Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before I bought my home, I paid $30,000 a year in Fed taxes on an income of $126,000. I am a Nurse and a single parent who worked 60 hours a week( 20 hours a week in OT) to earn that income. That same year, Mitt Romney paid less than 13% of his income in Fed Taxes. He paid a far less percentage of his income on taxes than I did. I don't think that is a fair distribution of taxation and glad that Mitt is not now in a position to see people like him cut the same deal through a legislative change in the tax code.

Wrong. Mitt had no income so he didn't have to pay federal income tax. Why do people choose to ignore basic facts (not nurse pp but the media and others who purposely mislead people by selective reporting).

Are you the last person in America to realize that dividend and capital gains are also income, taxed on your 1040?

And are you further aware that as a hedge fund manager, his actual work income gets classified as a capital gain, even though it is compensation for his work, not his investment?

Anonymous wrote:
There's one more thing to keep in mind. As of 2009, the "1 percenters" paid almost 37% of all incomes paid into the Treasury. Yes, more than 1 in 3 of all (ALL!) tax dollars was paid by just 1 percent of the population. The top 5% paid almost 60% of all tax dollars collected. The people between 5 and 10%? They paid another 11% of all tax dollars. Thinking about it in reverse, the bottom 50 of wage earners, the poorest of the poor, only paid 2.25% of all taxes collected. (Meaning, they are not taxed. Hardly at all.) The bottom 75%? They paid just 12.3% of all taxes. Again, hardly taxed. At all. You can't give a tax break to people who don't pay taxes to begin with. And that's pretty much 75% of all wage earners in this country, so says the IRS.

[The source of this data is the IRS. Link at the taxfoundation.org (see Table 6): http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table3]

Anonymous wrote:I cant get past the still taking $$ from mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before I bought my home, I paid $30,000 a year in Fed taxes on an income of $126,000. I am a Nurse and a single parent who worked 60 hours a week( 20 hours a week in OT) to earn that income. That same year, Mitt Romney paid less than 13% of his income in Fed Taxes. He paid a far less percentage of his income on taxes than I did. I don't think that is a fair distribution of taxation and glad that Mitt is not now in a position to see people like him cut the same deal through a legislative change in the tax code.

Wrong. Mitt had no income so he didn't have to pay federal income tax. Why do people choose to ignore basic facts (not nurse pp but the media and others who purposely mislead people by selective reporting).

Anonymous wrote:I moved to the DC area from a small town in Massachusetts 15 yrs ago. I made 40 k a yr out of college , felt very fortunate and comfortable. I realize years latter, it was because I always thought I came from money...private school,lived on "good" side of town, never wanted for stuff. I only realized about 10 yrs ago, my widowed mom - when I was 14- probably made 30-50 k (self employed) her whole life. I have no idea how she continued to pay for my private high school- now 48k /yr, my 6 yr BA at GW, stipend, etc without complaining. 2 other younger siblings in the same situation. She now lived in a townhouse in dc suburbs- make less than ever- should be retired but has nothing to do that with. We now make HHI on about 300k/yr. I worry more about $ now than I ever did. She thinks we are rich- and when I stop and realize I am pretty superficial and always judge others by wealth, and just plain selfish- I have moments of clarity and realize we are! The problem lies in what might have been a well meaning parenting style of just never wanting us to see her struggle- and now we just don't know how she did that. It made me feel entitled. She will still try to give us money when I want a dress I can't afford- even $100- or help my brother pay for his wedding when she doesn't have the means. She just happens to be one of those few people who is grateful for what she has- but happy for those who have more. I wish I could be. I do not feel wealthy and have always worried about money, once I realized what it takes to get things. I may have always thought we would have a jet setters life style and never worry about it. We dont. Here is what I do have..the ability to say yes whenever my SN kids need a new therapy, to spend $4000 on an educational consultant when we were told we should, and forgo shopping at Nordstroms. Buy cloths multiple whenever I need from target, express sales, etc. Live in what many would say is a very nice home- 4 bdrm in DC- not west of the park. Max out our 401k- no other saving though- and go to the grocery store- not whole foods- as much as I need. Many,many times day I need a reality check. This is a GREAT life, many cant and don't have that. I am the first to admit I am extremely self absorbed and unaware of what other make- do not know how to save, eat out for lunch often, etc. Like a pp said, we only compare with those who have more. To me, this thread is a lot about perceptions- and many of us need a reality check, possible a few minutes a day just to think about what we have chosen to do and how lucky we are. Over the last few months I have been working hard on appreciating what I have- makes a huge difference in my marriage, my stress and my personal happiness. Sorry for the rambling.

Anonymous wrote:Before I bought my home, I paid $30,000 a year in Fed taxes on an income of $126,000. I am a Nurse and a single parent who worked 60 hours a week( 20 hours a week in OT) to earn that income. That same year, Mitt Romney paid less than 13% of his income in Fed Taxes. He paid a far less percentage of his income on taxes than I did. I don't think that is a fair distribution of taxation and glad that Mitt is not now in a position to see people like him cut the same deal through a legislative change in the tax code.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing that I am on the verge of being "rich" because combined, my school teacher husband and I are on the verge of making $250K. Why don't I feel rich?

I can't explain your feelings. But, much of the focus on the $250K number is because that is the point at which Obama wants to increase the marginal tax rate. There are a couple of things to keep in mind about this:

1) as I said, the tax rate is marginal and will only apply to taxable income above $250,000;
2) the proposed increase is 3%

You probably have $10-$15 thousand in deductions. So, before the tax increase even hits you, you would have to be making in the neighborhood of $265,000. Then, the tax would be an extra $300 per $10,000 which doesn't seem excessive. If your income grew to $300,000 your additional tax burden would be $1050. If your income was $400,000 you would see an additional $4050 tax. Still hardly noticeable. So, when Obama talks about the rich paying more, he means those who are really rich. Because those who are like you and "don't feel rich" aren't rich and won't be paying very much more -- if anything at all.

There's one more thing to keep in mind. As of 2009, the "1 percenters" paid almost 37% of all incomes paid into the Treasury. Yes, more than 1 in 3 of all (ALL!) tax dollars was paid by just 1 percent of the population. The top 5% paid almost 60% of all tax dollars collected. The people between 5 and 10%? They paid another 11% of all tax dollars. Thinking about it in reverse, the bottom 50 of wage earners, the poorest of the poor, only paid 2.25% of all taxes collected. (Meaning, they are not taxed. Hardly at all.) The bottom 75%? They paid just 12.3% of all taxes. Again, hardly taxed. At all. You can't give a tax break to people who don't pay taxes to begin with. And that's pretty much 75% of all wage earners in this country, so says the IRS.

[The source of this data is the IRS. Link at the taxfoundation.org (see Table 6): http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table3]

Anonymous wrote:9:27 -- totally agree. Also the definition of "needs" has changed to include a hell of a lot more than it used to. My SIL will never be done supporting her adult kids, because they (and she) believe they cannot live without the latest phone with unlimited data, bedroom with private/not shared bathroom, late-model car, eating out at will, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a writer and a few years ago did a whole series on how much $ it takes for people to *feel* wealthy, regardless of the numbers.

What I found, unsurprisingly: basically, most people don't feel wealthy, no matter how much $ they have. That's largely because people generally evaluate themselves against people who have more than they do, rather than people who have less. Also, people are very aware of what they don't have and tend not to be so conscious of what they do have.

People who do feel wealthy tended, I found, to be people who made a conscious decision to have an unusual relationship with money. People who'd suffered difficult circumstances at some point in their lives, and then later chose to make radical changes in their lives. There seemed to be a relationship between the act of choosing a particular life and the feeling of having enough.

Here's a recent study showing that people think they would feel wealthy if they had twice as much as they now have: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48240956/What_Does_It_Take_to_Feel_Wealthy

So: no sense beating up on people who say they don't feel wealthy, even when they make objectively high amounts of money. It's human.

It's also not very helpful, policy-wise, since the subjective sense of not having enough tends never to go away. Hard to get people who already feel strapped to think they are among the wealthy and can afford to pay more in taxes or take less in benefits. (Not very helpful in the policy sense if you have a liberal agenda, that is. If you are an anti-tax person then this natural human feeling is very helpful, policy-wise.)