Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do we continue to have this argument? We get you don't "feel" rich - however, statistically, you're in a top income bracket. The IRS doesn't care if you live in NYC or west podunk. That is your choice, really. Once you have decided to live in a high cost area, you then make trade offs. Everyone understands that there are certain careers that only make sense in DC - so you must resign yourself to living in a high cost area. But, again, you make 5X what the average american does - that is a fact.

Yes, but income does not equal wealth. How hard is that to understand?

$10 million in assets and $50K in salary = rich.
$300K in assets and $250K in income != rich.

of course it doesn't equal wealth - that has to be accumulated. If you choose to spend all $250K (or more), thereby leaving you to feel poor because you don't have millions in the bank, then that is your problem. But your income allows you a LOT more flexibility than a family of 4 trying to live on $30K or less.

Studies have shown that it's not the "stuff" that makes the biggest difference in quality of life between now and the past generation, it's the big ticket annual items--like health insurance and medical bills. People also had pensions, so they didn't need to sock money away into 401Ks and the like.

Also, in the DC area, the housing bubble really did in middle income families. DC in the 70s and 80s was a much more affordable, far less desirable city to live in.

Anonymous wrote:why do we continue to have this argument? We get you don't "feel" rich - however, statistically, you're in a top income bracket. The IRS doesn't care if you live in NYC or west podunk. That is your choice, really. Once you have decided to live in a high cost area, you then make trade offs. Everyone understands that there are certain careers that only make sense in DC - so you must resign yourself to living in a high cost area. But, again, you make 5X what the average american does - that is a fact.

Yes, but income does not equal wealth. How hard is that to understand?

$10 million in assets and $50K in salary = rich.
$300K in assets and $250K in income != rich.

Anonymous wrote:

The thing is, our standard of living in this country has crashed but nobody seems to want to say it. You must now be a top income producer to live in the same manner that the average income producer lived 40 years ago.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sucks hard.

You have got to be kidding me. You don't have to be in the top 5% to own a car, else why are there 125 million of them on our roads? As for new technology, I don't see a single person on the bus that doesn't have a cellphone, and the stores on the day after Thanksgiving are crowded with many obviously lower income people buying flat screen TVs, Playstations, and Xboxes. You can buy one of those flat screen TVs, by the way, for about $300-$400. You know what a color TV cost in the 1980s? About $450-550. And you can now buy a very good laptop that does everything in the world for about $500, compared to about $3,000 for a "386" glorified typewriter in 1988 or so. Meanwhile you can still buy a meal at McDonalds for about $3. This is not to say that the poor don't have it bad, but their standard of living is through the roof compared to 30 years ago. As for middle income people, how does the average high school student send 200 texts in an average week, as I read somewhere last week, if they don't have a cellphone? When I was in high school having my own phone (which I paid for) was rare and a luxury. Now every kid has his own phone.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing. The amount of money is not really relevant when people talk about this. Really, its not. Its the lifestyle that people are looking at. Look at this scenario, which I understand will not describe every single person on this board, but it will describe most who grew up in an average American family 30 to 40 years ago. Most of our parents worked hard at middle class jobs. Again, the exact amount doesn't matter. They probably had the same kind of job you and I have or even a job was less 'affluent'. Our parents graduated from college, paid their school loans, bought homes and cars, saved for college (often for more children) and for retirement. They got the new microwave at some point in the late 70s or 80s and also that new answering machine thingy and maybe even the cordless phone. When you were a teen you may have begged for that new call waiting feature. Your family may have had an Atari on your console TV. They took us on modest but honest to goodness vacations. They had hobbies and interests that they persued. They retired at 60 or 65 and are living comfortably now.

Now look at the same Average family today and here in the DC area will need to make waay more than our parents did, adjusted for inflation, to have that 'average American lifestyle". Saving adequate amounts of money for retirement and college has become the domain of the well heeled whereas before it was just part of an average American budget. Mostly our parents did not live paycheck to paycheck. They bought cars. They got the newest gadgets either sooner or later. They subscribed to cable eventually. But they didn't not need to fall into the top 5% of national income to do so.

The thing is, our standard of living in this country has crashed but nobody seems to want to say it. You must now be a top income producer to live in the same manner that the average income producer lived 40 years ago.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sucks hard.

You pretty much described my family as well. But here’s the thing . . . many of the people who are whining on this board that $250k isn’t rich THINK they’re living the same lifestyle as their parents, but they’re deluding themselves. Their monthly expenses are far in excess of those of our parents. Our parents didn’t live in 3500 sq. foot McMansions, or in smaller houses in some of the best neighborhoods in the city (upper NW, Arl., MoCo.). The housing costs are the biggest driver, but it’s all the little things as well – cell phone plans, new cell phones every two years, gym memberships, Direct TV plans, etc. There are so many more little things to spend money on – not just the Atari, Microwave, Cordless Phone, second phone line for the kids, and VCR with the “remote” that was connected to the unit by a wire. The microwave didn’t have a monthly subscription fee, either. Since we feel entitled to these things, we associate them with middle class, without recognizing them for the luxuries they are.

Look at it another way – those middle-class parents you talk about – they weren’t in the top 3% of earners in the country. Not even close. Those families still exist, you know – two teachers, an accountant and a secretary, a middle manager and a SAH parent, all with 2 kids. And they’re still middle class, and if you make $250K you make a LOT more than they do.

Yes, it’s more difficult these days, what with the demise of defined benefit retirement plans and the explosion of health care costs and health insurance premiums – plus, all those new expensive health care technologies will keep us alive for longer, when will require more retirement savings . . . aargh. But it’s more expensive for everyone.

Finally, to the pp who complained that there wasn’t a lot left after private school and nanny and mortgage and insurance – stop it. Just stop. Listen to yourself. A nanny? Private school? Look back at all those middle class families growing up – how many had nannies? Not a lot. How many sent their kids to private school? Even fewer. 2 kids in private school and a nanny is not middle class – it’s rich. I’m sorry if you don’t feel that way, but as another pp said, once you start making choices – really expensive ones – based on lifestyle preferences, you’re rich.

We get hit with AMT at $250k at the same rate as those in Kansas and other low cost living areas. We all know $250K isn't close to the same in DC, Manhattan or Tenn.

$250k is seriously rich in some areas of the country and upper
Idle class in other parts.

We make a very high HI at a cost...DH's ridiculously Long and hard hours ... A d he came fro
A very poor (public assistance), single mother background. I also work. We are noT having more than 2 kids...

And the breeder with 6 wants us to work even harder to send her 6 bastards to college. No-but we will pay for your tubes to be tied...and octomom's too!

Anonymous wrote:Choice at the crux of things here- those who live in fancy NW 'hoods and pay massive dollar per sq foot and high taxes, make a choice to live in such areas. The DC metro area spans two other states and has a dramatic range in costs of housing. Again, you could reduce your housing cost dramatically by living far out and commuting. Preschool tuitions are cheaper there, hell, so are nannies and daycares. Would it be a lifestyle hit...absolutely! The point here though is when you can start living your life on the basis of of lifestyle preference in a fairly flexible way, you are affluent...."rich" is the wrong term, too loaded...the point is, you're doing better not only than 97% of your country but also much better than those in one of the highest HHI metro areas in said nation.

Our HHI exceeds that in question-- but we both earn such high incomes working on global poverty reduction- so really puts a sharp relief on all these idiotic complaints. These folks need to get off their self-pity horses and realize they are very fortunate that their quirks of birth were the largest determinants of being in the top 0.01% of the global economy.

Exactly right - it's startling that such lucidity comes so early in the morning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, sorry, should perhaps have made that clear. But more broadly I believe strongly in progressive taxation and in social investment.

For those of us making less than $100,000 and trying to educate 2 children and give through our churches and other volunteer groups, paying more taxes would be unfair and painful. Personally, I think giving 4 months salary each year in taxes is plenty.

Progressive taxation means that you would not be paying higher taxes. Probably not, that is - it depends where the progressivity starts, but normal progressive proposals start above what somebody making the proposal defines as the "middle class." However, under a progressive tax system, somebody making $250K would probably pay more taxes.

I support progressive taxes, too. We're that $250K family, just for reference.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, sorry, should perhaps have made that clear. But more broadly I believe strongly in progressive taxation and in social investment.

For those of us making less than $100,000 and trying to educate 2 children and give through our churches and other volunteer groups, paying more taxes would be unfair and painful. Personally, I think giving 4 months salary each year in taxes is plenty.

Yes, sorry, should perhaps have made that clear. But more broadly I believe strongly in progressive taxation and in social investment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So not fair. If they've got enough money to pay for college and save for retirement, I think they should pay higher taxes and help my six kids go to college and have health insurance. I never graduated from high school and only earn a tenth that much.

So you honest to goodness feel this way?

I honest to goodness feel this way although we would be the ones paying higher taxes. The entire country will benefit from a more educated workforce, and everyone should have health insurance.

I'm guessing you either have an income of more than $250, 000 or aren't living the DC "lifestyle."

Anonymous wrote:

So not fair. If they've got enough money to pay for college and save for retirement, I think they should pay higher taxes and help my six kids go to college and have health insurance. I never graduated from high school and only earn a tenth that much.

So you honest to goodness feel this way?

I honest to goodness feel this way although we would be the ones paying higher taxes. The entire country will benefit from a more educated workforce, and everyone should have health insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Down and Out"? Hardly. The hypothetical couple described in the article was in the red AFTER saving for college for their kids, saving for retirements, and living a "middle of the road" lifestyle. It's not like they are standing in soup kitchen lines on 250K.

So not fair. If they've got enough money to pay for college and save for retirement, I think they should pay higher taxes and help my six kids go to college and have health insurance. I never graduated from high school and only earn a tenth that much.

T R O L L
lol

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing. The amount of money is not really relevant when people talk about this. Really, its not. Its the lifestyle that people are looking at. Look at this scenario, which I understand will not describe every single person on this board, but it will describe most who grew up in an average American family 30 to 40 years ago. Most of our parents worked hard at middle class jobs. Again, the exact amount doesn't matter. They probably had the same kind of job you and I have or even a job was less 'affluent'. Our parents graduated from college, paid their school loans, bought homes and cars, saved for college (often for more children) and for retirement. They got the new microwave at some point in the late 70s or 80s and also that new answering machine thingy and maybe even the cordless phone. When you were a teen you may have begged for that new call waiting feature. Your family may have had an Atari on your console TV. They took us on modest but honest to goodness vacations. They had hobbies and interests that they persued. They retired at 60 or 65 and are living comfortably now. Now look at the same Average family today and here in the DC area will need to make waay more than our parents did, adjusted for inflation, to have that 'average American lifestyle". Saving adequate amounts of money for retirement and college has become the domain of the well heeled whereas before it was just part of an average American budget. Mostly our parents did not live paycheck to paycheck. They bought cars. They got the newest gadgets either sooner or later. They subscribed to cable eventually. But they didn't not need to fall into the top 5% of national income to do so.

The thing is, our standard of living in this country has crashed but nobody seems to want to say it. You must now be a top income producer to live in the same manner that the average income producer lived 40 years ago.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sucks hard.

Seriously, you described our family, right down to Atari! Still remember our first oversized for the counter space "meal in one" microwave!

Choice at the crux of things here- those who live in fancy NW 'hoods and pay massive dollar per sq foot and high taxes, make a choice to live in such areas. The DC metro area spans two other states and has a dramatic range in costs of housing. Again, you could reduce your housing cost dramatically by living far out and commuting. Preschool tuitions are cheaper there, hell, so are nannies and daycares. Would it be a lifestyle hit...absolutely! The point here though is when you can start living your life on the basis of of lifestyle preference in a fairly flexible way, you are affluent...."rich" is the wrong term, too loaded...the point is, you're doing better not only than 97% of your country but also much better than those in one of the highest HHI metro areas in said nation.

Our HHI exceeds that in question-- but we both earn such high incomes working on global poverty reduction- so really puts a sharp relief on all these idiotic complaints. These folks need to get off their self-pity horses and realize they are very fortunate that their quirks of birth were the largest determinants of being in the top 0.01% of the global economy.