Notwithoutawarrantmister: September 2010

On September 2nd, 2010 I had the chance to be a part of an event that signaled a look inside of the type of programming that will lead to this economy turning around. The number one issue in the minds of all America and around the world is the economy. It seems as if the economy has stabilized but with the housing market still showing no signs of improvement, consumer spending still stagnant, top line growth for businesses being nonexistent, and the banks have made living room chairs of their surpluses of cash...the main thing that can fix all of these problems is more jobs! If we had more jobs there would be more people to purchase homes, more money to be spent, the top line of businesses could see growth making hiring possible, and more capital flowing around the economy making the banks less timid to lend money.

People are looking far and wide for job creation and job placement programming that are effective. As a community activist who constantly works with and refers people to programming that can assist someone to obtain gainful employment, I have seen many that are good and many that are not so good. I didn't expect to find one of the most successful programs that I have ever seen at a food bank of all places!

That is right...a food bank...the Community Food Bank of New Jersey. This is no ordinary food bank. Here are some of the things they have been able to accomplish:

• They have produced and served over 400 million pounds of food since its inception in the 1970s.

• They feed over one million people in New Jersey every year.

• They feed people in 19 of the 21 counties in New Jersey

• They average serving over 21 million pounds of food per year, but because of the recession last year they served over 34 million pounds of food.

• They feed over 1300 children per day Monday through Friday in their afterschool program and over 250,000 children per year.

• They effectively stretch each donated one dollar to purchase $11 worth of food.

One might be asking, "This is great but how does this provide jobs?" On September 2nd, Kareem Hertzog, Executive Director of The Optimum Institute of Economic Empowerment, and I were invited to keynote a graduation ceremony of their food service training academy. They take people from all walks of life that live in the New Jersey area and train them for careers in the food service industry. All of their graduates earn their skills by going through a rigorous 14 week, all hands on, on the job training program that effectively prepares the students for exactly what they will be doing on the job when they begin work. The classroom time is limited as they are too busy in the kitchens assisting to produce over 5,000 pounds of food per week. Over 90% of their students find employment because of their obtained experience in this program. The price for this program to the students is zero! They each were able to receive a $4,000 scholarship through a collaboration of private donors who all believe in the program and in the people in their community.

On this day they saw their largest graduating class to date...over 30 students. We saw students, many who were living in halfway houses, smiling bright because they were offered hope and access to actually find employment. They now had acquired culinary skills that they could take around the world into any restaurant. The smiles, the hugs, the outpour of family member support, and the promise of a new day were all things that touched my soul on this day because I was witnessing something truly tremendous. I thank Executive Chef Paul Kapner for allowing us to be a part of this day and urge you to please continue with your fabulous work. It is needed and you are truly making an impact.

Don't take my word for it...watch the video below to see the type of day we had.

159 Responses to “$250,000 is a Lot of Money”

Tony says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:39 am

Did you read that book “Richistan?” It said studies show that when you ask people how much money would make them feel comfortable, people invariably say “twice as much as they have now.” No matter how much they make, it’s always about half as much as they need.

Don Williams says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:42 am

But having wealthy neighbors drives up the cost of living — not just for housing but for retail and service items as well.

Not for all items — one can order clothes,etc from LL Bean’s catalog, order items over the internet, travel to less expensive areas,etc.

But Where does the tax code recognize differences in local cost of living factors?

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:44 am

One of the craziest notions to take hold in American politics

In London our Mayor says the £250,000 he earns for writing a newspaper column is “chicken feed”. It’s not only in America.

Also, more tax brackets isn’t a great idea, it’s complicated and by playing with rates and thresholds three brackets allows you to approxiamte any sensible effective rate curve.

2

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:45 am

Why do SON and DAD have an easier time posting here than I do?

pete says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:56 am

Anyone who says $250k is not a lot has some serious ’sense of entitlement’ issues. Which is a good quality in a politician, since a good chunk of the country does as well.

The CAP Cleaning Staff says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:21 am

First of all there’s substance and there’s politics. On the political side, people seem to identify with the $250k crowd more. So by targeting them for tax increases you’re making a politically difficult task into a much more difficult one.

More importantly, there are some differences between the $250k and $2.5m crowd that go beyond the actual amount of money being earned. It’s possible to earn $250k in a year if you’re a small business owner or even a good real estate broker (though maybe not in this market) but it requires constant effort and may not last. One bad year or an illness and you’re back down to a much lower sum. So your average yearly income ends up being much lower even if $250k is the high water mark. Whereas if you make larger amounts it’s likely that you’re earning (or saving up to earn) investment income, so your risks tend to be much lower. You may lose half your income in a bad market but you’ll never be poor.

James Robertson says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:32 am

Unless you’re a small business – in which case, if you operate as a sole proprieter, you could easily have “income” of $250k, and not qualify as anything resembling rich.

of course, progressives can’t understand that, because it would require that they actually pondered the real world.

Erik Lund says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:42 am

You’re right, Mr. Robertson! If only there were some way to deduct business expenses from income tax payments. Then, finally, the world would be fair.

magurakurin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:53 am

@7 umm, no you’re wrong. Income and revenue are not the same thing. A small business pays tax on income not revenue. A small business might “easily” have revenue of a 14 million(but that is still a lot of sales) but even with that much in sales their income would surely be much less. Even with a profit margin of %50 you would need a half a million in sales to hit the marginal rate. Since %10 is often considered a decent profit you’d need 2.5 million in sales to hit the threshold. But even then the extra tax is only on the money above $250,000. Anything under $250,000 is taxed at the much lower rate. So if you imagine the small business owner “easily” making 300 grand in PROFIT, only 50 G’s would come in at the higher rate.

But you know that, you are just hoping other people don’t, But in that case you are on the wrong blog.

KC says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:56 am

James @ 7:

I’m not progressive, but I still “can’t understand that”. Earning more than $250k in your sole proprietorship makes you rich in exactly the same way that earning a $250k salary makes you rich. Taxes are not levied on revenues. They are levied on profits. If I sell $250k worth of product and had $200k for, my “income” from my sole proprietorship is $50k, and I’m taxed accordingly. I’m not rich… and I won’t be taxed like I am, either. If I sell $500k and have $250k of expenses, my profits are $250k, and I’m as “rich” as someone with a $250k salary.

Or have I not “pondered the real world?”

TOK says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am

Also, more tax brackets isn’t a great idea, it’s complicated and by playing with rates and thresholds three brackets allows you to approxiamte any sensible effective rate curve.

Huh? Adding more brackets is one of the simplest changes you can make to the tax code. It’s all of the deductions and credits and crap that make the code insanely complicated. Once you know what your taxable income is, you look up the amount you owe in those little tables in the 1040 booklet–or the amount is calculated for you if you use a program like TurboTax. Additional brackets won’t make either of these an iota more complicated.

Try 2…

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am

“Anyone who says $250k is not a lot has some serious ’sense of entitlement’ issues.”

It is a lot. OK ? But if you have 2 or 3 kids, then it

still leaves you with solidly middle-class concerns: buying

a house in a good school district, paying ever-increasing

out-of-pocket healthcare costs, saving for college, saving

for retirement. It doesn’t get you a private jet and

months in the Bahamas.

Now in a different kind of society, where good childcare

and education and healthcare and a decent pension are

provided for everyone, the $250K income could get you a

fair bit of luxury. But in the USA it really doesn’t:

it gets spent in just the same ways as for a family on

$50K or $100K – housing, childcare, education, health,

food, college, retirement – albeit obviously providing more

and better in each category.

I’d prefer a society where we had more taxes and better

public schools and pensions and single-payer healthcare and

suchlike. But as things stand, a lot of the $250K goes

towards those basics, one way or another.

dbeach says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am

I don’t see what the big deal is. The White House should just respond to people like Himes by saying, “OK, fine. We’ll end the Bush tax cuts for everyone making over $1 million. Is that rich?” My guess is such a policy would not actually cost all that much revenue relative to the $250K threshold, since such a huge share of income is claimed by the very richest taxpayers. Moreover, since this would still be vehemently opposed by Republicans, you would be forcing Republicans to claim, ridiculously, that people earning more than a million bucks a year are “small business.”

So I guess that puts me in the “add more tax brackets” group. Just because earning $250k makes you objectively affluent doesn’t mean there isn’t a very big difference between that and $3 million.

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich. 1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes, and a substantial portion goes into our relatively small two bedroom Brooklyn apartment. I’m not saying we don’t have enough money, but we’d actually like to try to build some wealth and save money so we can get off of the overworked track we are on. Apparantly this is some sort of moral evil to progressives, who seem to believe that unless you are a professional athlete or a celebrity, you have no real right to try to earn a decent living and build some security for yourself. I don’t have a natural aversion to taxes, but I do have an aversion to people saying “take more from that guy, he’s rich and won’t miss it”.

@9 and 10– the point is that a small business owner who makes $250,000 isn’t quite the same as a law firm lawyer making that much. A small business owner is at far greater risk of income fluctuation (maybe the $250k year was a great year with a lucky break), and a good potion of that income may end up staying in the business, which you will be taxed on anyway whether you take it out of the business or not.

Ryan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:19 am

Unless you’re a small business – in which case, if you operate as a sole proprieter, you could easily have “income” of $250k, and not qualify as anything resembling rich.

I play on a soccer team with someone named “James Robertson”, and I really hope you’re not him, because if you are, I’ve seriously misjudged how dense my teammate is.

3rd

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:30 am

Absolutely righteous beat down on well deserving idiot James Robertson.

Now bring on the NYC assholes bitching about how expensive Dalton is.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:33 am

An oncology nurse at Dana Farber in Boston with 15 years experience makes 150k. The median Boston cop makes 104k. Are you telling me that a household made up of a cop and a nurse is rich?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Kanchou says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:39 am

@9 and 10– the point is that a small business owner who makes $250,000 isn’t quite the same as a law firm lawyer making that much. A small business owner is at far greater risk of income fluctuation

I don’t read abovethelaw.com religiously, but $250,000 is about a mid-level/senior associates (4-6 years) salary plus market bonus in big law, or just the people who are looking forward to “up-or-out” partnership decisions. They do in fact face great risk of income fluctuation.

Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:42 am

@14: Apparantly this is some sort of moral evil to progressives, who seem to believe that unless you are a professional athlete or a celebrity, you have no real right to try to earn a decent living and build some security for yourself.</i?

Drop the stupidity and the self-pitying bullshit, and then try to get your whiney little head around the simple concept of the "marginal rate."

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:43 am

Also, more tax brackets isn’t a great idea, it’s complicated and by playing with rates and thresholds three brackets allows you to approxiamte any sensible effective rate curve.

Right now, the person making $250,000 pays more in taxes than the person making $25,000, which is only fair and right. But the person making $2,500,000, the person making $25,000,000 and the person making $250,000,000 pay taxes at the same rate as the person making $250,000, which is just bizarre. (And considering that more of their income probably comes from capital gains and less from labor income, they’re probably paying less as a total percentage). Or, As James Surowiecki put it:

LeBron James and LeBron James’s dentist: same difference. This makes no sense—there’s a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates….This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue.

Second try: sex fuck.

Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:43 am

Well, THAT was a crappy job of closing my tags, wasn’t it? Sorry.

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:44 am

I don’t read abovethelaw.com religiously, but $250,000 is about a mid-level/senior associates (4-6 years) salary plus market bonus in big law, or just the people who are looking forward to “up-or-out” partnership decisions. They do in fact face great risk of income fluctuation.

Absolutely. Unless you become a partner, for most associates making that much money $250K is about the outward bound of their income. It’s actually much like professional sports: you only have a relatively few years of high-income and then you’re up or out.

James Gary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:47 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich.

Are you telling me that a household made up of a cop and a nurse is rich?

Sort of slow today….usually the “I’m earning X and I don’t feel rich” comments show up in the first fifteen minutes or so.

2

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:49 am

I tend to think Bob Roddis is the dumbest regular here, but now I think it’s just that he’s more prolific than James Robertson. JimBob easily wins the stupidity/word prize.

4 fuckity fuck fixthefuckingcomments

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am

Sort of slow today

Really. Private school, people, you’re supposed to complain about the cost of private school. That’s how these threads are supposed to work.

Justin’s almost there: he told us how much he makes and the fact that he lives in New York, but he hasn’t complained about private school yet. Come on, Justin, even if you and the wife don’t have kids yet, you will someday. Start bitching about private school!

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich. 1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes, and a substantial portion goes into our relatively small two bedroom Brooklyn apartment. I’m not saying we don’t have enough money, but we’d actually like to try to build some wealth and save money so we can get off of the overworked track we are on. Apparantly this is some sort of moral evil to progressives, who seem to believe that unless you are a professional athlete or a celebrity, you have no real right to try to earn a decent living and build some security for yourself. I don’t have a natural aversion to taxes, but I do have an aversion to people saying “take more from that guy, he’s rich and won’t miss it”.

Just goes to show you that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. The median income in Manhattan is less than $70K/year. I’m sure its even lower in Brooklyn. If your apartment runs $5000/month you are only giving up 25% of your take home pay which is extremely low for anywhere in NYC. And if your apartment costs more than that, I don’t see how you can expect any sympathy. If you were willing to accept a quality of life more comparable to the actual average American instead of your extremely wealthy boss or coworkers, you would be able to save plenty of money. No one claims that wanting to be rich (or working to get there) is a moral evil. But complaining about how put upon you are when the typical household is trying to make do with less than 1/7 your income just highlights how weak your political argument really is.

2

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:53 am

Are you telling me that a household made up of a cop and a nurse is rich?

Sort of slow today….usually the “I’m earning X and I don’t feel rich” comments show up in the first fifteen minutes or so.

Well, do you consider them rich?

How much should someone, who makes a reasonable effort to educate themselves and make prudent career choices, be making by the time they are 35?

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:54 am

It is a lot. OK ? But if you have 2 or 3 kids, then it

still leaves you with solidly middle-class concerns: buying

a house in a good school district, paying ever-increasing

out-of-pocket healthcare costs, saving for college, saving

for retirement. It doesn’t get you a private jet and

months in the Bahamas.

Absolutely. I have a friend who makes $300K in Colorado and the guy lives like a baron: he has a gigantic house, another weekend house on a lake, several cars, a boat, a share in a private plane, and he takes several skiing and hunting and beach vacations a year. Of course real estate prices and tax rates where he lives are relatively low, and he sends his kids to public school.

But the people making a similar amount of money in Manhattan can’t afford to live in anywhere close to that style: they basically have a middle-class life: they pay high state and local taxes, they live in small apartments, they don’t own cars or weekend houses, they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on private school for the kids. They’re comfortable, but aren’t in any way living on champagne and caviar.

Just for insurance: sex fuck

Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:55 am

How much should someone, who makes a reasonable effort to educate themselves and make prudent career choices, be making by the time they are 35?

The answer to that question has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

pereubu77 says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:56 am

Along with Justin @14, I’ll bite. First, for Democrats, the problem with drawing the line at $250,000 is that, while many people might not make that much, many people can imagine making that much. $250,000 is simply in a different league than $2.5 million. With two spouses working it is $125,000 each. Two police officers could make that much, or two engineers, or two mid-level corporate bureaucrats. Second, when you look at household income, you are looking at the incomes of retirees, of students, of single earners, etc. A 25-year old might not be making $125,000 at this time but could very reasonably expect to do so at some point in his or her career. Third, as Justin and others point out, $250,000 in NY, SF, or LA doesn’t go that far.

mark f says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:58 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich. 1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes, and a substantial portion goes into our relatively small two bedroom Brooklyn apartment. I’m not saying we don’t have enough money, but we’d actually like to try to build some wealth and save money so we can get off of the overworked track we are on.

It always amazes me when someone who claims to make something in the top 10% of incomes complains to strangers about how hard it is to make ends meet. As if us lesser beings don’t have similar concerns, but with fewer resources. 90% of us are going to be predisposed to not give a shit about your whining, guy.

Dave C says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:59 am

My parents managed to raise two kids on less than $50,000 per year total salary for about 25 years. Just sayin’.

SON says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:02 am

DAD I AM HOMOSEX

DAD says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:02 am

SON I AM DISAPPOINT

James Gary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am

How much should someone, who makes a reasonable effort to educate themselves and make prudent career choices, be making by the time they are 35?

That’s obviously a complex question and the answer depends on various geographical and culutral factors. To take a semi-random stab, though, I suppose my answer is “enough to provide healthy food, clothing, safe housing, healthcare and educational opportunities for oneself and one’s dependents, and ensure a reasonably comfortable retirement.”

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:04 am

If my household had an income of 250k, we would be able to afford a 750k mortgage. Others might opt to buy a nice vacation home. That sounds pretty well off to me. Even in Boston.

Is this thing on? 3rd

Bob Oso says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am

I can’t speak for other areas but at $250K you can do very well in Texas. Maybe not rich but you are way better off than a majority of Texans.

hetherjw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am

@ Justin # 14:

“…1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes…”

No, 50% of your income is not “eaten up by taxes.” First, this is a conversation about income taxes with a top marginal bracket quite a bit below 50%. Second, it is a top MARGINAL bracket so only income above the threshold gets taxed at that rate, not all of your income. Finally, even if we include all taxes (property, sales, state income, entitlements, excise etc.) there is no chance your total tax burden is 50% of your gross income.

try 3

applecor says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:13 am

First of all “rich” is a relative term and if your household income is in the top 5% as it is if it is above 250K you simply cannot argue that you are not rich.

Secondly the cop and the nurse making a total of $254K in JMO’s example would, under the expiration of Bush tax cuts, suffer an increase of about 3% of the $4K excess over $250K which is the staggering total of $120 per year. Sure, put on more brackets for the even richer, but please, another $10 a month is not going to bankrupt the cop and the nurse.

kth says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:13 am

Marginal tax brackets, folks: someone making $250,000 will see his taxes go up 3% of that 250,000th dollar, i.e., 30 cents. You have to be making far, far more than 250,000 for your tax increase to be noticeable. So please stop with the crocodiles for the beleaguered annual quarter-millionaire.

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:16 am

If my household had an income of 250k, we would be able to afford a 750k mortgage. Others might opt to buy a nice vacation home. That sounds pretty well off to me. Even in Boston.

Yes, but in Manhattan the average price of an apartment is $900,000 — so that $250K salary wouldn’t cover it to the same extent.

Second try: fuck sex.

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:21 am

“My parents managed to raise two kids on less than $50,000 per year total salary for about 25 years. Just sayin’.”

Yes, but so what ? Obviously half of families have below

median income. And we’d like to make that easier for them.

My point really is that many of the progressive policies

that would help families with below median income can

also be quite attractive to families with $250K income -

those semi-”rich” people have the same concerns about

schooling and healthcare and saving for college. And you

probably want to keep those $250K-a-year people on your

side, because they’re precisely the people who give big

donations to campaigns and have political influence beyond

their numbers.

I don’t mind the idea of modest tax increases above $250K,

but if you want to get all populist then it seems it would

be smarter to hit the $1M-a-year crowd who are fewer in

numbers, and who can’t be just a nurse-and-a-cop, and who

are very probably making much of their money from non-

productive (or less obviously productive) activities like

real estate or equity investments.

Maybe the right way to target it is to have a tax on wealth

rather than income. Take 1%/year on wealth above $5M, and

that would force the wealthy to use it in productive ways.

chris says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:22 am

A 25-year old might not be making $125,000 at this time but could very reasonably expect to do so at some point in his or her career.

And during those years they can and should be funneling some of it into tax-deferred IRAs, so it won’t be *taxable* income anyway.

Not to mention all their other deductions, of course.

Are people really that horrified by the idea that if they and their spouse are both very successful, they might pay slightly higher taxes for a few of the most successful years of their entire careers? Seriously? Atomic theory forbids the existence of violins tiny enough to be appropriate to play a sad song for their plight.

Argus says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:24 am

If the rest of you put as much effort into learning a more marketable skill and working harder as you did on complaining about not taxing “rich people” enough, maybe you could join them in the top brackets

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am

@11 – yeah I don’t like the complications you list, but that doesn’t change that extra brackets is a complication you don’t need and doesn’t achieve anything. It’s only a computational complication, so can be dealt with using computer prorammes, but it hurts understanding, which is masked by tax programs and leads to people having dumb ideas about how income tax works.

@20 – No, LeBron pays a far higher effective rate than his dentist, because he earns far more above the 250k. Any additional income they may make is taxed the same, but his dentist mainly pays tax at the lower rate, so pays an overall lower rate.

Have three rates and you can approxiamte any sensible tax regime.

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:28 am

Yes, but in Manhattan the average price of an apartment is $900,000 — so that $250K salary wouldn’t cover it to the same extent.

My family was from Queens and Brooklyn. They did ok for themselves on less. Living in Manhattan is a choice. As is living on Beacon Hill in Boston or Georgetown in Washington, DC. I admit it is frustrating that the housing bubble basically forced us to massively readjust our lifestyle expectations, but going back to the Clinton era tax rates on 250k+ incomes (and adding higher brackets and closing the hedge fund salary loophole) are still good ideas.

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:29 am

“No, 50% of your income is not “eaten up by taxes.””

You have to add up payroll taxes, federal income tax

(often with Alternative Minimum Tax for families around

the $250K range), state income tax, local taxes, property

taxes, and sales taxes. Don’t know if it reaches 50%, but

where I live it adds up to 35% or so, so it’s a big chunk.

[Aside: that's not a complaint, just an arithmetical fact].

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:30 am

I know my iPhone drafted posts are full of typos, but maybe you should read what I’m actually saying instaed of beating down staw men.

Again, our household income in NY is about $500k and we don’t worry at all about making ends meet. We go on nice vacations, go out to eat etc and live better than people in NY making the median salary. Yes, I could reduce my standard of living and live on less money, but so could a lot of middle/upper middle class America, but that doesn’t make me or them rich. My sister lives in Delaware in a pretty big house in a good school district, goes on vacation to places a little less expensive than where I go, eats out etc and makes much less than I do (less than $250k). So, if she moved into a small two bedroom apartment (the same size as mine), moved closer to work so she could walk, went on vacation in really cheap spots, she would be able to live on far less than she makes, but she’s not rich either. Yes, you can tax people you think are rich so they are leading the same lifestyle as the average earner, but that’s just stupid and counterproductive.

#19. Yeah, everyone gets the marginal rate, and I guess your math skills are good enough to get that $500,000 – $250,000 = $250,000 taxed at the higher marginal rate.

Also, to #38. Yes, 1/2 my income is eaten up by taxes. Between the AMT and, NY city and state taxes that’s about half of our household income. Maybe a little less, but in the vicinity anyway.

chris says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:31 am

Sure, put on more brackets for the even richer, but please, another $10 a month is not going to bankrupt the cop and the nurse.

Especially since they won’t even be paying it, because jmo has dishonestly conflated gross income (which they have slightly over $250k of) with taxable income (which they don’t). Even the standard deduction will easily knock them out of that bracket, let alone if they have a mortgage or kids.

And if they have the experience and seniority to both be making above-median income in their respective jobs, then they’re middle-aged, so probably saving for retirement, so deduct that too. (If they’re not middle-aged yet, then the nurse at least is probably paying off education loans, which are also deductible IIRC.)

To get $250k in taxable income with reasonable assumptions about lifestyle probably requires more like $350-400k gross income (more if they’re doing a lot of retirement saving), at which point it’s *really* hard to argue that they’re not rich.

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:33 am

@44 – Fucking hell you are some kind of moron. I’m 29 and paying top rate tax (£150k+) in Britain. Shit for brains.

2 – fuck sex cunt whatever fix it!

chris says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:34 am

we don’t worry at all about making ends meet. We go on nice vacations, go out to eat etc and live better than people in NY making the median salary

…and still think you’re not rich? Maybe you just need a dictionary or something?

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am

“As is living on Beacon Hill in Boston”

900K doesn’t get you Beacon Hill. It gets you a decent house

in a suburb with good schools, or a decent apartment closer

in.

If people want to keep having this discussion about what

does and doesn’t qualify as “rich”, they ought to do a little

bit of research into how much things cost, rather than assuming

that “2x more than I make” would be enough to buy everything in the world.

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:38 am

Ok, I stand corrected. Just did the math on my pay stub and about 44% is coming out. We ended up owing a little money last year, but I think that should be about right.

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:40 am

Somewhat rich people trying to live the lives of the very rich feel poor.

Michael Lewis’s “Mansion” goes into some detail on this, and the resultant delusions, as demonstrated repeatedly on this thread.

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am

I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich.

You’re rich. You’ve also deluded yourself into thinking that you’re not rich because you’re a pauper to the multi-millionaires in your vicinity. This does not make you a pauper: it just makes you deluded.

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am

900K doesn’t get you Beacon Hill. It gets you a decent house in a suburb with good schools, or a decent apartment closer in.

This is exactly my point. You can’t say, “I’m not rich! 250k-500k barely pays the bills for my co-op, BMW, and bills from my tailor!” If these expenses are your main worry, then you are one of the people who benefitted from the artificially low taxes of the Bush years.

zyxw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:44 am

You make $250,000 you’re rich. Period. End of discussion.

anonymousss says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:50 am

The basic problem here is that the income distribution at the top of the scale is so skewed. Even people who make way more money than most people don’t feel rich because there are all those people who make way more money than they do. A partner at a moderately fancy law firm can easily pull in $500,000 per year, but it’s hard to feel rich when partners at fancier law firms are pulling in a couple million. And it’s hard for those partners to feel rich because their $2 million is so much less than their CEO clients who make $20 million, and those CEO’s find it hard to feel rich because of the other CEO’s making $100 million.

Lauren says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:52 am

To Justin- So your take-home pay, after taxes, is $27,500 a month? Subtract about $4k for rent or mortgage, $1k for food, $2k for other bills, and you could still buy a new car EVERY SINGLE MONTH. And that’s not rich?

TOK says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:53 am

@45

yeah I don’t like the complications you list, but that doesn’t change that extra brackets is a complication you don’t need and doesn’t achieve anything.

I don’t see why it doesn’t achieve anything (earlier you speak of 3 brackets being enough to do anything sensible). It allows you to have a more progressive tax code. Imagine the following income tax brackets, after deductions etc:

–The first $30,000 is taxed at 15%

–From $30,000 to $80,000 is taxed at 25%

–Income above $80,000 is taxed at 35%

If we added a fourth and 5th bracket–oh, let’s say 40% for income above $300,000, and 45% for income above $1,000,000–that would raise an extra crapload of money, which you could use either to (i) fund additional spending, or (ii) reduce the deficit, or (iii) reduce the rates and/or increase the thresholds for the lower brackets [if you want to remain revenue neutral]. And I don’t see that my my proposed 5-bracket is terribly more complicated than any 3-bracket version.

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:55 am

Again, our household income in NY is about $500k and we don’t worry at all about making ends meet. We go on nice vacations, go out to eat etc and live better than people in NY making the median salary. Yes, I could reduce my standard of living and live on less money, but so could a lot of middle/upper middle class America, but that doesn’t make me or them rich. My sister lives in Delaware in a pretty big house in a good school district, goes on vacation to places a little less expensive than where I go, eats out etc and makes much less than I do (less than $250k). So, if she moved into a small two bedroom apartment (the same size as mine), moved closer to work so she could walk, went on vacation in really cheap spots, she would be able to live on far less than she makes, but she’s not rich either. Yes, you can tax people you think are rich so they are leading the same lifestyle as the average earner, but that’s just stupid and counterproductive.

You are not doing yourself any favors here. Only maybe a 100 people on the planet have so much money that they literally can’t find ways interesting ways to spend it all. That’s not how we define ‘rich’. And really, the definition we are using hardly matters. What we are talking about here are families making 5 times or more (in your case 10) the median US household income bearing slightly more of the tax burden. That’s not forcing you to lead their lifestyle. Far from it.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:58 am

Are people really that horrified by the idea that if they and their spouse are both very successful, they might pay slightly higher taxes for a few of the most successful years of their entire careers?

250k is well within the reach of two State College accounting majors who make decent career and life choices.

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices? Should Mike and Peggy the accountants be forced to support Tony who dropped out to play in a Phish cover band and only makes 17k a year?

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:58 am

You make $250,000 you’re rich. Period. End of discussion.

It’s really not rocket science, is it? The ability to live a decently comfortable lifestyle in Manhattan just means that you’re rich.

The angst around here is outta control.

5 fuckity fucking fuck fixthefuckingcomments

AWC says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:58 am

I fall in the group of folks who are unquestionably rich but are not as rich as many of their peers, so I catch myself wondering what it would be like to be “rich.” Of course this is silliness, and I suggest Justin read “Nickel and Dimed” or some other such book and ask himself if monetary struggles bear any resemblance to theirs. We’re all going to spend the money we have, we all are going to feel money pressure, but where the pressure comes makes the difference between rich and poor, not whether their is pressure.

shit fuck 2nd attempt

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:00 pm

@60: I’d like to jump on this wagon as well. The idea that extra brackets complicate anything is one of the many ridiculously stupid arguments in this debate. Figuring tax due from taxable income takes about 2 minutes. The hard part in taxes has always been and always will be figuring taxable income.

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

This thread is the same as all the others. It gives some people an ego boost to brag about how much money while feigning humility about it.

anonymousss says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

To Justin- So your take-home pay, after taxes, is $27,500 a month? Subtract about $4k for rent or mortgage, $1k for food, $2k for other bills, and you could still buy a new car EVERY SINGLE MONTH. And that’s not rich?

You’ve forgotten the salary for the nanny and the chauffeur, the tuition at Dalton ($35,000 per year), and the payments on his teenager’s Lexus.

James Gary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

250k is well within the reach of two State College accounting majors who make decent career and life choices.

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices?

Yes, everyone who doesn’t have a comfortable middle-class existence has only themselves to blame. Next time you’re at the grocery store, jmo, be sure to let the clerk know that she’s made an imprudent life choice. And then hum her a few bars of “Theme From The Bottom,” just to make your position clear.

2

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices?

We can talk about that as soon as you can account for what options are available to different people at different times, how “choices” are made, and the extent to which the existence of less educated labor enables and enhances the effectiveness and utility of “prudent choices”.

Until then, given the fact that as things currently stand there is a large percentage of the population that is guaranteed to be “imprudent” enough to not become sufficiently educated in their early childhood, go fuck yourself with your “tax is thievery!” bullshit.

2 fuckity fuck

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Yes, everyone who doesn’t have a comfortable middle-class existence has only themselves to blame.

So, you don’t have friends and relatives who had made nothing but bad choices their whole lives and do nothing but complain about their sorry lot in life? You don’t even have one looser cousin or idiot brother in law? Everyone you know who’s hard up is hard up because of factors totally outside their control?

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices? Should Mike and Peggy the accountants be forced to support Tony who dropped out to play in a Phish cover band and only makes 17k a year?

Yes, because our economic underclass is pretty much composed of hippie drop-outs.

You do realize that not everyone in dire circumstances is there because of “imprudetn career or life choices”? That people get sick, get laid off, their industries disappear, they get divorced, they get in a car accident and suddenly have $500K in medical bills, or they were just damn unlucky to be born to poor parents in a poor neighborhood with poor schools?

The question is: Should Mike and Peggy the accountants help support Antonia who was laid off from the job she had for twenty years, can’t get health insurance because she has leukemia, and has three small kids to feed?

Third try: fuck fuck fuck fuck!

tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

I will show that I can understand where naive people like Justin are coming from without actually agreeing with them.

How to become a 250k whiner in a few easy steps:

Exchange my condo in a gentrifying neighborhood for a house in the neighborhood I really “want” to live in (but I am not rich because there are still more expensive neighborhoods!)

I have a custom made suit that I got, once. It would be nice to have a few more. Maybe some custom tailored shirts, as well.

That vacation to the middle east and asia i can afford once every few years? Now I can go once every 1-2 years. But it is not like i am travelling in luxury or anything! What do you think I am, rich?

These shoes are kind of chafing. I always wanted a pair of Barker Black loafers.

I am so busy i do not have time to cook for the week and bring it to work. Thankfully there is a good sushi place across from my office. It is not like I am taking lunch at someplace fancy. What do you think I am, rich?

2nd try???

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

So, you don’t have friends and relatives who had made nothing but bad choices their whole lives and do nothing but complain about their sorry lot in life?

No, I don’t have any Republican friends or relatives.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Yes, because our economic underclass is pretty much composed of hippie drop-outs.

So, the underclass isn’t often a victim of it’s own anti-intellectualism? They often don’t put nearly as much emphasis on education as they should?

x4

dch says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Justin, I’m in your boat financially (450k+ in SF, which I guess is a slightly cheaper city). Guess what? I’m rich, and so are you.

Even after my mortgage (6k), student loans, auto expenses, utilities, etc, I can go on a couple of nice trips per year and eat out wherever and whenever I want without looking at the prices on the menu. And save for retirement.

yes, I still have to make prudent choices to ensure my long-term financial security, but these are very minor concerns. If your main financial worries are that it’s hard to save lots of money on your salary, and you might have to keep working at your extremely lucrative job for more years than you’d like, you’re rich.

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices?

Way to pontificate, Pope jmo. What whiny navel-gazing claptrap.

The 40% income tax bracket in the UK starts at around $58,000 at current exchange rates. There’s a tacit understanding that, oh noes, it will apply to professionals; it is not a punishment for success, no matter how much you want to whine about it.

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:23 pm

@60 – It would be very easy to put your 5 brackets into 3 and have the same effective rate curve. You increase marginals, then bring the calculus. It’s just simpler to only have 3. The tax cade can be as progressive as you like with 3 brackets.

2Fuck

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

You don’t even have one looser cousin or idiot brother in law?

I think we’re all agreed that people should be taxed punitively for being unable to spell “loser”. (Unless Pope jmo is now slut-shaming too.)

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

it’s = its

The question was why a nurse and cop might be horrified by paying more. And the answer would be they often come from middle or working class backgrounds and they know numerous people who make nothing but bad choices. They have the pothead brother still living at home and the cousin who got pregnant with by her asshole boyfriend, etc. When asked to pay more they see it as being asked to pay more to support those who refuse to get their shit together.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:25 pm

You don’t even have one looser cousin or idiot brother in law? Everyone you know who’s hard up is hard up because of factors totally outside their control?

And the fact that you assume that, *inevitably*, everyone knows someone like that doesn’t tell you anything? The fact that “bad choices” are extremely common and that their provenance is multifaceted and mostly mysterious doesn’t make you think “there but for the grace of God go I”?

Your parents aren’t alchoholics? That was very prudent of you. The genes that correlate with more risk-taking behavior aren’t strongly expressed in you? How wise. (Except, of course for those in whom it is expressed and it managed to pay off for them, in which case we must fellate them tout de suite.)

Here’s a frosty mug of STFU for you.

2 fuckity fuck

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm

This is just the other edge of the American class delusion, where a bloated definition of “middle-class” consumes “working-class” at one end and “rich” at the other, creating a false continuum of interests between $15k, $50k and $500k households.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Your parents aren’t alchoholics?

Sure they were and violent and chronically unemployed as well. Should that have given me some sort of free pass to fuck up my life?

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:31 pm

@65 – But what do extra bands get you? Nothing! But they confuse people! So why bother?

The idea that extra bands are in any way helpful is one of the rediculous arguments in this debate.

4 Why has Yglesias ficked his own comments thread?

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm

When asked to pay more they see it as being asked to pay more to support those who refuse to get their shit together.

Project much?

I was denominationally inaccurate: jmo’s not a pope, he’s an old fashioned Calvinist predestinarian, where the elect and the damned are identified by their tax brackets.

tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm

The simplicity or complexity of the tax code has nothing to do with the number of brackets involved. Complexity is embedded in the number of deductions and the treatment of different sources of income.

2nd. Fuckity fuck?

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Shorter Wankers: I’m not rich! Do you have any idea how much of my income goes to my collection of Impressionist paintings? The fact that you want me to pay more taxes to enhance the social safety net is like stealing my paintings!

2

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Wow– a lot of nastiness here today. Tyro at #72, it may surprise you to hear that I actually don’t disagree with your analysis. Yes, when people make more money their standard of living goes up– but you can play your little though experiment at any income level (do you really need a separate bedroom for each kid? You can’t go local for vacation? etc). I don’t think I’m whining though. I’ve said a number of times that I don’t have money issues– no kids in private school, we bought a place below our budget, we don’t try to keep up with other people in our professional circles, no four star hotels vacations. So I want to work my ass off to save money so I don’t have to worry about losing my job or taking care of aging parents etc, and I don’t belive that because someone thinks I’m rich that that means they can just not worry about taking more of my money. Calling someone rich is just a nice way of saying “let’s just take more of their money, they won’t miss it, it’ll just mean a smaller yacht to them anyway”. Or, “I can live on a budget of x, so someone making twice as much as me can live on the same budget and all the extra money is just a windfall”.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Should that have given me some sort of free pass to fuck up my life?

How, exactly, is the median child of chronically unemployed alcoholic parents supposed to not “fuck up” their life? It’s already fucked up. You’re too focused on narrative and not on statistics.

Horatio Alger and Ayn Rand are convincing to assholes like you because they write fucking fiction. Next up: jmo explains how lumps of coal from Santa are the bee’s knees!

kevincure says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

These posts about 500k not being rich are utterly ridiculous, and I say this as someone who considers myself a libertarian. Assume take home pay of 250k, which essentially means zero deductions of any kind and no saving, which is obviously a stretch. A million dollar apartment, which is quite nice even in NYC, has a mortgage under 8000 now. One low-level Aston Martin and one BMW 750 lease at 1000 a month each, roughly. It’s hard to imagine, even eating out regularly, anyone spending more than 50 bucks a person per day on food, so 36000 total. Two nice vacations at 5000 per person per vacation would really be top-class trips. We’re still only at 176000, so there’s 84000 to go for clothing and furniture and savings. I mean, that looks pretty damn wealthy to me.

joejoejoe says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Rich is a superlative, like being an A student.

Rich = A

Wealthy = B+

Upper middle class = B-

Middle class = C+

Working class = C

Struggling = D

Poverty= F

You need a 90% to get an A. More than 90% of America makes less than $100,000 a year. The median personal income for somebody with a professional degree (doctor, lawyer) is $100,000. If you make $250,000 you are rich. The amount you complain about it determines whether you are simply rich or a rich asshole. If your neighbor’s Audi A8 makes you feel inadequate, that’s your fucking problem. Go to the gym or something and don’t ruin the tax code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

How, exactly, is the median child of chronically unemployed alcoholic parents supposed to not “fuck up” their life?

Don’t start drinking would be a start. I’m a recovering addict so I know it’s a choice. You can choose not to start and you can choose to stop.

x3 fuck fuck fuckity

joejoejoe says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Shorter everyone making $250,000 complaining they are not rich: I don’t crap in a gold toilet!

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Don’t start drinking would be a start.

So it’s on children to look after themselves. Lovely.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Calling someone rich is just a nice way of saying “let’s just take more of their money, they won’t miss it, it’ll just mean a smaller yacht to them anyway”. Or, “I can live on a budget of x, so someone making twice as much as me can live on the same budget and all the extra money is just a windfall”.

What are we to make of the fact that this is actually true? 10 grand one way or the other really won’t make much of a difference to you, right? That’s 2 percent of your income. Let’s ask the single mom who’s a teacher whether, say, $800 (2%-ish) in either direction would make much of a difference. And, news flash, single mom teachers also want to save up in case they lose their jobs or have to take care of aging parents.

When people talk about rich assholes, this is what they’re talking about.

Ron Mexico says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:04 pm

“But the people making a similar amount of money in Manhattan can’t afford to live in anywhere close to that style: they basically have a middle-class life: they pay high state and local taxes, they live in small apartments, they don’t own cars or weekend houses, they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on private school for the kids. ”

They don’t have to pay for private school, in fact if they do, they’re wasting money, as Manhattan has excellent public schools. If the rich want to spend money on private school that is their prerogative, but that is a question of how they spend their money, not being middle class or lacking funds.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm

DMonteith & Telling Lies,

But, you’re right. No one should be responsible for anything. They don’t choose to drink or get high or drop out or get pregnant – it just happens. No one has any choices in life it’s all just luck.

x4

tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm

I forgot to throw in the overdue home theater and stereo upgrade. We spend as much money as we have until it becomes a bit unconfortable and then use this fact to explain why we aren’t as well off as we obviously are.

jmo is making the mistake in thinking that your tax rate is some kind of reward for not being a fuckup. No: taxes are a means of paying for the operations of government. That some people are chronic fuckups has no bearing on what marginal tax rates are or should be. Want to feel “rewarded” for being successful? Join the fucking rotary club. Or at least enjoy your money and the satisfaction and security of a good career.

2nd. “fucking” in the body of my post was not enough?

Mary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Ok, I’ll play, because I feel like venting.

Hubby and I both have master’s degrees. I am a teacher, knew what kind of salary I’d be looking at and am content with that salary. Hubby has been SOL looking for a professional job since graduating in 09. He has an underemployment gig that brings in $350 a week. It’s seasonal too.

I pay over 10% of my GROSS income in health insurance premiums and bring home something like $2500 per MONTH. We have the extra seasonal money for part of the year, so in a really good month, we bring home $4000, plus those two lovely months per year where there are three paydays.

Our overall gross is something like $60K. We have one child. We do not qualify for EITC or any other federal program. We live outside of the Boston metro area.

WE ARE NOT POOR. But you know what? People making $250K are RICH. RICH RICH RICH. And if you deny that you are rich: 1) you are delusional and 2) you had better step up and declare me eligible for every type of welfare there is, because I am obviously living in the most dire of poverty.

My hubby worked hard and tried to move up the professional ladder and it has gotten him nowhere. Why? Because there aren’t enough jobs.

Oh and I’m feeling generous today, so if anyone wants to trade tax burdens, I’d be willing. I know you $250 K per year types have it oh so hard.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Don’t start drinking would be a start.

Hey, I hadn’t thought of that! Great! Now that we’ve got your plan in hand, we can lower taxes on the rich!

Way to ignore my point about statistics vs narratives, Einstein.

It’s probably too much to hope that this non-response means that you’ll shut up now about the poor put-upon rich people. I know for a fact that hoping you’ll stop wanting to shit on the poor is a bridge too far.

2 fuckity fuck

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

jmo – children? I haven’t read the thread, just seeing if anyone’s still talking tax bands, but seriously, you seem to be saying children should pay the lifelong price of there childish actions. Really?

3 son says I’m gay, does that get me posted?

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm

No one should be responsible for anything. They don’t choose to drink or get high or drop out or get pregnant – it just happens. No one has any choices in life it’s all just luck.

Once again, asshole, statistics. Not stories (with ponies!) that tell you what you want to hear about yourself.

2 fuckity fuck

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

“I mean, that looks pretty damn wealthy to me.”

The calculations look quite different if you have a couple

of kids, especially kids under school age who need some

kind of child care during working hours throughout the year.

And food. And lots of clothes. And future college costs

of whatever the heck a decent college is going to cost

in 2025 (and on current trends, they’ll need a postgrad degree

in hospitality management to have a shot at a job in Starbucks

by then …). And they have to come along on vacations.

Having kids changes everything. And [again, not a complaint,

just a fact] the tax code isn’t particularly friendly to

families with kids in the $200K+ income range: they don’t

get the dependent child tax credit, and they’re likely to get

hit with the higher AMT tax rate.

You can work through some more realistic arithmetic for

yourself if you want to understand it. Or you can keep trying

to score cheap points by assuming I’m driving an Aston-Martin

rather than my 2000 Mazda Protege.

Oh well, best put on my monocle now and get over to my tailor

to see about a new top hat and a pair of spats. Tally-ho,

Jeeves.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

DMonteith,

Explain your statistics thoery – I’m not familiar with it.

fuck fuck x2

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Wow– a lot of nastiness here today.

You’re acting like a huge douchebag. We’ve been through this same thread many times. Somebody always volunteers to be the douchebag. I guess today’s your turn.

hetherjw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

@ Justin #87

Not to be totally ganging up on you, but…

My total household income is ~1/5 of yours. And I am rich. My healthcare should not be tax subsidized. There is no reason I should be able to deduct my mortgage interest from my taxes. On top of all that the bracket I pay into should probably go up.

A social safety net is more important than how quickly I can save to buy a bigger house or where I go on vacation.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

you seem to be saying children should pay the lifelong price of there childish actions. Really?

Yes, we’re all sentient beings and we need to be responsible for our actions. Who or what you fuck up should be your responsibility.

Kenny B. says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

This thread fulfills my stereotype of rich people as scared, whiney little bitches. They’re constantly fearing the loss of their privilege, and so they look for any opportunity to demonstrate how aggrieved they think they are.

“O Noezzz!!! Teh pleebz r gonna take meh $$$zzz!!!”

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

The calculations look quite different if you have a couple

of kids, especially kids under school age who need some

kind of child care during working hours throughout the year.

And food. And lots of clothes. And future college costs

of whatever the heck a decent college is going to cost

in 2025 (and on current trends, they’ll need a postgrad degree

in hospitality management to have a shot at a job in Starbucks

by then …). And they have to come along on vacations.

…the tax code isn’t particularly friendly to

families with kids in the $200K+ income range: they don’t

get the dependent child tax credit, and they’re likely to get

hit with the higher AMT tax rate.

Yeah, those lucky duckies who make less than $200,000/year don’t think about that stuff, do they?

Am I taking crazy pills? Less than 2%. That’s how many people feel your pain. Holy crap.

4 fuckity fuck

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

That starts at what age? You’re fucking crazy!

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

109 is @106 FIX THE FUCKING COMMENTS! 2 FUCK

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Explain your statistics thoery – I’m not familiar with it.

Dude, the fact that you’re not aware of how upwardly immobile our society has become is exactly why you’re making the douchebag argument here. Your ignorance is also the reason why you’re straw man-ing my argument.

I’m thinking that a couple of comments in a blog thread aren’t gonna be enough to get you to open your fucking eyes. Not when there are myriad more self-flattering stories to distract yourself with.

m says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

I like how a technical issue gets muddled in moralistic twaddle. Would you prefer that instead of ‘rich’ people simply asked what your household income was and referred to you by percentile? Or would that be too ‘biased’ by not accounting for the standard of living you have opted for? “Oh, sure, we earned more than 98.7% of households, but have you seen the housing prices where I chose to live? I’m not rich, and frankly, it’s insulting that they expect me to even pay for things at the corner store. Had they got their lives together they’d know exactly what it feels like to be me.”

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

Dude, the fact that you’re not aware of how upwardly immobile our society has become is exactly why you’re making the douchebag argument here.

Yes, because people make the choice to not focus on education. They choose to be influenced by the anti-intellectualism of their peers and ithas deleterious effects on their educational attainment, career prospects and earning potential.

Are you arguing that people don’t make that choice? Or, do you see it as not being a choice. We all have no choice but to accept what our friends, families, churches and government tell us?

If a young man says he hates gays because that’s what they taught him in Sunday School – do you accept that? Then why should you accept someone who didn’t study for fear of being made fun of?

mark f says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:50 pm

“I mean, that looks pretty damn wealthy to me.”

The calculations look quite different if you have a couple

of kids, especially kids under school age who need some

kind of child care during working hours throughout the year.

And food. And lots of clothes. And future college costs

of whatever the heck a decent college is going to cost

in 2025

Hmm. My father makes a decent income. In fact, a pretty good one–about $75k/year. My mother worked as a part-time teacher’s assistant for maybe another $15k annually for about five years before cutbacks eliminated the position.

They had three kids: me, fully grown, no student loans or other debt to my parents’ name; my brother, deceased, also with no debt to my parents’ name; and my sister, who is twenty and significantly younger than us, who’s looking to transfer from community college to a four-year institution.

I grew up in an apartment. Not an expensive Manhattan/Boston/big city apartment, but a modest three-decker apartment in an inexpensive area of Worcester, Massachusetts. We didn’t have expensive clothes or furniture. We took solidly middle class vacations . . . no Florida or the Caribbean for us. We probably could have, but my father was saving up for a downpayment on a house. The one across town next to my grandfather came available, so my parents bought it.

Unfortunately, this was at the top of the market. So now on a three-bedroom ranch house built in the 1950s on a small city lot, my father owes the bank more than the house is worth. He also paid in $50,000 cash, and owns 0 equity on the property.

Somehow my sister was not eligible for FAFSA loans; her expected family contribution is $17,000 per year. She applied to private lenders and was approved for a loan with compounding interest. Long story short, she would’ve owed $400k on a $60k loan.

My father was going to co-sign, but he’s refinancing his mortgage. He’s taking another hit so he can retire early. He’s not doing that for a few years of luxury; my mother has early-onset Alzheimer’s and requires full-time care. The health insurance plan doesn’t cover it.

So, to recap: We have a guy who lived and saved prudently on a good income for thirty years, but can’t simultaneously help his daughter go to college and take care of his sick wife. This is what the struggling middle class looks like.

This comment has nothing to do with tax brackets. It has to do with the people who go on expensive yearly vacations and eat out every night thinking they’re struggling because someone somewhere has more.

second try

Myles SG says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

To be fair, $500,000 a year in Upper East Side Manhattan isn’t even close to being rich. After taxes (about $230,000?) you have about $270,000 left. Out of that you have to pay for housing, which can easily be like $7,000-$10,000 a month, school fees, which are $35,000 a year, or about $50,000 once you add in sports and overseas field trips. Of course, it’s actually less than that because of tax deductions, but not by a huge proportion, only a noticeable one. Summer vacations cost a great deal, as do winter skiing. And dining out in Manhattan, as one can expect, is extremely pricey.

There really isn’t much of disposable income left.

Adam Villani says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Rich is a relative term. Everybody except a handful of people can look to someone making twice as much and call what that guy makes “truly rich.” So we’re left with objective measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

So if you make $250K per year, congratulations, you make about 5 times as much as the median household, and more than 98.3% of all households in the country. Guess what? You’re rich.

I don’t know what the line is between rich and not rich, but I know what side of the line $250K is on. Thought experiment: Would you like to take an 80% pay cut? That’s what most Americans make. You’re not super-fabulously wealthy, but when you consider what the median family makes in the U.S., by all means, yes, you’re rich.

I know how it feels. My wife and I are both professionals, making close to $200K, and yet we’re still waiting for prices to drop before buying a house, we still cut coupons for groceries, we drive ten-year-old cars, and we’re still paying student loans. So it’s not like we don’t have to worry about money at all. But we’re still rich. We live in a nice apartment with central air conditioning. We’re taking a trip to Europe. We can go out to eat a lot and buy ourselves nice things.

But I can remember just three years ago when I was unemployed and she was living on a grad student’s stipend when we *did* have to watch every penny. And even then we had more money than a lot of people. So while I may not be flying a private jet to Aruba for the weekend, I still know the difference between living at different income levels. And I know that the income we have now is much better than the income most people have. And I’m thankful for it and I really don’t mind paying a few extra percentage points on my taxes.

And of course, every one of us posting to this blog is rich compared to billions of people around the world living in dire conditions.

MylesSG says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

And of course, given that most people have 2 to 3 children, the school fees alone range from $100,000 to $150,000 a year. And that’s for day school. Imagine how bad it is if kids had to go to Choate.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Shorter jmo: I’m a real rebel! That’s why I’m more successful than all those sheep!

We all have no choice but to accept what our friends, families, churches and government tell us?

Mmm. Straw. Nom nom nom.

MylesSG says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

In any case, to be really sort of “comfortably” rich in the U.S., you need something like a million dollars a year.

Which explains why most careers are not open to me.

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

To be fair, $500,000 a year in Upper East Side Manhattan isn’t even close to being rich.

I hear that the west side no longer requires you to apply for a visa before moving there. Maybe you could try that.

Imagine how bad it is if kids had to go to Choate.

Ok, I admit it: I LOLed.

Fuckers.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

i>Mmm. Straw. Nom nom nom.

So, is that the best you can do?

Do you honestly feel that people don’t have a choice and even if they do they shouldn’t be held repsonsible when they choose poorly?

x3

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

“This comment has nothing to do with tax brackets. It has to do with the people who go on expensive yearly vacations and eat out every night thinking they’re struggling because someone somewhere has more.”

Yeah yeah yeah. When I were a lad, we had to get up 3 hours

before we went to bed, eat a handful of cold gravel for

breakfast, and crawl 16 miles to school. House ? You were

lucky! We lived in a paper bag in middle of t’road.

I realize it’s tough to raise a family on $50K/year.

I realize I have a lot more than that. I favor policies

that would make life easier – and especially more secure -

for people at and below median income. And if you want to

call me “rich” – whatever the heck that means – then you

can do it. But when people throw around comments that

suggest the $250K/year crowd are driving Aston-Martin’s

and running up big bills for custom tailoring, I just think

you ought to do the math and realize what crap that is.

It gets you a nicer house in a better neighborhood and

good childcare and some college and retirement savings.

And that’s about it. Struggling ? No. Financially secure ?

No. Still one bad accident or chronic illness away or

layoff away from trouble, like 99% of Americans, but hardly

any Scandinavians …

mark f says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

school fees, which are $35,000 a year, or about $50,000 once you add in sports and overseas field trips. Of course, it’s actually less than that because of tax deductions, but not by a huge proportion, only a noticeable one. Summer vacations cost a great deal, as do winter skiing. And dining out in Manhattan, as one can expect, is extremely pricey.

There really isn’t much of disposable income left.

And after you join the tennis club, buy your season tickets to the Met, finalize the mortgage on that Newport weekender, and get yourself on a couple of prestigious “charity” boards with strategically large donations, why, there’s practically nothing left over for yourself!

2

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

I hear that the west side no longer requires you to apply for a visa before moving there. Maybe you could try that.

Well, the UES is pretty much the only place where most of the apartments have pre-war high ceilings, and I really do prefer my apartments high-ceilinged.

Sex Fuck Shit.

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Myles, I hope this is ironic self-parody. You can be an asshole, but you’re not generally an idiot.

Lauren says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

To be fair, $500,000 a year in Upper East Side Manhattan isn’t even close to being rich. After taxes (about $230,000?) you have about $270,000 left. Out of that you have to pay for housing, which can easily be like $7,000-$10,000 a month, school fees, which are $35,000 a year, or about $50,000 once you add in sports and overseas field trips. Of course, it’s actually less than that because of tax deductions, but not by a huge proportion, only a noticeable one. Summer vacations cost a great deal, as do winter skiing. And dining out in Manhattan, as one can expect, is extremely pricey.

There really isn’t much of disposable income left.

Is this comment for real? What do you think you are doing with the money you are spending on overseas trips for your children, or skiing, or dining out in Manhattan? You are DISPOSING of it! That’s why it’s called DISPOSABLE income.

3

Adam Villani says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Good God Myles, do you even realize how absurd you look? Being rich does not require you to have a bunch of money left over after spending money to live like a rich person. If you can spend that money to live like a rich person to begin with, then either you’re rich or you’re deeply, deeply in debt.

2nd try

Adam Villani says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Seriously, Myles, you’re pulling our legs, right? It’s hard to tell with you.

2

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

“I’m not rich, I just have a few custom suits from that guy from Hong Kong and some designer outfits I got at discount from Century 21, not a closet full of bespoke suits I got made on Saville Row!”

Look, I know as much as the next guy how money just flies out the window, but that comes from choices we make. A 39% rate vs. 36% isn’t the burden here.

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:24 pm

Is this comment for real?

No, Myles is a college kid with a kind of weird fascination with old aristocracy. He posts some of intelligent comments now and then, but more often their just a form of plutocratic masturbation. He fantasizes about being an investment banker one day and taking ski trips to Innsbruck or wherever. I’m not sure to what extent he’s in on the joke, but, no, it’s definitely not something to take seriously.

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Ah, yes, the condemnations! Look. I would be perfectly happy on $500,000 a year, were I to ever get that sum. Sure, if I have kids I won’t be able to donate their way to Princeton, but on the other hand I would probably make a superlative college-and-SAT coach (presuming SAT scores aren’t inheritable, which is open to question).

But would I look to myself and say, “I’m richie richie rich!” Hells no. Maybe if I made three times that. $500,000 is probably upper-upper-middle-class, actually probably beyond that, what the French would call haute bourgeoisie, but it’s not actually upper class.

And I think “rich” is best reserved as a descriptor for the upper class.

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

And yes, I did enjoy writing the earlier posts. I think you guys can take the hint?

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

But when people throw around comments that

suggest the $250K/year crowd are driving Aston-Martin’s

and running up big bills for custom tailoring, I just think

you ought to do the math and realize what crap that is.

Straw straw straw. The complaint about people in the $250k/year crowd pleading poverty is that it’s calibrated against the lifestyles of the $1m/year crowd. I’ll quote Michael Lewis from that piece I linked:

In this house, I now glimpsed the problem with upper-middle-classness: It isn’t really a class. It’s a space between classes. The space may once have been bridgeable, but lately it’s become a chasm. Middle-class people fantasize about travel upgrades; upper-class people can’t imagine life without a jet. Middle-class people help their children with their homework so they’ll have a chance of getting into Princeton; upper-class people buy Princeton a new building. Middle-class people have homes; upper-class people have monuments. A man struggling to hold on to the illusion that he is upper middle class has become like a character in a cartoon earthquake: He looks down and sees his feet being dragged ever farther apart by a quickly widening fissure. His legs stretch, then splay, and finally he plunges into the abyss.

I take some issue with Lewis’s class definitions, but he’s on the mark about the fundamental delusions that kick in at the point where the rich exist in the penumbra of the filthy rich.

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:31 pm

And I am strictly limiting my reference to $500,000 in Manhattan.

$500,000 in Louisville or Milwaukee or even Chicago is probably “rich”.

It’s just that in the U.S. Northeast, there are actually professional “tracks” that leads to regular $500,000-a-year incomes. And such professional tracks are definitionally upper-middle.

california asset protection says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

250k is not rich, but it’s on the way to that…

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

As with many things, Chris Rock understands the dynamic best:

“Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his checks is wealthy.”

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:52 pm

By the way, just out of some degree of curiosity, what would you feel like the appropriate salary/income to pay me, or have me be paid?

I think if I were to obtain a suitable professional degree (law, finance) I should be worth $300,000 a year eventually, and more if I’m lucky or work in NYC/London/SF.

Although I have seen perfect idiots making far more than that.

Sex Fuck Shit.

Midland says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Wow. This brewed up nicely while I was gone . . .

i>I’d prefer a society where we had more taxes and better public schools and pensions and single-payer healthcare and suchlike. But as things stand, a lot of the $250K goes

towards those basics, one way or another.

Amazing, isn’t it, how the people making a fifth or a tenth of that manage to avoid homelessness and starvation?

One of the odd side effects of having 20th Century technology and opulence is that class distinctions are not as starkly defined as they used to be. In Ye Olden Days, the rich had servants, lots of them, along with meat on the table every day, personal physicians and dentists, optional time off, mansions, land, plumbing, travel, carriages, clubs, prep schools, colleges, elite entertainments, personal tailors, several changes of clothes each day, etc. They seldom experienced food shortages and could move away from bad water and disease. They didn’t have to put in a days work, at all, if they didn’t want to.

By the late 20th Century, aside from a few remaining pockets of abject poverty, rich, middle, and poor all had houses or at least apartments with bathrooms. Most of us had food on the up-to-date medical care, cars, telephones, and televisions, paid vacations, and a chance for a decent education. The rich had better cars, and bigger houses, more expensive vacations, and better seats at the football games, but the distinctions were mostly incremental. And, because our culture frowns on idle lives, most of them work long hours to keep up with their social equals and stay ahead of everyone else.

Consequently, it is difficult to make people believe that they are rich. Or that there is a vast difference in dealing with the stress of making mortgage payments on a million-dollar house with a quarter-million dollar yearly salary and the stress of paying for your kids braces, the damage that uninsured drunk did to your ’98 Corolla, and your wife’s arthritis, all on thirty grand a year plus what’s left of her unemployment.

No arbitrary boundary works in this situation, but if I were pulling down four times the average national take-home, I wouldn’t be complaining about a couple of hundred dollars in extra taxes. Not in public, anyway.

Interesting bout of neo-Calvinism, looking down the thread. People so fixated on someone not getting punished for their sins, bad choices and “laziness” that they would rather all the purely unlucky be punished along with them.

Which is why most Christians gave up on Calvinism. It was too good of an excuse for selfishness and cruelty.

Third

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

By the way, just out of some degree of curiosity, what would you feel like the appropriate salary/income to pay me, or have me be paid?

This is the magic of the free enterprise system. The market gets to determine that. But the median income for someone with a professional degree is a lot lower than 300K. If you want to be ‘on track’ to make that kind of money, you have to be willing to work 55+ hours/week. There is a literal toll that your human body must pay to do it. Of course, there are paths, but they are less certain and much trickier to navigate.

4

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

People so fixated on someone not getting punished for their sins, bad choices and “laziness” that they would rather all the purely unlucky be punished along with them.

So, what should be done with the kid who just wants to play x-box all day? Just put him on “benefits” and leave it at that? Castigate the nurses, cops and accountants for daring to make +100k a year while poor Gamer McPothead can’t make more than 17k a year?

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm

“Amazing, isn’t it, how the people making a fifth or a tenth of that manage to avoid homelessness and starvation?”

What we have in the USA is a situation where certain very

important goods and services – healthcare, schooling,

public transport, and public safety – are provided in an

inefficient patchwork. The consequence is that prices for

those services are bid up very high – which mostly means

that there are lots of neighborhoods with lousy schools and

poor public transport, where you can live cheaply. And

then there are good neighborhoods with good schools and

good transport, and you have to pay a fortune to live there.

So yeah, if you’re on $40K a year you can get a roof over

your head and feed your kids. What you don’t get is good

schools and safe places for those kids to play. And then

since they didn’t get good schools, they probably don’t get

to good colleges, and their future prospects are not so good.

At $200K+/year you have choices. You could live in one of

those cheap neighborhoods and drive a nice car and eat

out all the time. But more probably you’re going to pay

the exorbitant price to buy a house in a nice neighborhood

and keep your kids safe and have good schools. Yeah, I make

enough to do that. Should I apologize for that ? Does that

have anything at all to do with Michael Lewis’ talk about

the middle-class and the rich ? I don’t think so. It’s just

what parents do for their kids: everything they can.

Does $200K/year get you 5x better schooling than $40K/year ?

Probably not. But human nature is such that you’ll pay a

lot extra to get even a small advantage for your kids.

As for the disasters that have been

mentioned, like early-onset-Alzheimer’s, then the $200K/year

income isn’t going to be that much help, beyond the fact

that it comes with health insurance. And most health

insurance isn’t as comprehensive as it used to be 15 or 20

years ago. Dealing with medical catastrophes is another

issue altogether.

For sure, life is easier on $200K/year than on $40K/year.

But then $60K is better than $40K as well; $41K is better

than $40K. There isn’t some clear dividing line. And from

my own experience, I’m not at all sure which is less of a

“struggle” between being 25 and single on $40K/year, and

being 45, married with 2 pre-school kids on $200K+/year.

Talking about the money without talking about the

circumstances is misleading.

3 Effective Internet Marketing Strategies that Give Results says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

But when people throw around comments that

suggest the $250K/year crowd are driving Aston-Martin’s

and running up big bills for custom tailoring, I just think

you ought to do the math and realize what crap that is.

It gets you a nicer house in a better neighborhood and

good childcare and some college and retirement savings.

And that’s about it. Struggling ? No. Financially secure ?

No. Still one bad accident or chronic illness away or

layoff away from trouble, like 99% of Americans, but hardly

any Scandinavians …

Look, here’s the thing: if you’re actually “rich” then being losing your job or being laid off, while not great, is also not a disaster — you’ll still have enough to live on with dividends, investments, rental income, family money, etc. But if losing your job means you’ll have to run through your retirement savings and won’t be able to keep up with the mortgage, and will be desperate if you’re out of work a year or two — as is the case with most people in NY making around $250,000, and as happened to people I know — then you’re not really “rich” as we think of the term.

Or, in even simpler terms: rich people don’t have to work. If you have to work, you’re not really rich.

And another try: sex fuck.

Some Critically Worthwhile Clickbank Tips says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

Midland says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:37 pm

So, what should be done with the kid who just wants to play x-box all day? Just put him on “benefits” and leave it at that? Castigate the nurses, cops and accountants for daring to make +100k a year while poor Gamer McPothead can’t make more than 17k a year?

Well, for one thing, you could not interrupt a rational discussion of income inequality among working Americans to flog your favorite lazy-bones straw man over and over again.

Second

hetherjw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

jmo, two points.

First, for every “gamer mcpothead” there are thousands of truly badly off people who really do need public assistance to have any sort of decent standard of living. To punish the people who “made bad choices” you also have to punish many times more people who don’t/didn’t ever have any real chance to live another way. Capitalism requires losers. We don’t get Bill Gates without homeless people, that is just how the system works, so it is our responsibility to do something to provide services for those homeless people. (I acknowledge the crudeness of this example and do not claim that it is a perfect explanation for anything…)

Second, a single male living in his parent’s house and making $17k/year would be FAR FAR too “rich” to qualify for most of the benefits you want to keep him from getting. If he was making $1700 and was severely disabled? Then the benefits get “good.”

try 4

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:45 pm

In Ye Olden Days, the rich had servants, lots of them,

Agatha Christie once wrote than when she was growing up in the early 20th century, she thought that she’d never be so poor as to not be able to have servants, nor ever so rich as to be able to afford a car….

Second try: Fox secks.

Dothax says:

September 10th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Actual tax data, from actual returns. [Not theory and musings about tax rates]

Here are the minimum AGI from IRS data to fall into different buckets for 2007

Top 0.1% $2,155,365 minimum

Top 1% $410,096 minimum

Top 5% $160,041 minimum

Top 10% $113,018 minimum

Bucket avg rate AGI floor

Top 0.1% 21.46 (2.155 mil +)

Top 1% 22.45 (0.419 mil +

Top 5% 20.53 (0.160 mil +)

Top 10% 18.79 (0.133 mil+)

There is an actual propaganda behind this “250K is rich” and “top 1% should be taxed”. It is that tax rates max out at incomes of ~400K and then fall, if you earn into the millions.

This raising taxes on 250K+ is propaganda pure and simple. It passes on the tax burden mostly to older double income families in high cost of living areas. Sure the isolated taxpayer in Podunk might make 250K and could very well be rich. But in reality, it is the multimillionaire incomes hiding under the skirt of the older workers and professionals

Now add the payroll tax to this 22% , and it is much more regressive. Upto about 212K income (dual income, fica cap). The Top 0.1% pays even less, because of fica cap

So this 250K earner is paying 22.5 + 8(FICA) + 9 (CA State income) = 39%. Add sales tax and property tax and it comes close to 50%.

Show me a millionaire that pays 39% in taxes. Show me one that pays 35%. They won’t because it is all taxed at preferred rates of investment income. They have all ways to skip taxes.

This is more of taxing wages, and letting plutocrats alone. The wage earners – like crabs in a bucket – are fighting tooth and nail while the plutocrats laugh.

Fed taxes are not progressive above the top 20% of income. State taxes are even more regressive.

- The following will not make taxes more progressive

– raising taxes on top brackets

– lifting FICA tax cap.

The following will make taxes progressive

– Adding higher income brackets and tax rates above the current ones.

– Instituting FICA taxes on unearned (investment, interest) income

– removing or restricting Mortgage Interest deduction

But I don’t see anything other than knee-jerk “250K is rich”, from people who should know better.

Just see what happens if it was 1 million instead of 250K – it would sail through. No one would have the political guts to oppose it. Those hiding under the skirts of wage earners will be exposed.

Dothax says:

September 10th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

Link for tax data in #148

The Reality of Cortisol and Weight Gain | Weight Gainer Supplements says:

September 10th, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250,000 &#1110&#1109 a Lot &#959f Money

joejoejoe says:

September 10th, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Oh me oh my. I’m not RICH because my other RICH friends don’t have a vastly different income than me and the incredible things I take for granted like PRIVATE SCHOOL and NICE VACATIONS and EXPENSIVE CONSUMER GOODS and living in a HIGHLY DESIRED LOCATION don’t count as signs of my wealth. Only AFTER I grant myself all manner of things that most people NEVER consider will I begin to count my disposable income and then round up to something OBSCENE to self diagnose myself as NOT RICH.

Eat a bag of gold dicks you rich fucks.

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 7:41 pm

“never be so poor as to not be able to have servants, nor ever so rich as to be able to afford a car….”

This gets to the heart of it. By miracles of design and

technology and logistics, we’ve figured out how to make a

car (or a computer) astonishingly cheaply, and in particular

with very few man-hours of semi-skilled labor (IIRC about

40 man-hours for a cheap car). So those have got cheap.

But healthcare and education (and legal services) remain

highly labor-intensive and expensive. Those sectors also

have really weird markets with various kinds of inefficiencies

(the tie between housing and schooling; the asymmetry of

information in medicine or law).

We’ve also lost defined-benefit pension plans: and moved

towards a corporate culture of cost-cutting and layoffs

which gives much less security of employment.

So these days large chunks of income go towards healthcare,

education (disguised as housing), and pensions, much of

which has undergone very high inflation since 1980 or so.

Comparisons against previous generations don’t correspond

to the new conditions.

wiley says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

On behalf of all those “losers” not making a quarter of a million a year—FUCK YOU! No cleaning staff, no child care workers, no teachers, no store staff, no movers, no clerks, no secretaries, no housekeepers, no dry cleaners, no drivers, no receptionists, no garbage pick-ups, no construction workers—no laborers to make you feel like you breeze through life in comfort and convenience all by your lonesome, and that only the jobs that pay as much as yours are meaningful and necessary. FUCK YOU AGAIN!

lalaland says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

that’s because the cities in his district – stamford, norwalk, bridgeport – don’t even exist in the popular imagination of what fairfield county is.

The Fun Of Bag Shopping-- Fake Bags says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:17 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

So, is that the best you can do?

Do you honestly feel that people don’t have a choice and even if they do they shouldn’t be held repsonsible when they choose poorly?

Me: You’re straw man-ing my argument, dude.

jmo: Yeah, that’s weak. So, do you really believe this straw man stuff I’m wishing you would believe?

I really love the “So, is that the best you can do?” immediately preceding the pivot into doing exactly what I said you were doing that prompted your query. Well played, idiot.

So, I dunno if it’s the best I can do, but from here it looks like it’ll do.

2 fuckity fuck

oldguy says:

September 12th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Amid much delusion about wealth and class, Dothax at 148 and 149 actually comes in with practical points for dicussion and, alas, the thread is dropped!

Indian Mobile Market Review | Mobile Marketing 4 Internet Marketers says:

September 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

How To Enhance Your Computer Pace Almost Immediately | Ipad Store says:

September 13th, 2010 at 7:39 am

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

News Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad ...

Gordon Ramsay has opened up about the death of 'Kitchen Nightmares' contestant Joseph Cerniglia. According to Entertainment Weekly, Ramsay expressed.

Small Business News: Social Media Survival Guide

Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. These are only a few of the more common tools we think of when we hear the term social media. To grapple with this brand new.

Michelle Malkin » Good News: Dukakis Advising Democrats

Good News: Dukakis Advising Democrats. ... New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox News is Hogging All the Success. September 28, 2010 04:34 PM by Doug Powers. 53 Comments | 2 Trackbacks ...

bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off

News Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad ...

Gordon Ramsay has opened up about the death of 'Kitchen Nightmares' contestant Joseph Cerniglia. According to Entertainment Weekly, Ramsay expressed.

Small Business News: Social Media Survival Guide

Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. These are only a few of the more common tools we think of when we hear the term social media. To grapple with this brand new.

Michelle Malkin » Good News: Dukakis Advising Democrats

Good News: Dukakis Advising Democrats. ... New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox News is Hogging All the Success. September 28, 2010 04:34 PM by Doug Powers. 53 Comments | 2 Trackbacks ...

benchcraft company scam bench craft company rip off

That is right...a food bank...the Community Food Bank of New Jersey. This is no ordinary food bank. Here are some of the things they have been able to accomplish:

Don't take my word for it...watch the video below to see the type of day we had.

159 Responses to “$250,000 is a Lot of Money”

Tony says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:39 am

Did you read that book “Richistan?” It said studies show that when you ask people how much money would make them feel comfortable, people invariably say “twice as much as they have now.” No matter how much they make, it’s always about half as much as they need.

Don Williams says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:42 am

But having wealthy neighbors drives up the cost of living — not just for housing but for retail and service items as well.

Not for all items — one can order clothes,etc from LL Bean’s catalog, order items over the internet, travel to less expensive areas,etc.

But Where does the tax code recognize differences in local cost of living factors?

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:44 am

One of the craziest notions to take hold in American politics

In London our Mayor says the £250,000 he earns for writing a newspaper column is “chicken feed”. It’s not only in America.

Also, more tax brackets isn’t a great idea, it’s complicated and by playing with rates and thresholds three brackets allows you to approxiamte any sensible effective rate curve.

2

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:45 am

Why do SON and DAD have an easier time posting here than I do?

pete says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:56 am

Anyone who says $250k is not a lot has some serious ’sense of entitlement’ issues. Which is a good quality in a politician, since a good chunk of the country does as well.

The CAP Cleaning Staff says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:21 am

First of all there’s substance and there’s politics. On the political side, people seem to identify with the $250k crowd more. So by targeting them for tax increases you’re making a politically difficult task into a much more difficult one.

More importantly, there are some differences between the $250k and $2.5m crowd that go beyond the actual amount of money being earned. It’s possible to earn $250k in a year if you’re a small business owner or even a good real estate broker (though maybe not in this market) but it requires constant effort and may not last. One bad year or an illness and you’re back down to a much lower sum. So your average yearly income ends up being much lower even if $250k is the high water mark. Whereas if you make larger amounts it’s likely that you’re earning (or saving up to earn) investment income, so your risks tend to be much lower. You may lose half your income in a bad market but you’ll never be poor.

James Robertson says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:32 am

Unless you’re a small business – in which case, if you operate as a sole proprieter, you could easily have “income” of $250k, and not qualify as anything resembling rich.

of course, progressives can’t understand that, because it would require that they actually pondered the real world.

Erik Lund says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:42 am

You’re right, Mr. Robertson! If only there were some way to deduct business expenses from income tax payments. Then, finally, the world would be fair.

magurakurin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:53 am

@7 umm, no you’re wrong. Income and revenue are not the same thing. A small business pays tax on income not revenue. A small business might “easily” have revenue of a 14 million(but that is still a lot of sales) but even with that much in sales their income would surely be much less. Even with a profit margin of %50 you would need a half a million in sales to hit the marginal rate. Since %10 is often considered a decent profit you’d need 2.5 million in sales to hit the threshold. But even then the extra tax is only on the money above $250,000. Anything under $250,000 is taxed at the much lower rate. So if you imagine the small business owner “easily” making 300 grand in PROFIT, only 50 G’s would come in at the higher rate.

But you know that, you are just hoping other people don’t, But in that case you are on the wrong blog.

KC says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:56 am

James @ 7:

I’m not progressive, but I still “can’t understand that”. Earning more than $250k in your sole proprietorship makes you rich in exactly the same way that earning a $250k salary makes you rich. Taxes are not levied on revenues. They are levied on profits. If I sell $250k worth of product and had $200k for, my “income” from my sole proprietorship is $50k, and I’m taxed accordingly. I’m not rich… and I won’t be taxed like I am, either. If I sell $500k and have $250k of expenses, my profits are $250k, and I’m as “rich” as someone with a $250k salary.

Or have I not “pondered the real world?”

TOK says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am

Also, more tax brackets isn’t a great idea, it’s complicated and by playing with rates and thresholds three brackets allows you to approxiamte any sensible effective rate curve.

Huh? Adding more brackets is one of the simplest changes you can make to the tax code. It’s all of the deductions and credits and crap that make the code insanely complicated. Once you know what your taxable income is, you look up the amount you owe in those little tables in the 1040 booklet–or the amount is calculated for you if you use a program like TurboTax. Additional brackets won’t make either of these an iota more complicated.

Try 2…

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am

“Anyone who says $250k is not a lot has some serious ’sense of entitlement’ issues.”

It is a lot. OK ? But if you have 2 or 3 kids, then it

still leaves you with solidly middle-class concerns: buying

a house in a good school district, paying ever-increasing

out-of-pocket healthcare costs, saving for college, saving

for retirement. It doesn’t get you a private jet and

months in the Bahamas.

Now in a different kind of society, where good childcare

and education and healthcare and a decent pension are

provided for everyone, the $250K income could get you a

fair bit of luxury. But in the USA it really doesn’t:

it gets spent in just the same ways as for a family on

$50K or $100K – housing, childcare, education, health,

food, college, retirement – albeit obviously providing more

and better in each category.

I’d prefer a society where we had more taxes and better

public schools and pensions and single-payer healthcare and

suchlike. But as things stand, a lot of the $250K goes

towards those basics, one way or another.

dbeach says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am

I don’t see what the big deal is. The White House should just respond to people like Himes by saying, “OK, fine. We’ll end the Bush tax cuts for everyone making over $1 million. Is that rich?” My guess is such a policy would not actually cost all that much revenue relative to the $250K threshold, since such a huge share of income is claimed by the very richest taxpayers. Moreover, since this would still be vehemently opposed by Republicans, you would be forcing Republicans to claim, ridiculously, that people earning more than a million bucks a year are “small business.”

So I guess that puts me in the “add more tax brackets” group. Just because earning $250k makes you objectively affluent doesn’t mean there isn’t a very big difference between that and $3 million.

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich. 1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes, and a substantial portion goes into our relatively small two bedroom Brooklyn apartment. I’m not saying we don’t have enough money, but we’d actually like to try to build some wealth and save money so we can get off of the overworked track we are on. Apparantly this is some sort of moral evil to progressives, who seem to believe that unless you are a professional athlete or a celebrity, you have no real right to try to earn a decent living and build some security for yourself. I don’t have a natural aversion to taxes, but I do have an aversion to people saying “take more from that guy, he’s rich and won’t miss it”.

@9 and 10– the point is that a small business owner who makes $250,000 isn’t quite the same as a law firm lawyer making that much. A small business owner is at far greater risk of income fluctuation (maybe the $250k year was a great year with a lucky break), and a good potion of that income may end up staying in the business, which you will be taxed on anyway whether you take it out of the business or not.

Ryan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:19 am

Unless you’re a small business – in which case, if you operate as a sole proprieter, you could easily have “income” of $250k, and not qualify as anything resembling rich.

I play on a soccer team with someone named “James Robertson”, and I really hope you’re not him, because if you are, I’ve seriously misjudged how dense my teammate is.

3rd

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:30 am

Absolutely righteous beat down on well deserving idiot James Robertson.

Now bring on the NYC assholes bitching about how expensive Dalton is.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:33 am

An oncology nurse at Dana Farber in Boston with 15 years experience makes 150k. The median Boston cop makes 104k. Are you telling me that a household made up of a cop and a nurse is rich?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Kanchou says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:39 am

@9 and 10– the point is that a small business owner who makes $250,000 isn’t quite the same as a law firm lawyer making that much. A small business owner is at far greater risk of income fluctuation

I don’t read abovethelaw.com religiously, but $250,000 is about a mid-level/senior associates (4-6 years) salary plus market bonus in big law, or just the people who are looking forward to “up-or-out” partnership decisions. They do in fact face great risk of income fluctuation.

Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:42 am

@14: Apparantly this is some sort of moral evil to progressives, who seem to believe that unless you are a professional athlete or a celebrity, you have no real right to try to earn a decent living and build some security for yourself.</i?

Drop the stupidity and the self-pitying bullshit, and then try to get your whiney little head around the simple concept of the "marginal rate."

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:43 am

Also, more tax brackets isn’t a great idea, it’s complicated and by playing with rates and thresholds three brackets allows you to approxiamte any sensible effective rate curve.

Right now, the person making $250,000 pays more in taxes than the person making $25,000, which is only fair and right. But the person making $2,500,000, the person making $25,000,000 and the person making $250,000,000 pay taxes at the same rate as the person making $250,000, which is just bizarre. (And considering that more of their income probably comes from capital gains and less from labor income, they’re probably paying less as a total percentage). Or, As James Surowiecki put it:

LeBron James and LeBron James’s dentist: same difference. This makes no sense—there’s a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates….This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue.

Second try: sex fuck.

Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:43 am

Well, THAT was a crappy job of closing my tags, wasn’t it? Sorry.

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:44 am

I don’t read abovethelaw.com religiously, but $250,000 is about a mid-level/senior associates (4-6 years) salary plus market bonus in big law, or just the people who are looking forward to “up-or-out” partnership decisions. They do in fact face great risk of income fluctuation.

Absolutely. Unless you become a partner, for most associates making that much money $250K is about the outward bound of their income. It’s actually much like professional sports: you only have a relatively few years of high-income and then you’re up or out.

James Gary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:47 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich.

Are you telling me that a household made up of a cop and a nurse is rich?

Sort of slow today….usually the “I’m earning X and I don’t feel rich” comments show up in the first fifteen minutes or so.

2

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:49 am

I tend to think Bob Roddis is the dumbest regular here, but now I think it’s just that he’s more prolific than James Robertson. JimBob easily wins the stupidity/word prize.

4 fuckity fuck fixthefuckingcomments

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am

Sort of slow today

Really. Private school, people, you’re supposed to complain about the cost of private school. That’s how these threads are supposed to work.

Justin’s almost there: he told us how much he makes and the fact that he lives in New York, but he hasn’t complained about private school yet. Come on, Justin, even if you and the wife don’t have kids yet, you will someday. Start bitching about private school!

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich. 1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes, and a substantial portion goes into our relatively small two bedroom Brooklyn apartment. I’m not saying we don’t have enough money, but we’d actually like to try to build some wealth and save money so we can get off of the overworked track we are on. Apparantly this is some sort of moral evil to progressives, who seem to believe that unless you are a professional athlete or a celebrity, you have no real right to try to earn a decent living and build some security for yourself. I don’t have a natural aversion to taxes, but I do have an aversion to people saying “take more from that guy, he’s rich and won’t miss it”.

Just goes to show you that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. The median income in Manhattan is less than $70K/year. I’m sure its even lower in Brooklyn. If your apartment runs $5000/month you are only giving up 25% of your take home pay which is extremely low for anywhere in NYC. And if your apartment costs more than that, I don’t see how you can expect any sympathy. If you were willing to accept a quality of life more comparable to the actual average American instead of your extremely wealthy boss or coworkers, you would be able to save plenty of money. No one claims that wanting to be rich (or working to get there) is a moral evil. But complaining about how put upon you are when the typical household is trying to make do with less than 1/7 your income just highlights how weak your political argument really is.

2

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:53 am

Are you telling me that a household made up of a cop and a nurse is rich?

Sort of slow today….usually the “I’m earning X and I don’t feel rich” comments show up in the first fifteen minutes or so.

Well, do you consider them rich?

How much should someone, who makes a reasonable effort to educate themselves and make prudent career choices, be making by the time they are 35?

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:54 am

It is a lot. OK ? But if you have 2 or 3 kids, then it

still leaves you with solidly middle-class concerns: buying

a house in a good school district, paying ever-increasing

out-of-pocket healthcare costs, saving for college, saving

for retirement. It doesn’t get you a private jet and

months in the Bahamas.

Absolutely. I have a friend who makes $300K in Colorado and the guy lives like a baron: he has a gigantic house, another weekend house on a lake, several cars, a boat, a share in a private plane, and he takes several skiing and hunting and beach vacations a year. Of course real estate prices and tax rates where he lives are relatively low, and he sends his kids to public school.

But the people making a similar amount of money in Manhattan can’t afford to live in anywhere close to that style: they basically have a middle-class life: they pay high state and local taxes, they live in small apartments, they don’t own cars or weekend houses, they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on private school for the kids. They’re comfortable, but aren’t in any way living on champagne and caviar.

Just for insurance: sex fuck

Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:55 am

How much should someone, who makes a reasonable effort to educate themselves and make prudent career choices, be making by the time they are 35?

The answer to that question has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

pereubu77 says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:56 am

Along with Justin @14, I’ll bite. First, for Democrats, the problem with drawing the line at $250,000 is that, while many people might not make that much, many people can imagine making that much. $250,000 is simply in a different league than $2.5 million. With two spouses working it is $125,000 each. Two police officers could make that much, or two engineers, or two mid-level corporate bureaucrats. Second, when you look at household income, you are looking at the incomes of retirees, of students, of single earners, etc. A 25-year old might not be making $125,000 at this time but could very reasonably expect to do so at some point in his or her career. Third, as Justin and others point out, $250,000 in NY, SF, or LA doesn’t go that far.

mark f says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:58 am

Ok, I’ll bite. Our household income in NYC is a little over $500,000. I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich. 1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes, and a substantial portion goes into our relatively small two bedroom Brooklyn apartment. I’m not saying we don’t have enough money, but we’d actually like to try to build some wealth and save money so we can get off of the overworked track we are on.

It always amazes me when someone who claims to make something in the top 10% of incomes complains to strangers about how hard it is to make ends meet. As if us lesser beings don’t have similar concerns, but with fewer resources. 90% of us are going to be predisposed to not give a shit about your whining, guy.

Dave C says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:59 am

My parents managed to raise two kids on less than $50,000 per year total salary for about 25 years. Just sayin’.

SON says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:02 am

DAD I AM HOMOSEX

DAD says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:02 am

SON I AM DISAPPOINT

James Gary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am

How much should someone, who makes a reasonable effort to educate themselves and make prudent career choices, be making by the time they are 35?

That’s obviously a complex question and the answer depends on various geographical and culutral factors. To take a semi-random stab, though, I suppose my answer is “enough to provide healthy food, clothing, safe housing, healthcare and educational opportunities for oneself and one’s dependents, and ensure a reasonably comfortable retirement.”

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:04 am

If my household had an income of 250k, we would be able to afford a 750k mortgage. Others might opt to buy a nice vacation home. That sounds pretty well off to me. Even in Boston.

Is this thing on? 3rd

Bob Oso says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am

I can’t speak for other areas but at $250K you can do very well in Texas. Maybe not rich but you are way better off than a majority of Texans.

hetherjw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am

@ Justin # 14:

“…1/2 of our income is eaten up by taxes…”

No, 50% of your income is not “eaten up by taxes.” First, this is a conversation about income taxes with a top marginal bracket quite a bit below 50%. Second, it is a top MARGINAL bracket so only income above the threshold gets taxed at that rate, not all of your income. Finally, even if we include all taxes (property, sales, state income, entitlements, excise etc.) there is no chance your total tax burden is 50% of your gross income.

try 3

applecor says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:13 am

First of all “rich” is a relative term and if your household income is in the top 5% as it is if it is above 250K you simply cannot argue that you are not rich.

Secondly the cop and the nurse making a total of $254K in JMO’s example would, under the expiration of Bush tax cuts, suffer an increase of about 3% of the $4K excess over $250K which is the staggering total of $120 per year. Sure, put on more brackets for the even richer, but please, another $10 a month is not going to bankrupt the cop and the nurse.

kth says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:13 am

Marginal tax brackets, folks: someone making $250,000 will see his taxes go up 3% of that 250,000th dollar, i.e., 30 cents. You have to be making far, far more than 250,000 for your tax increase to be noticeable. So please stop with the crocodiles for the beleaguered annual quarter-millionaire.

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:16 am

If my household had an income of 250k, we would be able to afford a 750k mortgage. Others might opt to buy a nice vacation home. That sounds pretty well off to me. Even in Boston.

Yes, but in Manhattan the average price of an apartment is $900,000 — so that $250K salary wouldn’t cover it to the same extent.

Second try: fuck sex.

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:21 am

“My parents managed to raise two kids on less than $50,000 per year total salary for about 25 years. Just sayin’.”

Yes, but so what ? Obviously half of families have below

median income. And we’d like to make that easier for them.

My point really is that many of the progressive policies

that would help families with below median income can

also be quite attractive to families with $250K income -

those semi-”rich” people have the same concerns about

schooling and healthcare and saving for college. And you

probably want to keep those $250K-a-year people on your

side, because they’re precisely the people who give big

donations to campaigns and have political influence beyond

their numbers.

I don’t mind the idea of modest tax increases above $250K,

but if you want to get all populist then it seems it would

be smarter to hit the $1M-a-year crowd who are fewer in

numbers, and who can’t be just a nurse-and-a-cop, and who

are very probably making much of their money from non-

productive (or less obviously productive) activities like

real estate or equity investments.

Maybe the right way to target it is to have a tax on wealth

rather than income. Take 1%/year on wealth above $5M, and

that would force the wealthy to use it in productive ways.

chris says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:22 am

A 25-year old might not be making $125,000 at this time but could very reasonably expect to do so at some point in his or her career.

And during those years they can and should be funneling some of it into tax-deferred IRAs, so it won’t be *taxable* income anyway.

Not to mention all their other deductions, of course.

Are people really that horrified by the idea that if they and their spouse are both very successful, they might pay slightly higher taxes for a few of the most successful years of their entire careers? Seriously? Atomic theory forbids the existence of violins tiny enough to be appropriate to play a sad song for their plight.

Argus says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:24 am

If the rest of you put as much effort into learning a more marketable skill and working harder as you did on complaining about not taxing “rich people” enough, maybe you could join them in the top brackets

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am

@11 – yeah I don’t like the complications you list, but that doesn’t change that extra brackets is a complication you don’t need and doesn’t achieve anything. It’s only a computational complication, so can be dealt with using computer prorammes, but it hurts understanding, which is masked by tax programs and leads to people having dumb ideas about how income tax works.

@20 – No, LeBron pays a far higher effective rate than his dentist, because he earns far more above the 250k. Any additional income they may make is taxed the same, but his dentist mainly pays tax at the lower rate, so pays an overall lower rate.

Have three rates and you can approxiamte any sensible tax regime.

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:28 am

Yes, but in Manhattan the average price of an apartment is $900,000 — so that $250K salary wouldn’t cover it to the same extent.

My family was from Queens and Brooklyn. They did ok for themselves on less. Living in Manhattan is a choice. As is living on Beacon Hill in Boston or Georgetown in Washington, DC. I admit it is frustrating that the housing bubble basically forced us to massively readjust our lifestyle expectations, but going back to the Clinton era tax rates on 250k+ incomes (and adding higher brackets and closing the hedge fund salary loophole) are still good ideas.

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:29 am

“No, 50% of your income is not “eaten up by taxes.””

You have to add up payroll taxes, federal income tax

(often with Alternative Minimum Tax for families around

the $250K range), state income tax, local taxes, property

taxes, and sales taxes. Don’t know if it reaches 50%, but

where I live it adds up to 35% or so, so it’s a big chunk.

[Aside: that's not a complaint, just an arithmetical fact].

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:30 am

I know my iPhone drafted posts are full of typos, but maybe you should read what I’m actually saying instaed of beating down staw men.

Again, our household income in NY is about $500k and we don’t worry at all about making ends meet. We go on nice vacations, go out to eat etc and live better than people in NY making the median salary. Yes, I could reduce my standard of living and live on less money, but so could a lot of middle/upper middle class America, but that doesn’t make me or them rich. My sister lives in Delaware in a pretty big house in a good school district, goes on vacation to places a little less expensive than where I go, eats out etc and makes much less than I do (less than $250k). So, if she moved into a small two bedroom apartment (the same size as mine), moved closer to work so she could walk, went on vacation in really cheap spots, she would be able to live on far less than she makes, but she’s not rich either. Yes, you can tax people you think are rich so they are leading the same lifestyle as the average earner, but that’s just stupid and counterproductive.

#19. Yeah, everyone gets the marginal rate, and I guess your math skills are good enough to get that $500,000 – $250,000 = $250,000 taxed at the higher marginal rate.

Also, to #38. Yes, 1/2 my income is eaten up by taxes. Between the AMT and, NY city and state taxes that’s about half of our household income. Maybe a little less, but in the vicinity anyway.

chris says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:31 am

Sure, put on more brackets for the even richer, but please, another $10 a month is not going to bankrupt the cop and the nurse.

Especially since they won’t even be paying it, because jmo has dishonestly conflated gross income (which they have slightly over $250k of) with taxable income (which they don’t). Even the standard deduction will easily knock them out of that bracket, let alone if they have a mortgage or kids.

And if they have the experience and seniority to both be making above-median income in their respective jobs, then they’re middle-aged, so probably saving for retirement, so deduct that too. (If they’re not middle-aged yet, then the nurse at least is probably paying off education loans, which are also deductible IIRC.)

To get $250k in taxable income with reasonable assumptions about lifestyle probably requires more like $350-400k gross income (more if they’re doing a lot of retirement saving), at which point it’s *really* hard to argue that they’re not rich.

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:33 am

@44 – Fucking hell you are some kind of moron. I’m 29 and paying top rate tax (£150k+) in Britain. Shit for brains.

2 – fuck sex cunt whatever fix it!

chris says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:34 am

we don’t worry at all about making ends meet. We go on nice vacations, go out to eat etc and live better than people in NY making the median salary

…and still think you’re not rich? Maybe you just need a dictionary or something?

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am

“As is living on Beacon Hill in Boston”

900K doesn’t get you Beacon Hill. It gets you a decent house

in a suburb with good schools, or a decent apartment closer

in.

If people want to keep having this discussion about what

does and doesn’t qualify as “rich”, they ought to do a little

bit of research into how much things cost, rather than assuming

that “2x more than I make” would be enough to buy everything in the world.

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:38 am

Ok, I stand corrected. Just did the math on my pay stub and about 44% is coming out. We ended up owing a little money last year, but I think that should be about right.

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:40 am

Somewhat rich people trying to live the lives of the very rich feel poor.

Michael Lewis’s “Mansion” goes into some detail on this, and the resultant delusions, as demonstrated repeatedly on this thread.

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am

I’m thankful to be making that much money and we don’t have any real “money problems”. But we’re not rich.

You’re rich. You’ve also deluded yourself into thinking that you’re not rich because you’re a pauper to the multi-millionaires in your vicinity. This does not make you a pauper: it just makes you deluded.

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am

900K doesn’t get you Beacon Hill. It gets you a decent house in a suburb with good schools, or a decent apartment closer in.

This is exactly my point. You can’t say, “I’m not rich! 250k-500k barely pays the bills for my co-op, BMW, and bills from my tailor!” If these expenses are your main worry, then you are one of the people who benefitted from the artificially low taxes of the Bush years.

zyxw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:44 am

You make $250,000 you’re rich. Period. End of discussion.

anonymousss says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:50 am

The basic problem here is that the income distribution at the top of the scale is so skewed. Even people who make way more money than most people don’t feel rich because there are all those people who make way more money than they do. A partner at a moderately fancy law firm can easily pull in $500,000 per year, but it’s hard to feel rich when partners at fancier law firms are pulling in a couple million. And it’s hard for those partners to feel rich because their $2 million is so much less than their CEO clients who make $20 million, and those CEO’s find it hard to feel rich because of the other CEO’s making $100 million.

Lauren says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:52 am

To Justin- So your take-home pay, after taxes, is $27,500 a month? Subtract about $4k for rent or mortgage, $1k for food, $2k for other bills, and you could still buy a new car EVERY SINGLE MONTH. And that’s not rich?

TOK says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:53 am

@45

yeah I don’t like the complications you list, but that doesn’t change that extra brackets is a complication you don’t need and doesn’t achieve anything.

I don’t see why it doesn’t achieve anything (earlier you speak of 3 brackets being enough to do anything sensible). It allows you to have a more progressive tax code. Imagine the following income tax brackets, after deductions etc:

–The first $30,000 is taxed at 15%

–From $30,000 to $80,000 is taxed at 25%

–Income above $80,000 is taxed at 35%

If we added a fourth and 5th bracket–oh, let’s say 40% for income above $300,000, and 45% for income above $1,000,000–that would raise an extra crapload of money, which you could use either to (i) fund additional spending, or (ii) reduce the deficit, or (iii) reduce the rates and/or increase the thresholds for the lower brackets [if you want to remain revenue neutral]. And I don’t see that my my proposed 5-bracket is terribly more complicated than any 3-bracket version.

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:55 am

Again, our household income in NY is about $500k and we don’t worry at all about making ends meet. We go on nice vacations, go out to eat etc and live better than people in NY making the median salary. Yes, I could reduce my standard of living and live on less money, but so could a lot of middle/upper middle class America, but that doesn’t make me or them rich. My sister lives in Delaware in a pretty big house in a good school district, goes on vacation to places a little less expensive than where I go, eats out etc and makes much less than I do (less than $250k). So, if she moved into a small two bedroom apartment (the same size as mine), moved closer to work so she could walk, went on vacation in really cheap spots, she would be able to live on far less than she makes, but she’s not rich either. Yes, you can tax people you think are rich so they are leading the same lifestyle as the average earner, but that’s just stupid and counterproductive.

You are not doing yourself any favors here. Only maybe a 100 people on the planet have so much money that they literally can’t find ways interesting ways to spend it all. That’s not how we define ‘rich’. And really, the definition we are using hardly matters. What we are talking about here are families making 5 times or more (in your case 10) the median US household income bearing slightly more of the tax burden. That’s not forcing you to lead their lifestyle. Far from it.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:58 am

Are people really that horrified by the idea that if they and their spouse are both very successful, they might pay slightly higher taxes for a few of the most successful years of their entire careers?

250k is well within the reach of two State College accounting majors who make decent career and life choices.

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices? Should Mike and Peggy the accountants be forced to support Tony who dropped out to play in a Phish cover band and only makes 17k a year?

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:58 am

You make $250,000 you’re rich. Period. End of discussion.

It’s really not rocket science, is it? The ability to live a decently comfortable lifestyle in Manhattan just means that you’re rich.

The angst around here is outta control.

5 fuckity fucking fuck fixthefuckingcomments

AWC says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:58 am

I fall in the group of folks who are unquestionably rich but are not as rich as many of their peers, so I catch myself wondering what it would be like to be “rich.” Of course this is silliness, and I suggest Justin read “Nickel and Dimed” or some other such book and ask himself if monetary struggles bear any resemblance to theirs. We’re all going to spend the money we have, we all are going to feel money pressure, but where the pressure comes makes the difference between rich and poor, not whether their is pressure.

shit fuck 2nd attempt

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:00 pm

@60: I’d like to jump on this wagon as well. The idea that extra brackets complicate anything is one of the many ridiculously stupid arguments in this debate. Figuring tax due from taxable income takes about 2 minutes. The hard part in taxes has always been and always will be figuring taxable income.

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

This thread is the same as all the others. It gives some people an ego boost to brag about how much money while feigning humility about it.

anonymousss says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

To Justin- So your take-home pay, after taxes, is $27,500 a month? Subtract about $4k for rent or mortgage, $1k for food, $2k for other bills, and you could still buy a new car EVERY SINGLE MONTH. And that’s not rich?

You’ve forgotten the salary for the nanny and the chauffeur, the tuition at Dalton ($35,000 per year), and the payments on his teenager’s Lexus.

James Gary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

250k is well within the reach of two State College accounting majors who make decent career and life choices.

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices?

Yes, everyone who doesn’t have a comfortable middle-class existence has only themselves to blame. Next time you’re at the grocery store, jmo, be sure to let the clerk know that she’s made an imprudent life choice. And then hum her a few bars of “Theme From The Bottom,” just to make your position clear.

2

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices?

We can talk about that as soon as you can account for what options are available to different people at different times, how “choices” are made, and the extent to which the existence of less educated labor enables and enhances the effectiveness and utility of “prudent choices”.

Until then, given the fact that as things currently stand there is a large percentage of the population that is guaranteed to be “imprudent” enough to not become sufficiently educated in their early childhood, go fuck yourself with your “tax is thievery!” bullshit.

2 fuckity fuck

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Yes, everyone who doesn’t have a comfortable middle-class existence has only themselves to blame.

So, you don’t have friends and relatives who had made nothing but bad choices their whole lives and do nothing but complain about their sorry lot in life? You don’t even have one looser cousin or idiot brother in law? Everyone you know who’s hard up is hard up because of factors totally outside their control?

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices? Should Mike and Peggy the accountants be forced to support Tony who dropped out to play in a Phish cover band and only makes 17k a year?

Yes, because our economic underclass is pretty much composed of hippie drop-outs.

You do realize that not everyone in dire circumstances is there because of “imprudetn career or life choices”? That people get sick, get laid off, their industries disappear, they get divorced, they get in a car accident and suddenly have $500K in medical bills, or they were just damn unlucky to be born to poor parents in a poor neighborhood with poor schools?

The question is: Should Mike and Peggy the accountants help support Antonia who was laid off from the job she had for twenty years, can’t get health insurance because she has leukemia, and has three small kids to feed?

Third try: fuck fuck fuck fuck!

tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

I will show that I can understand where naive people like Justin are coming from without actually agreeing with them.

How to become a 250k whiner in a few easy steps:

Exchange my condo in a gentrifying neighborhood for a house in the neighborhood I really “want” to live in (but I am not rich because there are still more expensive neighborhoods!)

I have a custom made suit that I got, once. It would be nice to have a few more. Maybe some custom tailored shirts, as well.

That vacation to the middle east and asia i can afford once every few years? Now I can go once every 1-2 years. But it is not like i am travelling in luxury or anything! What do you think I am, rich?

These shoes are kind of chafing. I always wanted a pair of Barker Black loafers.

I am so busy i do not have time to cook for the week and bring it to work. Thankfully there is a good sushi place across from my office. It is not like I am taking lunch at someplace fancy. What do you think I am, rich?

2nd try???

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

So, you don’t have friends and relatives who had made nothing but bad choices their whole lives and do nothing but complain about their sorry lot in life?

No, I don’t have any Republican friends or relatives.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Yes, because our economic underclass is pretty much composed of hippie drop-outs.

So, the underclass isn’t often a victim of it’s own anti-intellectualism? They often don’t put nearly as much emphasis on education as they should?

x4

dch says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Justin, I’m in your boat financially (450k+ in SF, which I guess is a slightly cheaper city). Guess what? I’m rich, and so are you.

Even after my mortgage (6k), student loans, auto expenses, utilities, etc, I can go on a couple of nice trips per year and eat out wherever and whenever I want without looking at the prices on the menu. And save for retirement.

yes, I still have to make prudent choices to ensure my long-term financial security, but these are very minor concerns. If your main financial worries are that it’s hard to save lots of money on your salary, and you might have to keep working at your extremely lucrative job for more years than you’d like, you’re rich.

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

The question is: How much of their income should be taken to support those who chose not to educate themselves or who make imprudent career or life choices?

Way to pontificate, Pope jmo. What whiny navel-gazing claptrap.

The 40% income tax bracket in the UK starts at around $58,000 at current exchange rates. There’s a tacit understanding that, oh noes, it will apply to professionals; it is not a punishment for success, no matter how much you want to whine about it.

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:23 pm

@60 – It would be very easy to put your 5 brackets into 3 and have the same effective rate curve. You increase marginals, then bring the calculus. It’s just simpler to only have 3. The tax cade can be as progressive as you like with 3 brackets.

2Fuck

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

You don’t even have one looser cousin or idiot brother in law?

I think we’re all agreed that people should be taxed punitively for being unable to spell “loser”. (Unless Pope jmo is now slut-shaming too.)

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

it’s = its

The question was why a nurse and cop might be horrified by paying more. And the answer would be they often come from middle or working class backgrounds and they know numerous people who make nothing but bad choices. They have the pothead brother still living at home and the cousin who got pregnant with by her asshole boyfriend, etc. When asked to pay more they see it as being asked to pay more to support those who refuse to get their shit together.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:25 pm

You don’t even have one looser cousin or idiot brother in law? Everyone you know who’s hard up is hard up because of factors totally outside their control?

And the fact that you assume that, *inevitably*, everyone knows someone like that doesn’t tell you anything? The fact that “bad choices” are extremely common and that their provenance is multifaceted and mostly mysterious doesn’t make you think “there but for the grace of God go I”?

Your parents aren’t alchoholics? That was very prudent of you. The genes that correlate with more risk-taking behavior aren’t strongly expressed in you? How wise. (Except, of course for those in whom it is expressed and it managed to pay off for them, in which case we must fellate them tout de suite.)

Here’s a frosty mug of STFU for you.

2 fuckity fuck

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm

This is just the other edge of the American class delusion, where a bloated definition of “middle-class” consumes “working-class” at one end and “rich” at the other, creating a false continuum of interests between $15k, $50k and $500k households.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Your parents aren’t alchoholics?

Sure they were and violent and chronically unemployed as well. Should that have given me some sort of free pass to fuck up my life?

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:31 pm

@65 – But what do extra bands get you? Nothing! But they confuse people! So why bother?

The idea that extra bands are in any way helpful is one of the rediculous arguments in this debate.

4 Why has Yglesias ficked his own comments thread?

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm

When asked to pay more they see it as being asked to pay more to support those who refuse to get their shit together.

Project much?

I was denominationally inaccurate: jmo’s not a pope, he’s an old fashioned Calvinist predestinarian, where the elect and the damned are identified by their tax brackets.

tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm

The simplicity or complexity of the tax code has nothing to do with the number of brackets involved. Complexity is embedded in the number of deductions and the treatment of different sources of income.

2nd. Fuckity fuck?

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Shorter Wankers: I’m not rich! Do you have any idea how much of my income goes to my collection of Impressionist paintings? The fact that you want me to pay more taxes to enhance the social safety net is like stealing my paintings!

2

Justin says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Wow– a lot of nastiness here today. Tyro at #72, it may surprise you to hear that I actually don’t disagree with your analysis. Yes, when people make more money their standard of living goes up– but you can play your little though experiment at any income level (do you really need a separate bedroom for each kid? You can’t go local for vacation? etc). I don’t think I’m whining though. I’ve said a number of times that I don’t have money issues– no kids in private school, we bought a place below our budget, we don’t try to keep up with other people in our professional circles, no four star hotels vacations. So I want to work my ass off to save money so I don’t have to worry about losing my job or taking care of aging parents etc, and I don’t belive that because someone thinks I’m rich that that means they can just not worry about taking more of my money. Calling someone rich is just a nice way of saying “let’s just take more of their money, they won’t miss it, it’ll just mean a smaller yacht to them anyway”. Or, “I can live on a budget of x, so someone making twice as much as me can live on the same budget and all the extra money is just a windfall”.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Should that have given me some sort of free pass to fuck up my life?

How, exactly, is the median child of chronically unemployed alcoholic parents supposed to not “fuck up” their life? It’s already fucked up. You’re too focused on narrative and not on statistics.

Horatio Alger and Ayn Rand are convincing to assholes like you because they write fucking fiction. Next up: jmo explains how lumps of coal from Santa are the bee’s knees!

kevincure says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

These posts about 500k not being rich are utterly ridiculous, and I say this as someone who considers myself a libertarian. Assume take home pay of 250k, which essentially means zero deductions of any kind and no saving, which is obviously a stretch. A million dollar apartment, which is quite nice even in NYC, has a mortgage under 8000 now. One low-level Aston Martin and one BMW 750 lease at 1000 a month each, roughly. It’s hard to imagine, even eating out regularly, anyone spending more than 50 bucks a person per day on food, so 36000 total. Two nice vacations at 5000 per person per vacation would really be top-class trips. We’re still only at 176000, so there’s 84000 to go for clothing and furniture and savings. I mean, that looks pretty damn wealthy to me.

joejoejoe says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Rich is a superlative, like being an A student.

Rich = A

Wealthy = B+

Upper middle class = B-

Middle class = C+

Working class = C

Struggling = D

Poverty= F

You need a 90% to get an A. More than 90% of America makes less than $100,000 a year. The median personal income for somebody with a professional degree (doctor, lawyer) is $100,000. If you make $250,000 you are rich. The amount you complain about it determines whether you are simply rich or a rich asshole. If your neighbor’s Audi A8 makes you feel inadequate, that’s your fucking problem. Go to the gym or something and don’t ruin the tax code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

How, exactly, is the median child of chronically unemployed alcoholic parents supposed to not “fuck up” their life?

Don’t start drinking would be a start. I’m a recovering addict so I know it’s a choice. You can choose not to start and you can choose to stop.

x3 fuck fuck fuckity

joejoejoe says:

September 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Shorter everyone making $250,000 complaining they are not rich: I don’t crap in a gold toilet!

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Don’t start drinking would be a start.

So it’s on children to look after themselves. Lovely.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Calling someone rich is just a nice way of saying “let’s just take more of their money, they won’t miss it, it’ll just mean a smaller yacht to them anyway”. Or, “I can live on a budget of x, so someone making twice as much as me can live on the same budget and all the extra money is just a windfall”.

What are we to make of the fact that this is actually true? 10 grand one way or the other really won’t make much of a difference to you, right? That’s 2 percent of your income. Let’s ask the single mom who’s a teacher whether, say, $800 (2%-ish) in either direction would make much of a difference. And, news flash, single mom teachers also want to save up in case they lose their jobs or have to take care of aging parents.

When people talk about rich assholes, this is what they’re talking about.

Ron Mexico says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:04 pm

“But the people making a similar amount of money in Manhattan can’t afford to live in anywhere close to that style: they basically have a middle-class life: they pay high state and local taxes, they live in small apartments, they don’t own cars or weekend houses, they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on private school for the kids. ”

They don’t have to pay for private school, in fact if they do, they’re wasting money, as Manhattan has excellent public schools. If the rich want to spend money on private school that is their prerogative, but that is a question of how they spend their money, not being middle class or lacking funds.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm

DMonteith & Telling Lies,

But, you’re right. No one should be responsible for anything. They don’t choose to drink or get high or drop out or get pregnant – it just happens. No one has any choices in life it’s all just luck.

x4

tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm

I forgot to throw in the overdue home theater and stereo upgrade. We spend as much money as we have until it becomes a bit unconfortable and then use this fact to explain why we aren’t as well off as we obviously are.

jmo is making the mistake in thinking that your tax rate is some kind of reward for not being a fuckup. No: taxes are a means of paying for the operations of government. That some people are chronic fuckups has no bearing on what marginal tax rates are or should be. Want to feel “rewarded” for being successful? Join the fucking rotary club. Or at least enjoy your money and the satisfaction and security of a good career.

2nd. “fucking” in the body of my post was not enough?

Mary says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Ok, I’ll play, because I feel like venting.

Hubby and I both have master’s degrees. I am a teacher, knew what kind of salary I’d be looking at and am content with that salary. Hubby has been SOL looking for a professional job since graduating in 09. He has an underemployment gig that brings in $350 a week. It’s seasonal too.

I pay over 10% of my GROSS income in health insurance premiums and bring home something like $2500 per MONTH. We have the extra seasonal money for part of the year, so in a really good month, we bring home $4000, plus those two lovely months per year where there are three paydays.

Our overall gross is something like $60K. We have one child. We do not qualify for EITC or any other federal program. We live outside of the Boston metro area.

WE ARE NOT POOR. But you know what? People making $250K are RICH. RICH RICH RICH. And if you deny that you are rich: 1) you are delusional and 2) you had better step up and declare me eligible for every type of welfare there is, because I am obviously living in the most dire of poverty.

My hubby worked hard and tried to move up the professional ladder and it has gotten him nowhere. Why? Because there aren’t enough jobs.

Oh and I’m feeling generous today, so if anyone wants to trade tax burdens, I’d be willing. I know you $250 K per year types have it oh so hard.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Don’t start drinking would be a start.

Hey, I hadn’t thought of that! Great! Now that we’ve got your plan in hand, we can lower taxes on the rich!

Way to ignore my point about statistics vs narratives, Einstein.

It’s probably too much to hope that this non-response means that you’ll shut up now about the poor put-upon rich people. I know for a fact that hoping you’ll stop wanting to shit on the poor is a bridge too far.

2 fuckity fuck

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

jmo – children? I haven’t read the thread, just seeing if anyone’s still talking tax bands, but seriously, you seem to be saying children should pay the lifelong price of there childish actions. Really?

3 son says I’m gay, does that get me posted?

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm

No one should be responsible for anything. They don’t choose to drink or get high or drop out or get pregnant – it just happens. No one has any choices in life it’s all just luck.

Once again, asshole, statistics. Not stories (with ponies!) that tell you what you want to hear about yourself.

2 fuckity fuck

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

“I mean, that looks pretty damn wealthy to me.”

The calculations look quite different if you have a couple

of kids, especially kids under school age who need some

kind of child care during working hours throughout the year.

And food. And lots of clothes. And future college costs

of whatever the heck a decent college is going to cost

in 2025 (and on current trends, they’ll need a postgrad degree

in hospitality management to have a shot at a job in Starbucks

by then …). And they have to come along on vacations.

Having kids changes everything. And [again, not a complaint,

just a fact] the tax code isn’t particularly friendly to

families with kids in the $200K+ income range: they don’t

get the dependent child tax credit, and they’re likely to get

hit with the higher AMT tax rate.

You can work through some more realistic arithmetic for

yourself if you want to understand it. Or you can keep trying

to score cheap points by assuming I’m driving an Aston-Martin

rather than my 2000 Mazda Protege.

Oh well, best put on my monocle now and get over to my tailor

to see about a new top hat and a pair of spats. Tally-ho,

Jeeves.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

DMonteith,

Explain your statistics thoery – I’m not familiar with it.

fuck fuck x2

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Wow– a lot of nastiness here today.

You’re acting like a huge douchebag. We’ve been through this same thread many times. Somebody always volunteers to be the douchebag. I guess today’s your turn.

hetherjw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

@ Justin #87

Not to be totally ganging up on you, but…

My total household income is ~1/5 of yours. And I am rich. My healthcare should not be tax subsidized. There is no reason I should be able to deduct my mortgage interest from my taxes. On top of all that the bracket I pay into should probably go up.

A social safety net is more important than how quickly I can save to buy a bigger house or where I go on vacation.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

you seem to be saying children should pay the lifelong price of there childish actions. Really?

Yes, we’re all sentient beings and we need to be responsible for our actions. Who or what you fuck up should be your responsibility.

Kenny B. says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

This thread fulfills my stereotype of rich people as scared, whiney little bitches. They’re constantly fearing the loss of their privilege, and so they look for any opportunity to demonstrate how aggrieved they think they are.

“O Noezzz!!! Teh pleebz r gonna take meh $$$zzz!!!”

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

The calculations look quite different if you have a couple

of kids, especially kids under school age who need some

kind of child care during working hours throughout the year.

And food. And lots of clothes. And future college costs

of whatever the heck a decent college is going to cost

in 2025 (and on current trends, they’ll need a postgrad degree

in hospitality management to have a shot at a job in Starbucks

by then …). And they have to come along on vacations.

…the tax code isn’t particularly friendly to

families with kids in the $200K+ income range: they don’t

get the dependent child tax credit, and they’re likely to get

hit with the higher AMT tax rate.

Yeah, those lucky duckies who make less than $200,000/year don’t think about that stuff, do they?

Am I taking crazy pills? Less than 2%. That’s how many people feel your pain. Holy crap.

4 fuckity fuck

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

That starts at what age? You’re fucking crazy!

Telling Lies says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

109 is @106 FIX THE FUCKING COMMENTS! 2 FUCK

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Explain your statistics thoery – I’m not familiar with it.

Dude, the fact that you’re not aware of how upwardly immobile our society has become is exactly why you’re making the douchebag argument here. Your ignorance is also the reason why you’re straw man-ing my argument.

I’m thinking that a couple of comments in a blog thread aren’t gonna be enough to get you to open your fucking eyes. Not when there are myriad more self-flattering stories to distract yourself with.

m says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

I like how a technical issue gets muddled in moralistic twaddle. Would you prefer that instead of ‘rich’ people simply asked what your household income was and referred to you by percentile? Or would that be too ‘biased’ by not accounting for the standard of living you have opted for? “Oh, sure, we earned more than 98.7% of households, but have you seen the housing prices where I chose to live? I’m not rich, and frankly, it’s insulting that they expect me to even pay for things at the corner store. Had they got their lives together they’d know exactly what it feels like to be me.”

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

Dude, the fact that you’re not aware of how upwardly immobile our society has become is exactly why you’re making the douchebag argument here.

Yes, because people make the choice to not focus on education. They choose to be influenced by the anti-intellectualism of their peers and ithas deleterious effects on their educational attainment, career prospects and earning potential.

Are you arguing that people don’t make that choice? Or, do you see it as not being a choice. We all have no choice but to accept what our friends, families, churches and government tell us?

If a young man says he hates gays because that’s what they taught him in Sunday School – do you accept that? Then why should you accept someone who didn’t study for fear of being made fun of?

mark f says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:50 pm

“I mean, that looks pretty damn wealthy to me.”

The calculations look quite different if you have a couple

of kids, especially kids under school age who need some

kind of child care during working hours throughout the year.

And food. And lots of clothes. And future college costs

of whatever the heck a decent college is going to cost

in 2025

Hmm. My father makes a decent income. In fact, a pretty good one–about $75k/year. My mother worked as a part-time teacher’s assistant for maybe another $15k annually for about five years before cutbacks eliminated the position.

They had three kids: me, fully grown, no student loans or other debt to my parents’ name; my brother, deceased, also with no debt to my parents’ name; and my sister, who is twenty and significantly younger than us, who’s looking to transfer from community college to a four-year institution.

I grew up in an apartment. Not an expensive Manhattan/Boston/big city apartment, but a modest three-decker apartment in an inexpensive area of Worcester, Massachusetts. We didn’t have expensive clothes or furniture. We took solidly middle class vacations . . . no Florida or the Caribbean for us. We probably could have, but my father was saving up for a downpayment on a house. The one across town next to my grandfather came available, so my parents bought it.

Unfortunately, this was at the top of the market. So now on a three-bedroom ranch house built in the 1950s on a small city lot, my father owes the bank more than the house is worth. He also paid in $50,000 cash, and owns 0 equity on the property.

Somehow my sister was not eligible for FAFSA loans; her expected family contribution is $17,000 per year. She applied to private lenders and was approved for a loan with compounding interest. Long story short, she would’ve owed $400k on a $60k loan.

My father was going to co-sign, but he’s refinancing his mortgage. He’s taking another hit so he can retire early. He’s not doing that for a few years of luxury; my mother has early-onset Alzheimer’s and requires full-time care. The health insurance plan doesn’t cover it.

So, to recap: We have a guy who lived and saved prudently on a good income for thirty years, but can’t simultaneously help his daughter go to college and take care of his sick wife. This is what the struggling middle class looks like.

This comment has nothing to do with tax brackets. It has to do with the people who go on expensive yearly vacations and eat out every night thinking they’re struggling because someone somewhere has more.

second try

Myles SG says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

To be fair, $500,000 a year in Upper East Side Manhattan isn’t even close to being rich. After taxes (about $230,000?) you have about $270,000 left. Out of that you have to pay for housing, which can easily be like $7,000-$10,000 a month, school fees, which are $35,000 a year, or about $50,000 once you add in sports and overseas field trips. Of course, it’s actually less than that because of tax deductions, but not by a huge proportion, only a noticeable one. Summer vacations cost a great deal, as do winter skiing. And dining out in Manhattan, as one can expect, is extremely pricey.

There really isn’t much of disposable income left.

Adam Villani says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Rich is a relative term. Everybody except a handful of people can look to someone making twice as much and call what that guy makes “truly rich.” So we’re left with objective measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

So if you make $250K per year, congratulations, you make about 5 times as much as the median household, and more than 98.3% of all households in the country. Guess what? You’re rich.

I don’t know what the line is between rich and not rich, but I know what side of the line $250K is on. Thought experiment: Would you like to take an 80% pay cut? That’s what most Americans make. You’re not super-fabulously wealthy, but when you consider what the median family makes in the U.S., by all means, yes, you’re rich.

I know how it feels. My wife and I are both professionals, making close to $200K, and yet we’re still waiting for prices to drop before buying a house, we still cut coupons for groceries, we drive ten-year-old cars, and we’re still paying student loans. So it’s not like we don’t have to worry about money at all. But we’re still rich. We live in a nice apartment with central air conditioning. We’re taking a trip to Europe. We can go out to eat a lot and buy ourselves nice things.

But I can remember just three years ago when I was unemployed and she was living on a grad student’s stipend when we *did* have to watch every penny. And even then we had more money than a lot of people. So while I may not be flying a private jet to Aruba for the weekend, I still know the difference between living at different income levels. And I know that the income we have now is much better than the income most people have. And I’m thankful for it and I really don’t mind paying a few extra percentage points on my taxes.

And of course, every one of us posting to this blog is rich compared to billions of people around the world living in dire conditions.

MylesSG says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

And of course, given that most people have 2 to 3 children, the school fees alone range from $100,000 to $150,000 a year. And that’s for day school. Imagine how bad it is if kids had to go to Choate.

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Shorter jmo: I’m a real rebel! That’s why I’m more successful than all those sheep!

We all have no choice but to accept what our friends, families, churches and government tell us?

Mmm. Straw. Nom nom nom.

MylesSG says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

In any case, to be really sort of “comfortably” rich in the U.S., you need something like a million dollars a year.

Which explains why most careers are not open to me.

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

To be fair, $500,000 a year in Upper East Side Manhattan isn’t even close to being rich.

I hear that the west side no longer requires you to apply for a visa before moving there. Maybe you could try that.

Imagine how bad it is if kids had to go to Choate.

Ok, I admit it: I LOLed.

Fuckers.

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

i>Mmm. Straw. Nom nom nom.

So, is that the best you can do?

Do you honestly feel that people don’t have a choice and even if they do they shouldn’t be held repsonsible when they choose poorly?

x3

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

“This comment has nothing to do with tax brackets. It has to do with the people who go on expensive yearly vacations and eat out every night thinking they’re struggling because someone somewhere has more.”

Yeah yeah yeah. When I were a lad, we had to get up 3 hours

before we went to bed, eat a handful of cold gravel for

breakfast, and crawl 16 miles to school. House ? You were

lucky! We lived in a paper bag in middle of t’road.

I realize it’s tough to raise a family on $50K/year.

I realize I have a lot more than that. I favor policies

that would make life easier – and especially more secure -

for people at and below median income. And if you want to

call me “rich” – whatever the heck that means – then you

can do it. But when people throw around comments that

suggest the $250K/year crowd are driving Aston-Martin’s

and running up big bills for custom tailoring, I just think

you ought to do the math and realize what crap that is.

It gets you a nicer house in a better neighborhood and

good childcare and some college and retirement savings.

And that’s about it. Struggling ? No. Financially secure ?

No. Still one bad accident or chronic illness away or

layoff away from trouble, like 99% of Americans, but hardly

any Scandinavians …

mark f says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

school fees, which are $35,000 a year, or about $50,000 once you add in sports and overseas field trips. Of course, it’s actually less than that because of tax deductions, but not by a huge proportion, only a noticeable one. Summer vacations cost a great deal, as do winter skiing. And dining out in Manhattan, as one can expect, is extremely pricey.

There really isn’t much of disposable income left.

And after you join the tennis club, buy your season tickets to the Met, finalize the mortgage on that Newport weekender, and get yourself on a couple of prestigious “charity” boards with strategically large donations, why, there’s practically nothing left over for yourself!

2

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

I hear that the west side no longer requires you to apply for a visa before moving there. Maybe you could try that.

Well, the UES is pretty much the only place where most of the apartments have pre-war high ceilings, and I really do prefer my apartments high-ceilinged.

Sex Fuck Shit.

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Myles, I hope this is ironic self-parody. You can be an asshole, but you’re not generally an idiot.

Lauren says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

To be fair, $500,000 a year in Upper East Side Manhattan isn’t even close to being rich. After taxes (about $230,000?) you have about $270,000 left. Out of that you have to pay for housing, which can easily be like $7,000-$10,000 a month, school fees, which are $35,000 a year, or about $50,000 once you add in sports and overseas field trips. Of course, it’s actually less than that because of tax deductions, but not by a huge proportion, only a noticeable one. Summer vacations cost a great deal, as do winter skiing. And dining out in Manhattan, as one can expect, is extremely pricey.

There really isn’t much of disposable income left.

Is this comment for real? What do you think you are doing with the money you are spending on overseas trips for your children, or skiing, or dining out in Manhattan? You are DISPOSING of it! That’s why it’s called DISPOSABLE income.

3

Adam Villani says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Good God Myles, do you even realize how absurd you look? Being rich does not require you to have a bunch of money left over after spending money to live like a rich person. If you can spend that money to live like a rich person to begin with, then either you’re rich or you’re deeply, deeply in debt.

2nd try

Adam Villani says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Seriously, Myles, you’re pulling our legs, right? It’s hard to tell with you.

2

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

“I’m not rich, I just have a few custom suits from that guy from Hong Kong and some designer outfits I got at discount from Century 21, not a closet full of bespoke suits I got made on Saville Row!”

Look, I know as much as the next guy how money just flies out the window, but that comes from choices we make. A 39% rate vs. 36% isn’t the burden here.

Paulie Carbone says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:24 pm

Is this comment for real?

No, Myles is a college kid with a kind of weird fascination with old aristocracy. He posts some of intelligent comments now and then, but more often their just a form of plutocratic masturbation. He fantasizes about being an investment banker one day and taking ski trips to Innsbruck or wherever. I’m not sure to what extent he’s in on the joke, but, no, it’s definitely not something to take seriously.

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Ah, yes, the condemnations! Look. I would be perfectly happy on $500,000 a year, were I to ever get that sum. Sure, if I have kids I won’t be able to donate their way to Princeton, but on the other hand I would probably make a superlative college-and-SAT coach (presuming SAT scores aren’t inheritable, which is open to question).

But would I look to myself and say, “I’m richie richie rich!” Hells no. Maybe if I made three times that. $500,000 is probably upper-upper-middle-class, actually probably beyond that, what the French would call haute bourgeoisie, but it’s not actually upper class.

And I think “rich” is best reserved as a descriptor for the upper class.

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

And yes, I did enjoy writing the earlier posts. I think you guys can take the hint?

pseudonymous in nc says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

But when people throw around comments that

suggest the $250K/year crowd are driving Aston-Martin’s

and running up big bills for custom tailoring, I just think

you ought to do the math and realize what crap that is.

Straw straw straw. The complaint about people in the $250k/year crowd pleading poverty is that it’s calibrated against the lifestyles of the $1m/year crowd. I’ll quote Michael Lewis from that piece I linked:

In this house, I now glimpsed the problem with upper-middle-classness: It isn’t really a class. It’s a space between classes. The space may once have been bridgeable, but lately it’s become a chasm. Middle-class people fantasize about travel upgrades; upper-class people can’t imagine life without a jet. Middle-class people help their children with their homework so they’ll have a chance of getting into Princeton; upper-class people buy Princeton a new building. Middle-class people have homes; upper-class people have monuments. A man struggling to hold on to the illusion that he is upper middle class has become like a character in a cartoon earthquake: He looks down and sees his feet being dragged ever farther apart by a quickly widening fissure. His legs stretch, then splay, and finally he plunges into the abyss.

I take some issue with Lewis’s class definitions, but he’s on the mark about the fundamental delusions that kick in at the point where the rich exist in the penumbra of the filthy rich.

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:31 pm

And I am strictly limiting my reference to $500,000 in Manhattan.

$500,000 in Louisville or Milwaukee or even Chicago is probably “rich”.

It’s just that in the U.S. Northeast, there are actually professional “tracks” that leads to regular $500,000-a-year incomes. And such professional tracks are definitionally upper-middle.

california asset protection says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

250k is not rich, but it’s on the way to that…

Tyro says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

As with many things, Chris Rock understands the dynamic best:

“Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his checks is wealthy.”

Myles says:

September 10th, 2010 at 2:52 pm

By the way, just out of some degree of curiosity, what would you feel like the appropriate salary/income to pay me, or have me be paid?

I think if I were to obtain a suitable professional degree (law, finance) I should be worth $300,000 a year eventually, and more if I’m lucky or work in NYC/London/SF.

Although I have seen perfect idiots making far more than that.

Sex Fuck Shit.

Midland says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Wow. This brewed up nicely while I was gone . . .

i>I’d prefer a society where we had more taxes and better public schools and pensions and single-payer healthcare and suchlike. But as things stand, a lot of the $250K goes

towards those basics, one way or another.

Amazing, isn’t it, how the people making a fifth or a tenth of that manage to avoid homelessness and starvation?

One of the odd side effects of having 20th Century technology and opulence is that class distinctions are not as starkly defined as they used to be. In Ye Olden Days, the rich had servants, lots of them, along with meat on the table every day, personal physicians and dentists, optional time off, mansions, land, plumbing, travel, carriages, clubs, prep schools, colleges, elite entertainments, personal tailors, several changes of clothes each day, etc. They seldom experienced food shortages and could move away from bad water and disease. They didn’t have to put in a days work, at all, if they didn’t want to.

By the late 20th Century, aside from a few remaining pockets of abject poverty, rich, middle, and poor all had houses or at least apartments with bathrooms. Most of us had food on the up-to-date medical care, cars, telephones, and televisions, paid vacations, and a chance for a decent education. The rich had better cars, and bigger houses, more expensive vacations, and better seats at the football games, but the distinctions were mostly incremental. And, because our culture frowns on idle lives, most of them work long hours to keep up with their social equals and stay ahead of everyone else.

Consequently, it is difficult to make people believe that they are rich. Or that there is a vast difference in dealing with the stress of making mortgage payments on a million-dollar house with a quarter-million dollar yearly salary and the stress of paying for your kids braces, the damage that uninsured drunk did to your ’98 Corolla, and your wife’s arthritis, all on thirty grand a year plus what’s left of her unemployment.

No arbitrary boundary works in this situation, but if I were pulling down four times the average national take-home, I wouldn’t be complaining about a couple of hundred dollars in extra taxes. Not in public, anyway.

Interesting bout of neo-Calvinism, looking down the thread. People so fixated on someone not getting punished for their sins, bad choices and “laziness” that they would rather all the purely unlucky be punished along with them.

Which is why most Christians gave up on Calvinism. It was too good of an excuse for selfishness and cruelty.

Third

mpowell says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

By the way, just out of some degree of curiosity, what would you feel like the appropriate salary/income to pay me, or have me be paid?

This is the magic of the free enterprise system. The market gets to determine that. But the median income for someone with a professional degree is a lot lower than 300K. If you want to be ‘on track’ to make that kind of money, you have to be willing to work 55+ hours/week. There is a literal toll that your human body must pay to do it. Of course, there are paths, but they are less certain and much trickier to navigate.

4

jmo says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

People so fixated on someone not getting punished for their sins, bad choices and “laziness” that they would rather all the purely unlucky be punished along with them.

So, what should be done with the kid who just wants to play x-box all day? Just put him on “benefits” and leave it at that? Castigate the nurses, cops and accountants for daring to make +100k a year while poor Gamer McPothead can’t make more than 17k a year?

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm

“Amazing, isn’t it, how the people making a fifth or a tenth of that manage to avoid homelessness and starvation?”

What we have in the USA is a situation where certain very

important goods and services – healthcare, schooling,

public transport, and public safety – are provided in an

inefficient patchwork. The consequence is that prices for

those services are bid up very high – which mostly means

that there are lots of neighborhoods with lousy schools and

poor public transport, where you can live cheaply. And

then there are good neighborhoods with good schools and

good transport, and you have to pay a fortune to live there.

So yeah, if you’re on $40K a year you can get a roof over

your head and feed your kids. What you don’t get is good

schools and safe places for those kids to play. And then

since they didn’t get good schools, they probably don’t get

to good colleges, and their future prospects are not so good.

At $200K+/year you have choices. You could live in one of

those cheap neighborhoods and drive a nice car and eat

out all the time. But more probably you’re going to pay

the exorbitant price to buy a house in a nice neighborhood

and keep your kids safe and have good schools. Yeah, I make

enough to do that. Should I apologize for that ? Does that

have anything at all to do with Michael Lewis’ talk about

the middle-class and the rich ? I don’t think so. It’s just

what parents do for their kids: everything they can.

Does $200K/year get you 5x better schooling than $40K/year ?

Probably not. But human nature is such that you’ll pay a

lot extra to get even a small advantage for your kids.

As for the disasters that have been

mentioned, like early-onset-Alzheimer’s, then the $200K/year

income isn’t going to be that much help, beyond the fact

that it comes with health insurance. And most health

insurance isn’t as comprehensive as it used to be 15 or 20

years ago. Dealing with medical catastrophes is another

issue altogether.

For sure, life is easier on $200K/year than on $40K/year.

But then $60K is better than $40K as well; $41K is better

than $40K. There isn’t some clear dividing line. And from

my own experience, I’m not at all sure which is less of a

“struggle” between being 25 and single on $40K/year, and

being 45, married with 2 pre-school kids on $200K+/year.

Talking about the money without talking about the

circumstances is misleading.

3 Effective Internet Marketing Strategies that Give Results says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

But when people throw around comments that

suggest the $250K/year crowd are driving Aston-Martin’s

and running up big bills for custom tailoring, I just think

you ought to do the math and realize what crap that is.

It gets you a nicer house in a better neighborhood and

good childcare and some college and retirement savings.

And that’s about it. Struggling ? No. Financially secure ?

No. Still one bad accident or chronic illness away or

layoff away from trouble, like 99% of Americans, but hardly

any Scandinavians …

Look, here’s the thing: if you’re actually “rich” then being losing your job or being laid off, while not great, is also not a disaster — you’ll still have enough to live on with dividends, investments, rental income, family money, etc. But if losing your job means you’ll have to run through your retirement savings and won’t be able to keep up with the mortgage, and will be desperate if you’re out of work a year or two — as is the case with most people in NY making around $250,000, and as happened to people I know — then you’re not really “rich” as we think of the term.

Or, in even simpler terms: rich people don’t have to work. If you have to work, you’re not really rich.

And another try: sex fuck.

Some Critically Worthwhile Clickbank Tips says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

Midland says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:37 pm

So, what should be done with the kid who just wants to play x-box all day? Just put him on “benefits” and leave it at that? Castigate the nurses, cops and accountants for daring to make +100k a year while poor Gamer McPothead can’t make more than 17k a year?

Well, for one thing, you could not interrupt a rational discussion of income inequality among working Americans to flog your favorite lazy-bones straw man over and over again.

Second

hetherjw says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

jmo, two points.

First, for every “gamer mcpothead” there are thousands of truly badly off people who really do need public assistance to have any sort of decent standard of living. To punish the people who “made bad choices” you also have to punish many times more people who don’t/didn’t ever have any real chance to live another way. Capitalism requires losers. We don’t get Bill Gates without homeless people, that is just how the system works, so it is our responsibility to do something to provide services for those homeless people. (I acknowledge the crudeness of this example and do not claim that it is a perfect explanation for anything…)

Second, a single male living in his parent’s house and making $17k/year would be FAR FAR too “rich” to qualify for most of the benefits you want to keep him from getting. If he was making $1700 and was severely disabled? Then the benefits get “good.”

try 4

Stefan says:

September 10th, 2010 at 4:45 pm

In Ye Olden Days, the rich had servants, lots of them,

Agatha Christie once wrote than when she was growing up in the early 20th century, she thought that she’d never be so poor as to not be able to have servants, nor ever so rich as to be able to afford a car….

Second try: Fox secks.

Dothax says:

September 10th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Actual tax data, from actual returns. [Not theory and musings about tax rates]

Here are the minimum AGI from IRS data to fall into different buckets for 2007

Top 0.1% $2,155,365 minimum

Top 1% $410,096 minimum

Top 5% $160,041 minimum

Top 10% $113,018 minimum

Bucket avg rate AGI floor

Top 0.1% 21.46 (2.155 mil +)

Top 1% 22.45 (0.419 mil +

Top 5% 20.53 (0.160 mil +)

Top 10% 18.79 (0.133 mil+)

There is an actual propaganda behind this “250K is rich” and “top 1% should be taxed”. It is that tax rates max out at incomes of ~400K and then fall, if you earn into the millions.

This raising taxes on 250K+ is propaganda pure and simple. It passes on the tax burden mostly to older double income families in high cost of living areas. Sure the isolated taxpayer in Podunk might make 250K and could very well be rich. But in reality, it is the multimillionaire incomes hiding under the skirt of the older workers and professionals

Now add the payroll tax to this 22% , and it is much more regressive. Upto about 212K income (dual income, fica cap). The Top 0.1% pays even less, because of fica cap

So this 250K earner is paying 22.5 + 8(FICA) + 9 (CA State income) = 39%. Add sales tax and property tax and it comes close to 50%.

Show me a millionaire that pays 39% in taxes. Show me one that pays 35%. They won’t because it is all taxed at preferred rates of investment income. They have all ways to skip taxes.

This is more of taxing wages, and letting plutocrats alone. The wage earners – like crabs in a bucket – are fighting tooth and nail while the plutocrats laugh.

Fed taxes are not progressive above the top 20% of income. State taxes are even more regressive.

- The following will not make taxes more progressive

– raising taxes on top brackets

– lifting FICA tax cap.

The following will make taxes progressive

– Adding higher income brackets and tax rates above the current ones.

– Instituting FICA taxes on unearned (investment, interest) income

– removing or restricting Mortgage Interest deduction

But I don’t see anything other than knee-jerk “250K is rich”, from people who should know better.

Just see what happens if it was 1 million instead of 250K – it would sail through. No one would have the political guts to oppose it. Those hiding under the skirts of wage earners will be exposed.

Dothax says:

September 10th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

Link for tax data in #148

The Reality of Cortisol and Weight Gain | Weight Gainer Supplements says:

September 10th, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250,000 &#1110&#1109 a Lot &#959f Money

joejoejoe says:

September 10th, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Oh me oh my. I’m not RICH because my other RICH friends don’t have a vastly different income than me and the incredible things I take for granted like PRIVATE SCHOOL and NICE VACATIONS and EXPENSIVE CONSUMER GOODS and living in a HIGHLY DESIRED LOCATION don’t count as signs of my wealth. Only AFTER I grant myself all manner of things that most people NEVER consider will I begin to count my disposable income and then round up to something OBSCENE to self diagnose myself as NOT RICH.

Eat a bag of gold dicks you rich fucks.

Richard Cownie says:

September 10th, 2010 at 7:41 pm

“never be so poor as to not be able to have servants, nor ever so rich as to be able to afford a car….”

This gets to the heart of it. By miracles of design and

technology and logistics, we’ve figured out how to make a

car (or a computer) astonishingly cheaply, and in particular

with very few man-hours of semi-skilled labor (IIRC about

40 man-hours for a cheap car). So those have got cheap.

But healthcare and education (and legal services) remain

highly labor-intensive and expensive. Those sectors also

have really weird markets with various kinds of inefficiencies

(the tie between housing and schooling; the asymmetry of

information in medicine or law).

We’ve also lost defined-benefit pension plans: and moved

towards a corporate culture of cost-cutting and layoffs

which gives much less security of employment.

So these days large chunks of income go towards healthcare,

education (disguised as housing), and pensions, much of

which has undergone very high inflation since 1980 or so.

Comparisons against previous generations don’t correspond

to the new conditions.

wiley says:

September 10th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

On behalf of all those “losers” not making a quarter of a million a year—FUCK YOU! No cleaning staff, no child care workers, no teachers, no store staff, no movers, no clerks, no secretaries, no housekeepers, no dry cleaners, no drivers, no receptionists, no garbage pick-ups, no construction workers—no laborers to make you feel like you breeze through life in comfort and convenience all by your lonesome, and that only the jobs that pay as much as yours are meaningful and necessary. FUCK YOU AGAIN!

lalaland says:

September 10th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

that’s because the cities in his district – stamford, norwalk, bridgeport – don’t even exist in the popular imagination of what fairfield county is.

The Fun Of Bag Shopping-- Fake Bags says:

September 10th, 2010 at 10:17 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

DMonteith says:

September 10th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

So, is that the best you can do?

Do you honestly feel that people don’t have a choice and even if they do they shouldn’t be held repsonsible when they choose poorly?

Me: You’re straw man-ing my argument, dude.

jmo: Yeah, that’s weak. So, do you really believe this straw man stuff I’m wishing you would believe?

I really love the “So, is that the best you can do?” immediately preceding the pivot into doing exactly what I said you were doing that prompted your query. Well played, idiot.

So, I dunno if it’s the best I can do, but from here it looks like it’ll do.

2 fuckity fuck

oldguy says:

September 12th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Amid much delusion about wealth and class, Dothax at 148 and 149 actually comes in with practical points for dicussion and, alas, the thread is dropped!

Indian Mobile Market Review | Mobile Marketing 4 Internet Marketers says:

September 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

How To Enhance Your Computer Pace Almost Immediately | Ipad Store says:

September 13th, 2010 at 7:39 am

Matthew Yglesias » $250000 is a Lot of Money

bench craft company rip off

Notwithoutawarrantmister

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Making Money Job

159 Responses to “$250,000 is a Lot of Money”

<b>News</b> Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad <b>...</b>

Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Media Survival Guide

Michelle Malkin » Good <b>News</b>: Dukakis Advising Democrats

<b>News</b> Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad <b>...</b>

Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Media Survival Guide

Michelle Malkin » Good <b>News</b>: Dukakis Advising Democrats

159 Responses to “$250,000 is a Lot of Money”

<b>News</b> Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad <b>...</b>

Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Media Survival Guide

Michelle Malkin » Good <b>News</b>: Dukakis Advising Democrats

<b>News</b> Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad <b>...</b>

Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Media Survival Guide

Michelle Malkin » Good <b>News</b>: Dukakis Advising Democrats

<b>News</b> Roundup: Gordon Ramsay Responds to Chef's Suicide, Brad <b>...</b>

Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Media Survival Guide

Michelle Malkin » Good <b>News</b>: Dukakis Advising Democrats

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me