance or government affairs. I just wish these folks would say "Look, I know I'm rich, but I refuse to pay more in taxes. Eat poop." Hell, I'll hold a sign at their ****ing rally.

It just doesn't sit right with me when people say "But, I have 3 kids in Shady Wood Prep, and my 3 leased BMW's, and my $4000 a month mortgage, and my gardener, and my masseuse, that 3% tax increase (only on the income over $250,000), well, I just can't afford it."

HahaOhWow.jpg

Fortunately, Im in the top 1% bracket.

Am I rich?? Well, 9 years ago I made 40k/yr. After busting my ass and through a helluva lot of hard work, I make more than 10x that and my commute is approximately 10 feet (from my bedroom to my office). Ive been extremely fortunate, especially in this economy while seeing struggles from a lot of close friends/family.

What bothers me is the amt of taxes that I pay. Over 100k in fed last year and over 35k to NYS. Factor in a bunch of misc taxes (2x soc sec/mcr since Im a corp) and the A.M.T (10k) and you get ass raped by the govt. Then take out 401k (max) AND other misc taxes (property--1600 mnth) and you go further down the ladder.

Now, I'm not complaining here..I know a bunch of people would love to be in my shoes. The point I'm trying to make is that WHEN/IF you get to the point of making 250k or so, you will see (and be pissed) what it is that the govt actually **** you on. Its easy now to say....yeah if I made that $$ I wouldnt mind this or that...but if you make it to this point, you'd better believe that you will. Especially since this crooked govt constantly looks to raise taxes on "us" when 1/2 the population doesnt pay federal tax.

To put this in perspective...if you're making 40k/yr and the govt is taking 40-45% of your $$, would you be happy about it? Of course not. But its ok to take that much from people who make 250k/yr because they "have" it. Seems fair to me

There's a reason we have a 1000+ post discussion on what qualifies as "rich": It's a value-laden word. Just like "stealing". If you can convince yourself that something qualifies as "stealing" you'll find it easier to condemn it.

The % might be the same, but the difference is that it's a little harder to survive on 20k/year than 200k/year. For instance, you're probably not at risk of starvation.

Your right that you made the money and are pretty much getting robbed by the gov't, especially considering it's hard to see where exactly that money is going. But, taking half from someone making 40k is MUCH different than taking half from someone making 400k.

Some guy with an income of 20k/yr isn't at much risk of starvation either.

You know what I meant.

I completely agree with you. My issue isn't with the fact that people in your economic situation don't want to pay more in taxes. My issue is with the reason some of those people give.