I don't get the whole "fake rich $250k" thing. We make just under 200k and are more than comfortable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You know, I don't totally agree with the argument "I earned this money and it's all mine." Have you ever sat down and thought about all the advantages most of us with money had at one point or another? In many cases, we got here through a combination of family privileges, federal loans, public schools, etc. This isn't to deny that those working hard deserve to be rewarded, but just to make clear that the notion of a "self-made" man or woman is mostly myth
.

Please quit spouting this propaganda. Of all the "rich" people I know, only 2 inherited. The rest of us pulled ourselves up (some from the gutter) by making hard decisions, wise decisions and then continually working our asses off. It didn't happen by chance and the opportunities were not handed to us. I am so sick of the "you didn't build that" argument. It is "mostly a myth".

Of the rich people you know, how many went to public school? Public college? Took out federal student loans? And that's just for starters...did they benefit from living in a safe country with good infrastructure? I could go on, but perhaps you've considered that sucess doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Oh, and my housekeeper makes hard decisions and works her ass off. Weird how she's not rich.

market forces and demand determine a person's worth (salary)

Exactly. Not "hard decisions" and "working your ass off."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

+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

Have you spent any time with immigrant workers, those who pick vegetables or clean houses for a living? Have you ever seen how hard they work? And have you seen how little money they make? Does it occur to you that how hard you work has very little to do with how much money you make? And does it occur to you that refusing to share your money with those who did not have the educational, social, economic and other opportunities you had might be fair? Does it occur to you that by keeping all your money to yourself and justifying by saying you worked hard for it is the very definition of greedy? You are greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But we also live in Silver Spring, send our kids to public, chose daycare over a nanny. We also only buy used (nice) cars. I guess by some standards I would be considered cheap;
I only need 4 pairs of jeans, I refuse to pay more than $60 for each pair
I would never spend $500 on a purse
We have a cleaning lady once a week and a landscaper
We go skiing and sometimes go to Europe and the Carribean (only every few years, our yearly trip is just md beaches)
We buy organic food
Our kids go to camps in the summer (through the county) and we are members of the local pool
We fund our 401k's and our kids 529's
I'm not really sure how much more we would need.
Obviously people make different choices, but it seems to me that once you start making better $ you start thinking you deserve a certain level of things "I work very hard therefore I deserve this $800 Banana Republic jacket" etc, I have done this myself.
It just seems like if you are having trouble living on this amount of $ then maybe you need to reassess your priorities
Wants vs needs

We spend $9,000 a month and don't even have a mortgage. A lot of it goes to food, drink and my husband's gadgets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm happy to pay my share of taxes - and I do. But it's ridiculous that major corporations and millionaires pay less of a percentage in earnings than my family earning $160k a year. We live modestly, work hard, and make smart choices with our money (saving for retirement over vacations and expensive dinners out). But it's preposterous that I pay more in taxes as a percentage than my boss who earns about $2 million a year. Tired of the "job creators" excuse, too. I'm a capital creator - a worker bee - and my work is what makes my company money.

You don't, I promise. You can't compare a millionaire's effective tax rate, like the Mitt Romney 13% figure that keeps getting tossed around, to your own top marginal tax rate (thanks to the PP for explaining marginal rates).

"The liberal Tax Policy Center reports that 91.4 percent of individual taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $50,000 and $100,000 pay less than 15 percent in taxes. And 43.9 percent of the $50,000-$100,000 AGI taxpayers pay an effective rate between 5 and 9.99 percent, while 4.6 percent of this group pay no federal income tax at all." http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/09/27/hey_media_a_75k_mechanic_pays_a_lower_tax_rate_than_romney/page/full/

Also, that 15% rate on investment income so many are complaining about? That's because that income was *already* taxed, at the corporate level. The combined total effective tax rate on investments is usually equal to or higher than the top marginal tax rate.

"Based on a 25% [corporate] tax rate, for every $133 a corporation earned, it had to first pay $33 in federal income taxes before it could distribute $100 in dividends. Next, on every $100 of dividend income received, the Romneys paid an additional $15 in taxes. The combined tax of $48 totals out to a 36% rate on dividend income ($48/$133), which approximates the top personal income rate imposed on interest income." http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/08/20/mitt-romney-paid-30-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/

[Anonymous]

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

"People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

- Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller)

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/opinion/jillette.atheist.libertarian_1_piers-morgan-friend-minimum-wage?_s=PM:OPINION

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm happy to pay my share of taxes - and I do. But it's ridiculous that major corporations and millionaires pay less of a percentage in earnings than my family earning $160k a year. We live modestly, work hard, and make smart choices with our money (saving for retirement over vacations and expensive dinners out). But it's preposterous that I pay more in taxes as a percentage than my boss who earns about $2 million a year. Tired of the "job creators" excuse, too. I'm a capital creator - a worker bee - and my work is what makes my company money.

You don't, I promise. You can't compare a millionaire's effective tax rate, like the Mitt Romney 13% figure that keeps getting tossed around, to your own top marginal tax rate (thanks to the PP for explaining marginal rates).

NP here. Uh, no, you don't promise. You don't know that the prior pp wasn't talking about effective rates. You have no idea what either of those two people's finances are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

"People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

- Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller)

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/opinion/jillette.atheist.libertarian_1_piers-morgan-friend-minimum-wage?_s=PM:OPINION

Sounds a little nutty. Guns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You know, I don't totally agree with the argument "I earned this money and it's all mine." Have you ever sat down and thought about all the advantages most of us with money had at one point or another? In many cases, we got here through a combination of family privileges, federal loans, public schools, etc. This isn't to deny that those working hard deserve to be rewarded, but just to make clear that the notion of a "self-made" man or woman is mostly myth
.

Please quit spouting this propaganda. Of all the "rich" people I know, only 2 inherited. The rest of us pulled ourselves up (some from the gutter) by making hard decisions, wise decisions and then continually working our asses off. It didn't happen by chance and the opportunities were not handed to us. I am so sick of the "you didn't build that" argument. It is "mostly a myth".

You missed the PP's post entirely. You never had public school, or took a public road to get to school? Never were able to study under lights that stayed on because of a regulated energy utility? No student loans? Never enjoyed the benefit or any regulation?

Listen, my dad was the first in his family who learned to read. True story. Generations of illiterate farmers with little money. Like, "will we have food today?" poor, and no electricity. He had a successful career as an engineer. And he will never say that he was "self-made". He had no inheritance, but he had access to schools, got some scholarships, had friends whose parents helped him pay for school. So while he did work really hard, he's not ignorant enough to believe he did it himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You know, I don't totally agree with the argument "I earned this money and it's all mine." Have you ever sat down and thought about all the advantages most of us with money had at one point or another? In many cases, we got here through a combination of family privileges, federal loans, public schools, etc. This isn't to deny that those working hard deserve to be rewarded, but just to make clear that the notion of a "self-made" man or woman is mostly myth
.

Please quit spouting this propaganda. Of all the "rich" people I know, only 2 inherited. The rest of us pulled ourselves up (some from the gutter) by making hard decisions, wise decisions and then continually working our asses off. It didn't happen by chance and the opportunities were not handed to us. I am so sick of the "you didn't build that" argument. It is "mostly a myth".

You missed the PP's post entirely. You never had public school, or took a public road to get to school? Never were able to study under lights that stayed on because of a regulated energy utility? No student loans? Never enjoyed the benefit or any regulation?

Listen, my dad was the first in his family who learned to read. True story. Generations of illiterate farmers with little money. Like, "will we have food today?" poor, and no electricity. He had a successful career as an engineer. And he will never say that he was "self-made". He had no inheritance, but he had access to schools, got some scholarships, had friends whose parents helped him pay for school. So while he did work really hard, he's not ignorant enough to believe he did it himself.

THIS, and that those doors should be shut to this generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm happy to pay my share of taxes - and I do. But it's ridiculous that major corporations and millionaires pay less of a percentage in earnings than my family earning $160k a year. We live modestly, work hard, and make smart choices with our money (saving for retirement over vacations and expensive dinners out). But it's preposterous that I pay more in taxes as a percentage than my boss who earns about $2 million a year. Tired of the "job creators" excuse, too. I'm a capital creator - a worker bee - and my work is what makes my company money.

You don't, I promise. You can't compare a millionaire's effective tax rate, like the Mitt Romney 13% figure that keeps getting tossed around, to your own top marginal tax rate (thanks to the PP for explaining marginal rates).

"The liberal Tax Policy Center reports that 91.4 percent of individual taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $50,000 and $100,000 pay less than 15 percent in taxes. And 43.9 percent of the $50,000-$100,000 AGI taxpayers pay an effective rate between 5 and 9.99 percent, while 4.6 percent of this group pay no federal income tax at all." http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/09/27/hey_media_a_75k_mechanic_pays_a_lower_tax_rate_than_romney/page/full/

Also, that 15% rate on investment income so many are complaining about? That's because that income was *already* taxed, at the corporate level. The combined total effective tax rate on investments is usually equal to or higher than the top marginal tax rate.

"Based on a 25% [corporate] tax rate, for every $133 a corporation earned, it had to first pay $33 in federal income taxes before it could distribute $100 in dividends. Next, on every $100 of dividend income received, the Romneys paid an additional $15 in taxes. The combined tax of $48 totals out to a 36% rate on dividend income ($48/$133), which approximates the top personal income rate imposed on interest income." http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/08/20/mitt-romney-paid-30-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/

Actually, asshole, I do pay more as a percentage. I help prepare his tax returns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm happy to pay my share of taxes - and I do. But it's ridiculous that major corporations and millionaires pay less of a percentage in earnings than my family earning $160k a year. We live modestly, work hard, and make smart choices with our money (saving for retirement over vacations and expensive dinners out). But it's preposterous that I pay more in taxes as a percentage than my boss who earns about $2 million a year. Tired of the "job creators" excuse, too. I'm a capital creator - a worker bee - and my work is what makes my company money.

You don't, I promise. You can't compare a millionaire's effective tax rate, like the Mitt Romney 13% figure that keeps getting tossed around, to your own top marginal tax rate (thanks to the PP for explaining marginal rates).

NP here. Uh, no, you don't promise. You don't know that the prior pp wasn't talking about effective rates. You have no idea what either of those two people's finances are.

Actually, she said her family makes $160K and her boss makes $2M. If you can give me a reasonable example where someone making $2M paid a smaller percentage of taxes than someone making $160K, I'll take it back. But I don't think you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

"People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

- Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller)

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/opinion/jillette.atheist.libertarian_1_piers-morgan-friend-minimum-wage?_s=PM:OPINION

Because when I think to myself, "Who in the world has an honest, informed, balanced opinion about America's government and public policy?" I only think of one word: MAGICIAN.

Hey, lately I've been thinking that maybe we should petition the Obama administration to nominate Beyonce as Secretary of State! I bet she's more popular than Susan whatever-her-name-is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm happy to pay my share of taxes - and I do. But it's ridiculous that major corporations and millionaires pay less of a percentage in earnings than my family earning $160k a year. We live modestly, work hard, and make smart choices with our money (saving for retirement over vacations and expensive dinners out). But it's preposterous that I pay more in taxes as a percentage than my boss who earns about $2 million a year. Tired of the "job creators" excuse, too. I'm a capital creator - a worker bee - and my work is what makes my company money.

You don't, I promise. You can't compare a millionaire's effective tax rate, like the Mitt Romney 13% figure that keeps getting tossed around, to your own top marginal tax rate (thanks to the PP for explaining marginal rates).

NP here. Uh, no, you don't promise. You don't know that the prior pp wasn't talking about effective rates. You have no idea what either of those two people's finances are.

Actually, she said her family makes $160K and her boss makes $2M. If you can give me a reasonable example where someone making $2M paid a smaller percentage of taxes than someone making $160K, I'll take it back. But I don't think you can.

Maybe he is making most of his money in capital gains. Wow, that was easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

+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.

\

Yes I work hard, and the government takes a ton of money from us to support the USA. Which is fine to a degree. But there are certain things that I do not want to pay for and continue to pay for and jacking up the tax rates constantly is ridiculous for many of us in this bracket that are small business. So please again, donate some of your hard earned income for me since I am so greedy....then I can be free to enjoy mine.

Guess what, I have some things I don't want to pay for either, but you know what? We can't run a country with a volunteer fundraiser, where everybody gets to earmark where the money goes.

So tough nuts. And no, I am not volunteering to pick up the slack for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

+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

Have you spent any time with immigrant workers, those who pick vegetables or clean houses for a living? Have you ever seen how hard they work? And have you seen how little money they make? Does it occur to you that how hard you work has very little to do with how much money you make? And does it occur to you that refusing to share your money with those who did not have the educational, social, economic and other opportunities you had might be fair? Does it occur to you that by keeping all your money to yourself and justifying by saying you worked hard for it is the very definition of greedy? You are greedy.

YES free shit for them and free obama phone