Because for the government to be a competitive employer and acquire and keep higher-quality employees, it has to be paying employees at a comparable rate to private companies in the same area. And if you're already being paid more to live in a more expensive area, why should you be taxed less as well? |
Correct so why should tax rates be the same nationwide |
ding, ding, ding |
Because if you're already being paid more because you live in a certain area, it makes no sense that you should be taxed less. You already have more money overall. |
|
In our area the rich is 600 k, nationally it's around 387k. Wtf is this 250k bs.
To be considered part of the 1 percent in this area, it takes a household income far above the national average of $387,000. The gateway for the region is $527,000. In the District, the top 1 percent of households bring in at least $617,000; in Montgomery County, more than $606,000; and in Fairfax County, $532,000, according to an analysis of census statistics by The Washington Post and Sentier Research, a firm that specializes in income data. Http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-21/local/35451899_1_household-income-income-data-income-inequality |
But this is also incredibly skewed by the super-rich in Great Falls and the like. The median household income for the District is 58k. So if you make 250k, you are making more than QUADRUPLE the median household income. It's also worth acknowledging that yes, housing costs are higher here, but the majority of 300k earners are buying a home. When they buy a million dollar home and pay the mortgage, they are building up to 1m in equity. That's a lot different than the 100k earner in flyover country that buys a 350k home and builds a third of that in equity. The reality is that we all pay a premium to live somewhere that we think is desirable. Just because you spend money to achieve that goal doesn't mean that you don't make an objectively large sum. You just spend a large sum, also. |
So by your definition, only the top 1% is "wealthy"? How did you come to that conclusion? Why not only the top 0.00001%? |
Exactly. So if I'm only in the top 2%, I'm middle class? I certainly feel like I'm doing a lot better than most middle-class folks (but then again, I don't have $150 jeans...) |
THIS. You live in a wealthy area. Therefore, more people are going to have objectively more money and still not be in the "top." If you lived somewhere where everyone in the top 50% made more than 1 million, that doesn't mean that 1 million ISN'T a lot of money! |
| Banana sells a jacket that costs $800? |
I don't think that person shops at Banana so I gave her a pass. |
+1, obama needs to stop calling those above 250k rich it's very ignorant and short sighted. |
It is not short-sighted and ignorant at all, but rather the complete opposite. You don't have to be in the top 1% to be wealthy. Above $250K is rich anywhere. You strivers need to develop some perspective. (we have a HHI of about 120K and I don't think I'd complain if the "wealthy tax" threshold was lowered to where we are. People gotta stop being so damn greedy.) |
Its not about greed. Its about what our family has worked hard to make and yes WE deserve it. Speak for yourself and please....donate some of your income to the government for me. Thats fine...you can call me greedy
|
But do you deserve to live in a great country which provides you with opportunity, security, and freedom? Maybe not. |