Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And you are delusional. Why can't you afford private school for your 3 kids?

Well, cause it would cost us close to $90K - after taxes. Add in the cost of aftercare and you are easily in the $110K range - again after tax. So, even if you presume I make $200K net - that would leave $90k a year to cover retirement, housing, clothing, food, utilities, insurance, gas, emergencies, healthcare, 529 plans, unexpected homeownership expenses, etc. If you consider that financial advisors are now recommending $10K a year per kid for 529 (as absurd as that is), plus of course the standard "10% of your pay" for retirement, we are down to $40K for everything else. Could it be done? Maybe if we ate ramen noodles or didnt save for retirement. Point is, it would come with very large sacrifices. To me, having to make sacrifices in order to afford a decent education for your kids hardly qualifies someone as rich. It might be worth doing, but someone who is "rich" doesn't have that tradeoff to make.

Not the PP but where do find a quality private in MoCo for $11,000, pray tell?

And here again, it shows that you are rich and have expensive tastes. You can get private school in DC for as low as $14K, in the MD suburbs for as low as $11K and in VA for at least as low as $12K. And with sibling discounts, there are some places where you can put all three of your kids for close to $30K. But then, you have rich tastes, so only look at the top schools with the top prices. Surprise, you're rich.

There are many places in the area where you can get a 2000 sf house for under $500K even in a not-so-good school area and put your kids in private for under $40K a year. Easily. But then you wouldn't live in a status symbol community and might feel out of place with those making significantly less money than you.

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy and rich are not the same thing. Wealthy you are not, but rich and whiny many of you are. You do not feel rich because you want to be wealthy. You want a seven figure lifestyle on a six figure budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is such BS. No one is taking your money and giving it to someone else. Taxes go for a fraction of welfare and the rest for running this country.

Wrong. Redistribution is already the largest function of the federal government, via programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid which constitute more than half of all federal spending.

You are right. But the BIGGEST financial redistribution over the last 30 years has been into the top 1%. The top 1%, 2%, 5% and 10% now own significantly more of the personal wealth of the nation than they did 30 years ago. The tax laws, loopholes, have now gotten to the point that the wealthy and the rich pay less into the system than they have in many years. Yes, even restoring the taxes to the Clinton levels as the fiscal cliff was set to do still means that those making over $250K net are taking home more than any other time (other than during the Bush 43 years) than they have in the last 30 years.

The problem is the way lobbying has changed predominantly in the last 20 years. It used to be that lobbyist groups would go to a member of Congress and say they needed an earmark to fund a project. The member of Congress would find a bill to tag some allocation of money to the project and when that bill passed, the earmark would allocate funds. However, now with the new push against traditional earmarks, when a lobbyist wants to get an earmark, they go to their member of Congress and instead of tagging a single expense to a bill, the member of Congress tags a change to the tax code onto a bill. The problem with this is that the tax code change does get the lobbyist what they need, but also many other people in the same class/category as the lobbyist gets the same tax break. It is currently estimated that tax code earmarks have topped $8B, which is significantly more than traditional earmarks have cost. And this is another part of why the deficit is geting bigger and why wealth redistribution is going on. The amount of wealth redistributed upwards via earmarks is far greater than the wealth distribution of money downward by social programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The battle over semantics by some "rich" people on this thread makes me think that they are not rich, but are just argumentative sock-puppets.

Seriously. I love that there's clearly one poster thinking that if he/she just screams enough, everyone will agree "rich " refers to accumulated we h rather than income.

Good God. Let it go already.

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a house bigger than 1200 sqrft and are not on food stamps , you are rich. Maybe because sooooo many people have given up working and are awaiting free healthcare and unemployment.

Anonymous wrote:The battle over semantics by some "rich" people on this thread makes me think that they are not rich, but are just argumentative sock-puppets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just the phrase "saving for college" would not be uttered by a rich person. Ever.

The quoted post is shockingly stupid, but the above is quite possibly the silliest part of it. I don't think you actually know any rich people, guy. My family has a lot of millionaires, and I can tell you they save, and they save hard. They save for college, they set aside money for large purchases, they refuse to buy luxury items that aren't important to them. And they're rich, and they're going to stay rich because they're not stupid about it.

What is their networth?

In the millions. Not just 1 million, at least one is probably closer to 10 million.

They "set aside" money that they already have. big difference between those who don't have this money in the first place and are trying to save. As far as luxuries are concerned, buying them is not a necessity to be called rich, it's affording them. Your kin can certainly afford lots of luxuries, whether they choose to buy them or not is irrelevant. I'd say having a networth of 10 mil certainly qualifies them being called rich. Although, richistan is a very large kingdom and they are at the entry level. But, still, they definitely are in the domain of rich at this point with what this money is worth today, not the working class.

This is totally not true. I have watched my parents build their wealth. As long as they were paying a mortgage, they did not buy luxuries. It didn't matter if the house they were paying off was 200k or 600k. They always put a lot in savings, in their 401k. After they paid off the house, they saved money for things like helping me buy a house or my education, which I actually didn't need. They have always put money into their assets and not "luxuries" which is why they have so much now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just the phrase "saving for college" would not be uttered by a rich person. Ever.

The quoted post is shockingly stupid, but the above is quite possibly the silliest part of it. I don't think you actually know any rich people, guy. My family has a lot of millionaires, and I can tell you they save, and they save hard. They save for college, they set aside money for large purchases, they refuse to buy luxury items that aren't important to them. And they're rich, and they're going to stay rich because they're not stupid about it.

You are either delusional or ignorant. Just because they "save", it means nothing more than allocating a portion of their wealth to some things like college fund, trust fund, large purchases. The rich "allocate" what they already have, they don't have to "make" the money to pay for their kid's college, they can just write a check without this hitting their bottom line or ability to afford their lifestyle or retire whenever they want. But they still say they save, because they must allocate the funds. Yes, some rich people are not into luxuries, it's just their preference, but don't confuse them with someone who must save a portion of the income they earn in order to built their savings to a certain amount for years to come.

Hmm, does your family have a lot of wealthy people, guy? Do you know a lot of millionaires? Do you know how they live? I do, and my parents are millionaires, and they don't buy your bullshit either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just the phrase "saving for college" would not be uttered by a rich person. Ever.

The quoted post is shockingly stupid, but the above is quite possibly the silliest part of it. I don't think you actually know any rich people, guy. My family has a lot of millionaires, and I can tell you they save, and they save hard. They save for college, they set aside money for large purchases, they refuse to buy luxury items that aren't important to them. And they're rich, and they're going to stay rich because they're not stupid about it.

What is their networth?

In the millions. Not just 1 million, at least one is probably closer to 10 million.

They "set aside" money that they already have. big difference between those who don't have this money in the first place and are trying to save. As far as luxuries are concerned, buying them is not a necessity to be called rich, it's affording them. Your kin can certainly afford lots of luxuries, whether they choose to buy them or not is irrelevant. I'd say having a networth of 10 mil certainly qualifies them being called rich. Although, richistan is a very large kingdom and they are at the entry level. But, still, they definitely are in the domain of rich at this point with what this money is worth today, not the working class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just the phrase "saving for college" would not be uttered by a rich person. Ever.

The quoted post is shockingly stupid, but the above is quite possibly the silliest part of it. I don't think you actually know any rich people, guy. My family has a lot of millionaires, and I can tell you they save, and they save hard. They save for college, they set aside money for large purchases, they refuse to buy luxury items that aren't important to them. And they're rich, and they're going to stay rich because they're not stupid about it.

You are either delusional or ignorant. Just because they "save", it means nothing more than allocating a portion of their wealth to some things like college fund, trust fund, large purchases. The rich "allocate" what they already have, they don't have to "make" the money to pay for their kid's college, they can just write a check without this hitting their bottom line or ability to afford their lifestyle or retire whenever they want. But they still say they save, because they must allocate the funds. Yes, some rich people are not into luxuries, it's just their preference, but don't confuse them with someone who must save a portion of the income they earn in order to built their savings to a certain amount for years to come.

Hmm, does your family have a lot of wealthy people, guy? Do you know a lot of millionaires? Do you know how they live? I do, and my parents are millionaires, and they don't buy your bullshit either.