Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...
And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.
So, the superstar athletes who make millions of dollars and buy tons of bling and cars and who-knows-what before running themselves into the ground AREN'T rich, in your definition?
Most do that and don't run themselves into the ground because they are rich. If someone making 250k did that they would run themselves into the ground because they aren't rich, duh.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...
And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...
And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...
And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.
So, the superstar athletes who make millions of dollars and buy tons of bling and cars and who-knows-what before running themselves into the ground AREN'T rich, in your definition?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...
And, THIS is why $250k isn't "rich." It is comfortable. Very comfortable. But, it isn't "rich." You still have to plan and cannot spend indiscriminately. THAT would be rich.
Anonymous wrote:Op here our mortgage is $2700 and place paid off our student loans in 2006 (we both went to state schools). Would we like a big nice house in Bethesda, sure! But we know we don't earn enough to afford it. Its just not feasible in this area...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm happy to pay my share of taxes - and I do. But it's ridiculous that major corporations and millionaires pay less of a percentage in earnings than my family earning $160k a year. We live modestly, work hard, and make smart choices with our money (saving for retirement over vacations and expensive dinners out). But it's preposterous that I pay more in taxes as a percentage than my boss who earns about $2 million a year. Tired of the "job creators" excuse, too. I'm a capital creator - a worker bee - and my work is what makes my company money.
You don't, I promise. You can't compare a millionaire's effective tax rate, like the Mitt Romney 13% figure that keeps getting tossed around, to your own top marginal tax rate (thanks to the PP for explaining marginal rates).
"The liberal Tax Policy Center reports that 91.4 percent of individual taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $50,000 and $100,000 pay less than 15 percent in taxes. And 43.9 percent of the $50,000-$100,000 AGI taxpayers pay an effective rate between 5 and 9.99 percent, while 4.6 percent of this group pay no federal income tax at all." http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/09/27/hey_media_a_75k_mechanic_pays_a_lower_tax_rate_than_romney/page/full/
Also, that 15% rate on investment income so many are complaining about? That's because that income was *already* taxed, at the corporate level. The combined total effective tax rate on investments is usually equal to or higher than the top marginal tax rate.
"Based on a 25% [corporate] tax rate, for every $133 a corporation earned, it had to first pay $33 in federal income taxes before it could distribute $100 in dividends. Next, on every $100 of dividend income received, the Romneys paid an additional $15 in taxes. The combined tax of $48 totals out to a 36% rate on dividend income ($48/$133), which approximates the top personal income rate imposed on interest income." http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/08/20/mitt-romney-paid-30-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/
Anonymous wrote:200K in Washington DC = comfortably poor.
Anonymous wrote:200K in Washington DC = comfortably poor.