Anonymous wrote:We are definitely comfortable and I am not complaining. But, I am not "rich."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP that makes $250K together with DH. First of all, I said upper middle class, not middle class. Second, because I live in part of DC I do, it's very close to work so minimal commute but the house is expensive and the school is not good. Moreover, my kids aren't old enough for free public education yet anyway so I have to pay for private preschool. That's part-time so I need a nanny for the rest of the day. It's called childcare and it's a necessity so you other moms and dads out there - why judge? How is that a luxury? I guess I could have said daycare + a babysitter for childcare and you wouldn't have judged as harshly. But it all costs $$ whatever you call it. I pay my taxes, donate a good portion of our net income to charity and our church. $250K is not poor by any means but it's not rich either.

YES IT IS! A lot of folks don't have the option to pay a nanny! They cobble together whatever childcare they can get! What don't you get!
You earn more than most people in this country!
It is an objective standard -- not based on the lifestyle you feel you would have if you were truly "rich"
Geez -- people on this board are really in denial!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP that makes $250K together with DH. First of all, I said upper middle class, not middle class. Second, because I live in part of DC I do, it's very close to work so minimal commute but the house is expensive and the school is not good. Moreover, my kids aren't old enough for free public education yet anyway so I have to pay for private preschool. That's part-time so I need a nanny for the rest of the day. It's called childcare and it's a necessity so you other moms and dads out there - why judge? How is that a luxury? I guess I could have said daycare + a babysitter for childcare and you wouldn't have judged as harshly. But it all costs $$ whatever you call it. I pay my taxes, donate a good portion of our net income to charity and our church. $250K is not poor by any means but it's not rich either.

YES IT IS! A lot of folks don't have the option to pay a nanny! They cobble together whatever childcare they can get! What don't you get!
You earn more than most people in this country!
It is an objective standard -- not based on the lifestyle you feel you would have if you were truly "rich"
Geez -- people on this board are really in denial!

Um, no. You are in denial. Do not tell me I am "rich" or have a rich lifestyle when you have no idea what my budget numbers/takehome are. We are definitely comfortable and I am not complaining. But, I am not "rich."

"Rich" is having loads of disposable income. I don't.
"Rich" is being able to buy what you want w/ little thought to how much you are spending. That is not me.
"Rich" is the abillity to not have to worry about sending your child to college. That is not me.

We take in a good salary but when you factor in the taxes we spend (income, property, sales, etc.) and how much more everything in this area costs, what's left does not make us rich. The homes in the place where I grew up are TWICE the size in our modest (for this area) price range. Money simply goes much, much futher in many other areas of the country. Child care costs more (my friends in my home town practically CHOKED when I told them how much high school sitters demand around here). Forget about a nanny. We don't have one.

What is so hard about this concept that you don't understand? It's money in v. money out. And with the costs of things around here, the money out for basic necessities (I'm not talking luxuries - we live w/in our means and do not live on credit) means I am by no means rich. It doesn't matter whether you agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP that makes $250K together with DH. First of all, I said upper middle class, not middle class. Second, because I live in part of DC I do, it's very close to work so minimal commute but the house is expensive and the school is not good. Moreover, my kids aren't old enough for free public education yet anyway so I have to pay for private preschool. That's part-time so I need a nanny for the rest of the day. It's called childcare and it's a necessity so you other moms and dads out there - why judge? How is that a luxury? I guess I could have said daycare + a babysitter for childcare and you wouldn't have judged as harshly. But it all costs $$ whatever you call it. I pay my taxes, donate a good portion of our net income to charity and our church. $250K is not poor by any means but it's not rich either.

YES IT IS! A lot of folks don't have the option to pay a nanny! They cobble together whatever childcare they can get! What don't you get!
You earn more than most people in this country!
It is an objective standard -- not based on the lifestyle you feel you would have if you were truly "rich"
Geez -- people on this board are really in denial!

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP that makes $250K together with DH. First of all, I said upper middle class, not middle class. Second, because I live in part of DC I do, it's very close to work so minimal commute but the house is expensive and the school is not good. Moreover, my kids aren't old enough for free public education yet anyway so I have to pay for private preschool. That's part-time so I need a nanny for the rest of the day. It's called childcare and it's a necessity so you other moms and dads out there - why judge? How is that a luxury? I guess I could have said daycare + a babysitter for childcare and you wouldn't have judged as harshly. But it all costs $$ whatever you call it. I pay my taxes, donate a good portion of our net income to charity and our church. $250K is not poor by any means but it's not rich either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - no, it's just a great house in an even greater location that has kept its value. Maybe I'm just fiscally conservative and didn't drain all the equity out of our house in the last 3 years. It's true that we are sitting on a heap of cash and investments. Ok, maybe I really am Richie Rich.

did you finally have an epiphany? Because I feel like you're saying that those who bought at the height of the market and have lost value aren't fiscally conservative. How do you know? Maybe they bought a cheaper house in the burbs because they didn't want to be house poor.

Anonymous wrote:PP - no, it's just a great house in an even greater location that has kept its value. Maybe I'm just fiscally conservative and didn't drain all the equity out of our house in the last 3 years. It's true that we are sitting on a heap of cash and investments. Ok, maybe I really am Richie Rich.

Anonymous wrote:PP - no, it's just a great house in an even greater location that has kept its value. Maybe I'm just fiscally conservative and didn't drain all the equity out of our house in the last 3 years. It's true that we are sitting on a heap of cash and investments. Ok, maybe I really am Richie Rich.

Anonymous wrote:Fine - I'm Richie Rich at $250k/yr. Does that make everyone happy? Richie Rich wears clothes from Old Navy and Gap, buys used books and goes to the library exclusively, has no cars, takes 1 vacation per year to the beach, and has to save up for kids summer camp and activities outside of preschool.

Anonymous wrote:Fine - I'm Richie Rich at $250k/yr. Does that make everyone happy? Richie Rich wears clothes from Old Navy and Gap, buys used books and goes to the library exclusively, has no cars, takes 1 vacation per year to the beach, and has to save up for kids summer camp and activities outside of preschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Your math, to be blunt, sucks. It’s the unthinking acceptance of propaganda like this that allows the right wing to thrive and delude the gullible or dim-witted among us.

Under your scenario, the family keeps $297,000 after taxes. Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that the father couldn’t be bothered to work for a measly $67,000 per year (which is considerably more than the median income in the US, by the way), your assertion that Dad will only get $67,000 after taxes assigns the ENTIRE tax burden to him, and assumes Mom’s salary is not taxed AT ALL. I’m pretty sure that’s not how these things work.

Let’s run the numbers if Dad stops working, shall we?

Mom makes $230,000, gross. You assumed an 8.33% reduction from gross to get to AGI – we’ll go with that, leaving her with approximately $210,833 AGI. You assumed a total tax burden of 31.9478% of AGI. because they’ll be in a slightly lower tax bracket, let’s knock that down to 28%. So, Mom will pay $59,033 in total taxes, leaving the family with $151,799 in after tax income. But wait – when Dad was working, they took home $297,000! That’s a difference of more than $145,000 – slightly more than the $67,000 you blithely asserted Dad was making on his $190,000 salary. And that’s not even considering the potential retirement, health care, FSA, etc. benefits Dad may get.

If you’re going to make the “people making $190,000 need a tax incentive to stay in the workplace” argument, please try to come up with some support that isn’t idiotic on it’s face.

Scratch that – the Mom’s sole after tax income is just under $171,000. So the family would take a $126,000 hit if the Dad stopped working.