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

[Anonymous]

200K in Washington DC = comfortably poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:200K in Washington DC = comfortably poor.

Bull$h&%.

[Anonymous]

We make about 300k. I don't think we're rich, but that has more to do with semantics than anything else. In my opinion, rich people don't work. I'm very much in support of raising taxes; we probably save close to 120k each year, and quite honestly I don't pinch pennies. Paying a few thousand more in taxes will have absolutely no impact on my life. I work hard, but lots of people who make a ton less work hard as well. Taxes now are very low. We have a massive federal deficit. Raise taxes, cut spending and fix the damn problem.

[Anonymous]

Whew, op here. I was at work so didn't have time to read these great responses.
Lol, yes obviously I don't shop at Banana (except maybe when they have a big sale
Just to clarify, I have NO problem with someone spending their hard earned $ for $150 jeans. I wouldn't do it myself but obviously you are free to spend your $ however you want.
I guess my point was that no matter how I spend my money I always am very aware of the fact that I am actually very well off compared to the great majority of people.
And yes, my cleaning lady works her ass off (believe me!)
So I guess I was just a little confused as to how people can't even imagine how $250k is enough to live on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:200K in Washington DC = comfortably poor.

And that post = mentally ill

[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/

Yes but that 15% was going for food, braces, and rent. Mitt Romney's 13% was going to his next beach house.

[Anonymous]

OP, as long as you are not going around like you own the place, don't worry about it. The people who act like they are more than they are show they are less than they suspect!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...

And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...

And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.

So, the superstar athletes who make millions of dollars and buy tons of bling and cars and who-knows-what before running themselves into the ground AREN'T rich, in your definition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...

And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.

So, the superstar athletes who make millions of dollars and buy tons of bling and cars and who-knows-what before running themselves into the ground AREN'T rich, in your definition?

Most do that and don't run themselves into the ground because they are rich. If someone making 250k did that they would run themselves into the ground because they aren't rich, duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...

And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.

I don't actually think that is accurate. My experience watching people become wealthy is that you can never start spending indiscriminately and stop planning. That's a quick way to lose your wealth. The rich people I know are more paranoid than the poorer people I know about protecting their wealth. The richer they become, the more they focus on being careful with their money (and less generous to others)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...

And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.

That is the most ridiculous definition of "rich" I have ever heard of. Unless you are Bill Gates, there are things you want that you can't have. If you have the house, you want the beach house. If you have the beach house, you want the island house. If you have the island house, you want the island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...

And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.

So, the superstar athletes who make millions of dollars and buy tons of bling and cars and who-knows-what before running themselves into the ground AREN'T rich, in your definition?

Most do that and don't run themselves into the ground because they are rich. If someone making 250k did that they would run themselves into the ground because they aren't rich, duh.

Actually, no. No one spends indiscriminately without running themselves into the ground. There's always more more more. It's called greed, and it seems to be a foreign concept all of a sudden.

[Anonymous]

Hahaha 250k is rich? Hold on while I tell my butler to go get me and my 250k a turkey on rye

[Anonymous]

Ok, it's not Mitt Romney rich, but the reality is that those making $250 and up could easily pay a little more in taxes without feeling any pain. And building on the OPs comments: if you make $250 and are living paycheck to paycheck then you are doing something seriously wrong and are definitely living above your means.