Ok can we stop saying $300k is "rich" in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

You sound unhinged. How does thinking you're middle class if you make 300k make you "morally bankrupt?" Get a grip, there's worse things in the world to worry about.

[Anonymous]

$300K is well off even in DC.

You'll never convince me this is middle class. I grew up middle class with a father who worked in a public sector law job and mother who was a nurse.
That was middle class. We had a decent house but we shopped at Sears for clothing and when we ate out it was at Chinese restaurants and Mcdonalds. We camped for vacations and took a ton of day trips to neighboring cities.
I did extra-curriculars but they were rec soccer and cross country.

In comparison I have a ton more disposable income at $350K in DC. The lifestyles don't even remotely compare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

I totally agree! I can't believe some of these idiots think someone making $300k is rich! Rich people drive cars worth much more than 300k.

+ 1

I'm starting to think that these "social justice warriors" who are convinced 200-300k hhi is rich have just never met truly rich people.

You keep saying "social justice warrior," but honestly, I'm the least egalitarian person you'll ever meet and I think income inequality is totes fine. But when I earn $300k and can look around and say, "Huh. I have choices and stuff that 95% of people don't have," then yeah, I'm comfortable saying that's rich. At the very least, it's upper middle class.

[Anonymous]

It's rich. I grew up in what i believed was middle class. Parents owned our home, but my dad worked in a chemical factory as a laborer and my mom worked in a sweat shop making coats. Immigrants, they get the job done.

It's a slap in the face to not acknowledge that we are rich even if we aren't Warren Buffett.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

This

For a two-income couple in DC making 300k, if one makes 200k and the other makes 100k, the entire second income is taxed at 51.6 percent (35 percent federal - AMT phaseout bracket, 8.95 percent DC, 7.65 percent SS/Medicare).

What's your point? Progressive tax rate. Yours first 200k are not tax at that rate. Nice try. In the worst possible case (self employed, no deductions besides state tax, no kids) you get 44%, very easy to run the numbers. Doubt it's you.

Point is that we are taxed like rich people, but can't afford a four bedroom house with a small yard, decent public schools, and less than 45 minute commute - which seems like something rich people should be able to afford. And is something that is easily affordable in most parts of the country on 200k which has a much lower tax burden.

Huh, maybe it turns out that ignoring public infrastructure, failing to tax appropriately, and screwing the poor (who rely first and foremost on public infrastructure) has trickle-UP affects? So even the "rich" get screwed! Perhaps you ought to make common cause with the ACTUAL poor people and fight for things like denser development and better public transportation (to reduce commute); better schools (to increase location options); single-payer health care (to reduce insurance premiums); protect social security; and progressive housing policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've learned something interesting from all this fighting, which is that apparently the people most convinced they *aren't* rich are conservatives. Some have argued here that people who think they have more than enough on $200k are "social justice warriors." This helps me understand why our republican senators are currently throwing sick children under a bus just so rich people can get tax breaks.

Not the conclusion I will make. I don't know about your healthcare costs, but mine grew astronomically with obamacare (9% for premiums per year and new coinsurance that makes you hit your deductible fast, which I never had till this year).

Are you actually on an Obamacare exchange plan? If not, the growth in premiums and coinsurance is thanks to your employer and the costs of medical care, NOT obamacare. #factsareyourfriend.

Not pp, but I was on an Obamacare exchange plan (until I got a new job), and the premiums were ridiculous and getting more so. However, much of the increase in costs for employer plans is also attributable to Obamacare. In particular, the minimum requirements for plans, taxes for "Cadillac plans," etc. #factsreallyareyourfriend

Nope, you are wrong. It's simply not true that Obamacare increased premiums for employer plans:

" Health insurance premiums have been rising for decades, almost (though not quite) as stubbornly reliable as an eastern sunrise. And it turns out that these increases actually slowed after the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. That's according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which tracks a range of topics around spending on health care in its Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The survey tracks the health insurance offered by private firms big and small, and in all cases, the average rate of premium growth from the time the law passed in 2010 through 2015 was actually lower than from 2004 to 2010. And premium growth was lowest for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

A similar study, prepared every year by the Kaiser Family Foundation, shows a similar trajectory for premiums, and it continues into 2016. "Everything's been slower because we had the recession and health care costs just haven't been going up that much," says Gary Claxton, who directs the Kaiser Family Foundation's Health Care Marketplace Project. "That's still true, though it's wearing off a bit now.""

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robbmandelbaum/2017/02/24/no-obamacare-hasnt-jacked-up-your-companys-insurance-rates/#6529a72c3a01

And even if the mandates for minimum requirements DID increase some employer-based plans, I think that those changes actually make the plans much better and are worth the additional money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

You either have a warped world view or have a lot more debts than we do. We make $300K and have one nine year old. We went on several international vacations and are hosting a cookout for 15 of DD's friends this weekend at the pool that we belong to for no reason at all other than we feel like it. I think our life is quite different than someone making 50K. Now, granted, we only need to pay for college for one kid, but we've been funding her 529 since her birth.

1 kid? You just rebutted your own argument. That's $400k less you need to save for college. Enjoy the pool.

Paying for college is a choice.

Right. A choice which the truly wealthy can easily afford. And one that someone making $50k largley does not not to worry about because of need based financial aid. It's the family making $300k that gets hosed.

Really? So on our HHI of 100k - where do we fall? Will we get financial aid for college? I don't really think so. So you tell me - who is better off - you or me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$300K is well off even in DC.

You'll never convince me this is middle class. I grew up middle class with a father who worked in a public sector law job and mother who was a nurse.
That was middle class. We had a decent house but we shopped at Sears for clothing and when we ate out it was at Chinese restaurants and Mcdonalds. We camped for vacations and took a ton of day trips to neighboring cities.
I did extra-curriculars but they were rec soccer and cross country.

In comparison I have a ton more disposable income at $350K in DC. The lifestyles don't even remotely compare.

Yep - I grew up like you. I agree wholeheartedly. Our HHI is 100k and we still feel pretty well off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've learned something interesting from all this fighting, which is that apparently the people most convinced they *aren't* rich are conservatives. Some have argued here that people who think they have more than enough on $200k are "social justice warriors." This helps me understand why our republican senators are currently throwing sick children under a bus just so rich people can get tax breaks.

Not the conclusion I will make. I don't know about your healthcare costs, but mine grew astronomically with obamacare (9% for premiums per year and new coinsurance that makes you hit your deductible fast, which I never had till this year).

Are you actually on an Obamacare exchange plan? If not, the growth in premiums and coinsurance is thanks to your employer and the costs of medical care, NOT obamacare. #factsareyourfriend.

Not pp, but I was on an Obamacare exchange plan (until I got a new job), and the premiums were ridiculous and getting more so. However, much of the increase in costs for employer plans is also attributable to Obamacare. In particular, the minimum requirements for plans, taxes for "Cadillac plans," etc. #factsreallyareyourfriend

Nope, you are wrong. It's simply not true that Obamacare increased premiums for employer plans:

" Health insurance premiums have been rising for decades, almost (though not quite) as stubbornly reliable as an eastern sunrise. And it turns out that these increases actually slowed after the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. That's according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which tracks a range of topics around spending on health care in its Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The survey tracks the health insurance offered by private firms big and small, and in all cases, the average rate of premium growth from the time the law passed in 2010 through 2015 was actually lower than from 2004 to 2010. And premium growth was lowest for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

A similar study, prepared every year by the Kaiser Family Foundation, shows a similar trajectory for premiums, and it continues into 2016. "Everything's been slower because we had the recession and health care costs just haven't been going up that much," says Gary Claxton, who directs the Kaiser Family Foundation's Health Care Marketplace Project. "That's still true, though it's wearing off a bit now.""

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robbmandelbaum/2017/02/24/no-obamacare-hasnt-jacked-up-your-companys-insurance-rates/#6529a72c3a01

And even if the mandates for minimum requirements DID increase some employer-based plans, I think that those changes actually make the plans much better and are worth the additional money.

You are citing a blog post, but even there is a lame excuse about 2017 costs going up blaming underpricing in the first few years. Underpricing? I had the same insurance for years with small increases in premiums and deductible over decades, but it became underpriced under Obamacare and the costs jumps 9% for the much worse coverage ( individual coverage, not through employer)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

You sound unhinged. How does thinking you're middle class if you make 300k make you "morally bankrupt?" Get a grip, there's worse things in the world to worry about.

How? Because you live on a big complex planet earth but have no perspective regarding your place on it. I do think it's morally bankrupt. Sure, there are worse things that are not only morally bankrupt but also evil. Be glad I'm not considering you evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

You either have a warped world view or have a lot more debts than we do. We make $300K and have one nine year old. We went on several international vacations and are hosting a cookout for 15 of DD's friends this weekend at the pool that we belong to for no reason at all other than we feel like it. I think our life is quite different than someone making 50K. Now, granted, we only need to pay for college for one kid, but we've been funding her 529 since her birth.

1 kid? You just rebutted your own argument. That's $400k less you need to save for college. Enjoy the pool.

Paying for college is a choice.

Right. A choice which the truly wealthy can easily afford. And one that someone making $50k largley does not not to worry about because of need based financial aid. It's the family making $300k that gets hosed.

Really? So on our HHI of 100k - where do we fall? Will we get financial aid for college? I don't really think so. So you tell me - who is better off - you or me.

+1. It is absurd to compare a $50k family to a $300k family. And absurd to compare a $100k family to a $300k family. I can't believe these people who are crying poor because they have to pay their kids' college bills but "the $50k family is so much better off with their favored treatment". Snort. Try living on/supporting a family on $50k and get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

You sound unhinged. How does thinking you're middle class if you make 300k make you "morally bankrupt?" Get a grip, there's worse things in the world to worry about.

How? Because you live on a big complex planet earth but have no perspective regarding your place on it. I do think it's morally bankrupt. Sure, there are worse things that are not only morally bankrupt but also evil. Be glad I'm not considering you evil.

Of all the insane things I've read on this forum, this takes the cake. Crazies like you led to the backlash known as Trump. To think of it, I do actually consider you and your kind evil for leading us to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

I totally agree! I can't believe some of these idiots think someone making $300k is rich! Rich people drive cars worth much more than 300k.

+ 1

I'm starting to think that these "social justice warriors" who are convinced 200-300k hhi is rich have just never met truly rich people.

I AM "truly rich people." Private jets and such "rich." Generational wealth "rich." $300k is not poor or middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

This

For a two-income couple in DC making 300k, if one makes 200k and the other makes 100k, the entire second income is taxed at 51.6 percent (35 percent federal - AMT phaseout bracket, 8.95 percent DC, 7.65 percent SS/Medicare).

What's your point? Progressive tax rate. Yours first 200k are not tax at that rate. Nice try. In the worst possible case (self employed, no deductions besides state tax, no kids) you get 44%, very easy to run the numbers. Doubt it's you.

Point is that we are taxed like rich people, but can't afford a four bedroom house with a small yard, decent public schools, and less than 45 minute commute - which seems like something rich people should be able to afford. And is something that is easily affordable in most parts of the country on 200k which has a much lower tax burden.

Huh, maybe it turns out that ignoring public infrastructure, failing to tax appropriately, and screwing the poor (who rely first and foremost on public infrastructure) has trickle-UP affects? So even the "rich" get screwed! Perhaps you ought to make common cause with the ACTUAL poor people and fight for things like denser development and better public transportation (to reduce commute); better schools (to increase location options); single-payer health care (to reduce insurance premiums); protect social security; and progressive housing policy?

#truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

You sound unhinged. How does thinking you're middle class if you make 300k make you "morally bankrupt?" Get a grip, there's worse things in the world to worry about.

How? Because you live on a big complex planet earth but have no perspective regarding your place on it. I do think it's morally bankrupt. Sure, there are worse things that are not only morally bankrupt but also evil. Be glad I'm not considering you evil.

Of all the insane things I've read on this forum, this takes the cake. Crazies like you led to the backlash known as Trump. To think of it, I do actually consider you and your kind evil for leading us to that.

Yall need to pick a story and stick to it. I thought the po' coal miners elected Trump to bring back their jobs so they could get off the meth/opiates and stop collecting disability checks? And that they were made with the elite who thought that $200k was poor?