200k HHI is just getting by Six-Figure Salary No Longer Means You're Rich 5k leftover see this chart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually agree that there was a brief period in time (after WWII, before Vietnam) when Americans with decent jobs could expect a very comfortable lifestyle which included "luxuries", if you will, that went beyond mere subsistence.

That is such a myth. The typical 1950s family with 3 children lived in a 1200 square foot house. None of the people complaining on this thread would even consider living in that small a home. Almost no middle-class Americans then flew or vacationed abroad. Because of trade tariffs, clothes cost a great deal more and the vegetables at the market were limited to iceberg and string beans. Cars broke down regularly and TV was limited to 3 stations broadcasting 12 hours a day. And, it cost a small fortune to phone someone across the country. And this was the life of middle class white people who didn't have to live under Jim Crow. It only seemed good compared to the Great Depression and the bloodletting of WWII.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually agree that there was a brief period in time (after WWII, before Vietnam) when Americans with decent jobs could expect a very comfortable lifestyle which included "luxuries", if you will, that went beyond mere subsistence.

That is such a myth. The typical 1950s family with 3 children lived in a 1200 square foot house. None of the people complaining on this thread would even consider living in that small a home. Almost no middle-class Americans then flew or vacationed abroad. Because of trade tariffs, clothes cost a great deal more and the vegetables at the market were limited to iceberg and string beans. Cars broke down regularly and TV was limited to 3 stations broadcasting 12 hours a day. And, it cost a small fortune to phone someone across the country. And this was the life of middle class white people who didn't have to live under Jim Crow. It only seemed good compared to the Great Depression and the bloodletting of WWII.

Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually agree that there was a brief period in time (after WWII, before Vietnam) when Americans with decent jobs could expect a very comfortable lifestyle which included "luxuries", if you will, that went beyond mere subsistence.

That is such a myth. The typical 1950s family with 3 children lived in a 1200 square foot house. None of the people complaining on this thread would even consider living in that small a home. Almost no middle-class Americans then flew or vacationed abroad. Because of trade tariffs, clothes cost a great deal more and the vegetables at the market were limited to iceberg and string beans. Cars broke down regularly and TV was limited to 3 stations broadcasting 12 hours a day. And, it cost a small fortune to phone someone across the country. And this was the life of middle class white people who didn't have to live under Jim Crow. It only seemed good compared to the Great Depression and the bloodletting of WWII.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually agree that there was a brief period in time (after WWII, before Vietnam) when Americans with decent jobs could expect a very comfortable lifestyle which included "luxuries", if you will, that went beyond mere subsistence.

That is such a myth. The typical 1950s family with 3 children lived in a 1200 square foot house. None of the people complaining on this thread would even consider living in that small a home. Almost no middle-class Americans then flew or vacationed abroad. Because of trade tariffs, clothes cost a great deal more and the vegetables at the market were limited to iceberg and string beans. Cars broke down regularly and TV was limited to 3 stations broadcasting 12 hours a day. And, it cost a small fortune to phone someone across the country. And this was the life of middle class white people who didn't have to live under Jim Crow. It only seemed good compared to the Great Depression and the bloodletting of WWII.

+2. I grew up this way in the 70's. The bit about string beans and iceberg lettuce is a bit of an exaggeration though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually agree that there was a brief period in time (after WWII, before Vietnam) when Americans with decent jobs could expect a very comfortable lifestyle which included "luxuries", if you will, that went beyond mere subsistence.

That is such a myth. The typical 1950s family with 3 children lived in a 1200 square foot house. None of the people complaining on this thread would even consider living in that small a home. Almost no middle-class Americans then flew or vacationed abroad. Because of trade tariffs, clothes cost a great deal more and the vegetables at the market were limited to iceberg and string beans. Cars broke down regularly and TV was limited to 3 stations broadcasting 12 hours a day. And, it cost a small fortune to phone someone across the country. And this was the life of middle class white people who didn't have to live under Jim Crow. It only seemed good compared to the Great Depression and the bloodletting of WWII.

Thank you! There was a poster on here who said of COURSE she expected a 3000 square foot new house and good schools, because she went to school for all those years for a master's degree?! People need to learn their history. McMansions and international vacations are new things. College tuition is much higher than it used to be -- I will grant them that. But none of the rest of this stuff they're spending their money on was just regular middle class stuff pretty much ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I come from an Eastern European country. A yearly vacation, a well maintained (albeit small) apartment, a decent school, retirement, maternity leave etc., are considered staples of the middle class not luxuries. When my relatives visit, and see our home and lifestyle, they are not really impressed, they certainly do not consider us rich. I find their perspective interesting and quite in contrast with the trend here of ever lowering standards. Slowly everything is becoming a "luxury" and the middle class is being defined as those who can subsist by putting food on their table and a roof over their head.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Spot on.

[Anonymous]

Well you don't need a $6000 car,
Obviously the childcare costs are for a pre-school aged child
I don't spend that much on my mortgage either.

Live (even more) within your means, people.

[Anonymous]

My boss makes over $500k and would say he is not rich - he is always strapped for cash. Why?

he chose to have a stay at home wife.
he chose to have three kids
he chose to buy a VERY expensive car for himself, and cars for all the other family members
he chose to buy a condo at the beach
he chose to buy a mcmansion in MD on multiple acres of land.
Once in a while he takes a european vacation, family in tow

I think it's called marginal propensity to consume. You spend the money you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are becoming a country of a few "haves" and many "have nots". The middle class is disappearing rapidly and the standard of living is declining. My children will probably face a harder time achieving financial security.

Our standard of living is declining because our taxes are increasing, and we only make $160K a year. Just a thought.

A bad thought.

During WWI, the top rate hovered around 73 percent, and in 1944 and 1945, the top rate peaked at 94 percent.
From 1950 to 1963, the top rate stuck at 91 or 92 percent.
From 1964 through 1981, the top rate fluctuated between 75 and 69 percent.
Even under Ronald Reagan, a famously anti-tax president, the top rate remained 50 percent until the final two years of his presidency, when it dipped to 28 percent, the lowest top marginal rate since the 1920s.
The 2014 top rate is 39.6 percent, up from 2012's 35 percent, the lowest in the past 82 years, except for 1988 through 1992 [source: Tax Foundation].


So no, taxes aren't the problem. Expectations warped hopelessly out of shape thanks to Robin Leach and reality tv have led us to believe our standard of living is declining. But it's not. People really need to get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are becoming a country of a few "haves" and many "have nots". The middle class is disappearing rapidly and the standard of living is declining. My children will probably face a harder time achieving financial security.

Our standard of living is declining because our taxes are increasing, and we only make $160K a year. Just a thought.

A bad thought.

During WWI, the top rate hovered around 73 percent, and in 1944 and 1945, the top rate peaked at 94 percent.
From 1950 to 1963, the top rate stuck at 91 or 92 percent.
From 1964 through 1981, the top rate fluctuated between 75 and 69 percent.
Even under Ronald Reagan, a famously anti-tax president, the top rate remained 50 percent until the final two years of his presidency, when it dipped to 28 percent, the lowest top marginal rate since the 1920s.
The 2014 top rate is 39.6 percent, up from 2012's 35 percent, the lowest in the past 82 years, except for 1988 through 1992 [source: Tax Foundation].


So no, taxes aren't the problem. Expectations warped hopelessly out of shape thanks to Robin Leach and reality tv have led us to believe our standard of living is declining. But it's not. People really need to get a grip.

And in case I misread you--that YOUR PERSONAL standard of living is declining as your income, and therefore your taxes, climbs, please, get a double grip. If that is the case, please. Quit your job and get one that pays a lower tax rate. Oh wait, you would still be coming ahead at 160K? Shocking, I tell you. Shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are becoming a country of a few "haves" and many "have nots". The middle class is disappearing rapidly and the standard of living is declining. My children will probably face a harder time achieving financial security.

Our standard of living is declining because our taxes are increasing, and we only make $160K a year. Just a thought.

A bad thought.

During WWI, the top rate hovered around 73 percent, and in 1944 and 1945, the top rate peaked at 94 percent.
From 1950 to 1963, the top rate stuck at 91 or 92 percent.
From 1964 through 1981, the top rate fluctuated between 75 and 69 percent.
Even under Ronald Reagan, a famously anti-tax president, the top rate remained 50 percent until the final two years of his presidency, when it dipped to 28 percent, the lowest top marginal rate since the 1920s.
The 2014 top rate is 39.6 percent, up from 2012's 35 percent, the lowest in the past 82 years, except for 1988 through 1992 [source: Tax Foundation].


So no, taxes aren't the problem. Expectations warped hopelessly out of shape thanks to Robin Leach and reality tv have led us to believe our standard of living is declining. But it's not. People really need to get a grip.

And in case I misread you--that YOUR PERSONAL standard of living is declining as your income, and therefore your taxes, climbs, please, get a double grip. If that is the case, please. Quit your job and get one that pays a lower tax rate. Oh wait, you would still be coming ahead at 160K? Shocking, I tell you. Shocking.

+1
Would you rather earn 500k and pay 50% in taxes or earn 50k and pay 0% in taxes? The answer is obvious yet people who make more and pay more in taxes still always cry a river of pity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are becoming a country of a few "haves" and many "have nots". The middle class is disappearing rapidly and the standard of living is declining. My children will probably face a harder time achieving financial security.

Our standard of living is declining because our taxes are increasing, and we only make $160K a year. Just a thought.

A bad thought.

During WWI, the top rate hovered around 73 percent, and in 1944 and 1945, the top rate peaked at 94 percent.
From 1950 to 1963, the top rate stuck at 91 or 92 percent.
From 1964 through 1981, the top rate fluctuated between 75 and 69 percent.
Even under Ronald Reagan, a famously anti-tax president, the top rate remained 50 percent until the final two years of his presidency, when it dipped to 28 percent, the lowest top marginal rate since the 1920s.
The 2014 top rate is 39.6 percent, up from 2012's 35 percent, the lowest in the past 82 years, except for 1988 through 1992 [source: Tax Foundation].


So no, taxes aren't the problem. Expectations warped hopelessly out of shape thanks to Robin Leach and reality tv have led us to believe our standard of living is declining. But it's not. People really need to get a grip.

And in case I misread you--that YOUR PERSONAL standard of living is declining as your income, and therefore your taxes, climbs, please, get a double grip. If that is the case, please. Quit your job and get one that pays a lower tax rate. Oh wait, you would still be coming ahead at 160K? Shocking, I tell you. Shocking.

+1
Would you rather earn 500k and pay 50% in taxes or earn 50k and pay 0% in taxes? The answer is obvious yet people who make more and pay more in taxes still always cry a river of pity.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would make more sense if your federal income tax rates were adjusted based on geographic COL. Won't happen, but then the person making $200K in Nebraska, where it goes much farther, will pay more in taxes than someone who needs every cent of the $200K to compensate for crappy schools or high real estate costs in a hcol area.

The deductions scale with housing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People, people, people.
Each post from above is indeed a post by a person whom is NOT rich. It is the situation we live in, where there is no real wage growth. Sure, I agree, $200K looks great on paper. But it is in no way rich. I make about $350K and I am by no means rich.
However, take note, voters:
if you make $250K or more, Obama and his pals consider you part of the 1%, and, somehow, the govt is trying to tax you more. Pay attention. You aren't rich, but, if the govt feels you are rich, then the PC wage gap people will do something about it.

You're nuts. Unless you have three kids or bought an overly expensive home then you're doing something wrong. We make over 350k and save over 140k in a bad year. We weren't able to save this much in a higher col city than DC because housing costs were much higher and so were taxes.

Also taxes really haven't increased much over Obama. There's the Medicare surcharge and that's really it. Also check out trump's platform because he also thinks you're rich at 250k.

How is this savings possible? We make 320K and our net is 14k per month, so not sure how you save 12k per month? Can you post a budget please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We make 320K and our net is 14k per month, so not sure how you save 12k per month? Can you post a budget please?

Read the comments on the rest of the thread. I'm pretty sure you're the one who has grossly undercounted your net income. Your calculation of net income probably deducts for substantial retirement savings, tax free health insurance and flexible savings account for child care, group life insurance, and overpayment to the IRS (do you get a refund?). Most median income earners don't. Some employers pay for those benefits. Plus, your mortgage generates a substantial tax deduction as does your property tax bill as you build equity. Renters and standard deduction filers don't.