Christ, people, the point is that currently people in DC who make $40K pay the SAME marginal tax rate as those who make $200K. You can whine all day about how not-wealthy your $200K makes you, but surely you can agree that you are a lot wealthier than a family making $40K and that you can afford to pay taxes at a slightly higher rate than the $40K family.

Anonymous wrote:Given that we have to pay $30k for each kid to go to private ms because Deal is the only decent one in dc, $200k doesn't go very far.

You don't have to pay $30K a year- you choose to, and you should be happy that you are able to make that choice. Many people don't even bring home $30K a year, let alone have it to spend on private school so stop complaining about how far your $200K doesn't go and be thankful that you are even in this discussion.

How dare they define me as wealthy. Gas prices keep rising and it's getting very expensive to fill up my BMW with premium. I mean, it's not like I drive a Mercedes. Plus, my nanny is demanding a raise to nearly $40k. If I have to pay her such extravagant wages, it leaves hardly anything left from our pitiful $200k HHI. For goodness sakes, we had to vacation domestically last year. Doesn’t anyone see my plight?

Assuming a family has two children under 4--so you have to pay for childcare for two children--a family in DC is expected to pay $3300K/month. This is based upon what the federal gov't thinks is an allowable price for full-time daycare (according to their own daycare center costs.) Now, what kind of income would enable a family to pay that kind of money and rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district? Assuming average debts from college/graduate school and no consumer debt?

I think that in DC, where you can have two feds (GS-12/13) each earning $100K with 2 kid in public school, they would be OK but definitely not wealthy. They would be financially tight affording two in daycare, but they could do it--barely. This would be a professional class family where two families have to work in order to rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district in DC. There's enough debate around the $200K figure to say that it is not the mark of wealth.

However, I think that once you move to $500K HHI/Year, there is decidedly less argument that that constitutes wealthy--even with DC's cost of living.

Just wait. There aren't enough people at $200k to move the needle financially. Next, $150k will be the demonized "rich".

Ask not what you can do for your city, ask your city to feel sorry for you.

NO, not wealthy!!!

part of the issue is where people claim residency. there are people who live in DC and make a whole lot more than $200K - but they claim they live in another jursdiction - like Texas that has no state income tax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to be making $200K in Iowa, but it doesn't go nearly as far in DC.

It goes a lot further than $100K, or $50K.

Going further doesn't mean wealthy. And it goes a lot less far when taxed at a higher rate.

Given that we have to pay $30k for each kid to go to private ms because Deal is the only decent one in dc, $200k doesn't go very far.

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to be making $200K in Iowa, but it doesn't go nearly as far in DC.

It goes a lot further than $100K, or $50K.

I agree that wealth is assets not income, but here in DC, even without sending your kid to private school, you pay through the nose for housing. The cost of living isn't cheap. I get irritated when an income number for being "wealthy" is thrown out there to instigate class warfare, without any thought as to how much it costs to live in the area. I'd love to be making $200K in Iowa, but it doesn't go nearly as far in DC. Neither does $20K.

Wealth is assets not income

You may not be wealthy but you should be. People in this town spend too much. Few people seem to know what it means to save.

$200k is wealthy everywhere. Tax hikes don;t give a break for those who choose to send their kids to private school (or those who choose to live in a city where you don't want to send your kid to public school)

Gray wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and he keeps using this $200k number. We can debate the merits of tax increases (I think the city has more to cut first) but a family in DC making $200k is not really wealthy. After TAXES and education costs most of that money has evaporated. Why are politicians so disingenuous?