# $200K/year isn't rich. Why aren't we taxing corporations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110 "2011-09-12T23:36:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/181 "2011-09-14T20:36:57Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > \The point I’m trying to make is that “rich” is not a binary value. It is an inherently relative term, just like “tall”. Sometimes a term fits in such a wide variety of contexts that it makes sense to treat it provisionally as a binary value; it is a useful fiction. Hence, “Bill Gates is rich” is true unless we’re talking about a very strange grouping, possibly including cartoon ducks. Therefore, I have no problem with saying “Bill Gates is rich”, even though it might be more technically correct to use the word “rich **er** ” and give a comparison group. > > On the flip side, I wouldn’t normally say that someone making $25,000 a year in modern America is rich. However, if someone were to say, “Compared to a large number of people in [some thirdworld country], someone making $25,000 in modern America is rich” I wouldn’t disagree. > > Since “rich” and “tall” are inherently relative terms, context is vital. In order for, say, the top 3% of people with the highest incomes in one of richest countries in the history of the world to be considered to _not_ be rich, you have to contort the context to a great degree. For example, you can compare them to the the top _two_ percent, or maybe the top 0.001 percent. +1 Wish I had something to add, but this is precisely it. Way back in Post 41 **even sven** put it in simple, real world terms: > [@even\_sven](#): > > \ I think people lose track of what “average” really means. 28% of households in this country lives on less than $25,000. Another 26.65% live between $25,000 and $50,000. These are incomes where you may or may not have health insurance, where you think twice before buying coffee at a gas station, where your kids go to Jr. College because they have to, where you spend most of your life renting, where you work as a WalMart greeter instead of retiring, and where a “vacation” means a camping trip at best. > > People who do not have to worry about these things- who automatically assume they will have health insurance, who buy snacks at the gas station without figuring how it’s going to affect their budget, who work hard to save but know they can save for their kid’s college and their retirement, and who manage to get to actual vacation spots- even overseas once in a while. Well, those people are pretty well off. They are fortunate. They are, in fact, wealthy. If they have never lived the other way, they may not know that their lifestyle is not the norm. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are in the top echelons of wealth that has ever existed on this planet anywhere in space and time. > > And far, far, far above that are the people making more than $200,000k. If they are living paycheck to paycheck, it’s because they are choosing to. There is no city in the world where $200,000k a year doesn’t mean you can do stuff like get your clothes dry cleaned, shop at Whole Foods without worrying too much about the bill, send your kid to a private school, travel internationally, and hire a maid service. It’s a good life. It’s a rich life. 99.99% of the world as a whole, and nearly everyone in the entirety of history on this plant, cannot live like that. It’s freaking rich. I’ve been poor enough to know what scraped icebox and dishrag soup taste like. Right now I’m comfortable with a household income (wife and I) half the figure under discussion. We struggle, but it’s because of choices we’ve made (horses, not kids; small farm, not rented townhouse; etc.). If we gave up some of those things, lived more like I did as a kid, we’d be cash-rich beyond the wildest dreams of my childhood. (Well, maybe not quite _that_ rich – I had a pretty good imagination!) Like so many things today, the debate over “rich” only demonstrates the Republican skill at re-defining reality to their own benefit. Like “giant corporations working fewer employees longer and harder for less (adjusted) compensation, making enormous profits, screaming for additional tax relief, while hoarding more cash than ever before in history” are now inviolable “job creators”. ---
**Author:** ![otternell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecc23a/32.png) [@otternell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otternell)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/182 "2011-09-14T20:59:04Z")
I’ll give my answer to why a person in a higher income bracket (rich, glargelflargel, job creator, whatever). Its actually very simple. Without the clear benefit of living in the society in which they live, they would have never reached that higher income bracket, therefore, they receive a higher benefit to living in society, and therefore should pay a higher rate (on the marginal income). Is there some component of hard work - yes there is, but there is a whole lot of luck operational in the world of business. Anyone else know an utterly incompetent jackass in a high ranking position in a corporation? I sure do, and they sure as hell didn’t get where they were as a result of hard work. See a lot of innovation and corporations coming out of Somalia? Nope. No intellectual property rights, no protection for property through police, no decent roads to transport anything, no infrastructure that makes business and wealth possible. Society makes business and financial success possible. Society makes it all possible, those who reap the biggest rewards from living in that society should be HAPPY to support that society. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/183 "2011-09-14T21:02:26Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > My point was that you can’t get the 200K outside of the big city, not that everyone in the big city earns 200K. I never said the latter. There is no way this is true. Sure, there are going to be _more_ $200k+ salaries in the big cities where the cost of living is such that living on that salary makes you feel middle class. But there are hundreds of medium and small cities and towns where plenty of people earn that salary and where the reasonable cost of living lets it go much further. You make it sounds like everyone making $200k+ has no choice but to live in places where the COL is so high that they can’t afford to chip in a little more and while that might hold true for some, it certainly isn’t for all. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/184 "2011-09-14T21:07:58Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > +1 Wish I had something to add, but this is precisely it. Way back in Post 41 **even sven** put it in simple, real world terms: > I’ve been poor enough to know what scraped icebox and dishrag soup taste like. Right now I’m comfortable with a household income (wife and I) half the figure under discussion. We struggle, but it’s because of choices we’ve made (horses, not kids; small farm, not rented townhouse; etc.). If we gave up some of those things, lived more like I did as a kid, we’d be cash-rich beyond the wildest dreams of my childhood. (Well, maybe not quite _that_ rich – I had a pretty good imagination!) > > Like so many things today, the debate over “rich” only demonstrates the Republican skill at re-defining reality to their own benefit. Like “giant corporations working fewer employees longer and harder for less (adjusted) compensation, making enormous profits, screaming for additional tax relief, while hoarding more cash than ever before in history” are now inviolable “job creators”. On the contrary. It is those on the other side of the debate who are attempting to redefine the already-established sociological definition, for emotive and political reasons - presumably because it is easier to justify a tax on the “rich”. I say that, and I am neither Republican nor do I disagree with progressive taxation. Though my reasons for doing so are different from those stated by **otternell**. In my opinion, progressive taxation is justified because, at the lower end of the income spectrum, taking money leads to a sharp increase in real hardship on average - simply put, the higher one goes on the income scale, the purportionally easier it is to bear an increase in taxation. Has nothing to do with class definitions though. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/185 "2011-09-14T21:12:53Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > There is no way this is true. Sure, there are going to be _more_ $200k+ salaries in the big cities where the cost of living is such that living on that salary makes you feel middle class. But there are hundreds of medium and small cities and towns where plenty of people earn that salary and where the reasonable cost of living lets it go much further. Excuse a little hyperbole. Yes, it is not literally true that one cannot earn $200,000 outside of the big cities. But such opportunities are vanishingly small set against the number of $200K earners in the big cities - as the occupations that earn in that range (lawyer, manager, specialty physician) are _overwhelmingly concentrated there_. > [@](#): > > You make it sounds like everyone making $200k+ has no choice but to live in places where the COL is so high that they can’t afford to chip in a little more and while that might hold true for some, it certainly isn’t for all. How many times must I say that I agree with progressive taxation? 😕 I will say it again: _I agree with progressive taxation_. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/186 "2011-09-14T21:21:52Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I am not trying to be mean, but I simply, honestly and completely do not believe you. **gurujulp** is absolutely right though. I know people who make upwards of 200k, and I’ve been to a party at a person’s home who had Ross Perot as a neighbor, invited him to the party, and he showed up (I actually met him). There’s no comparison; we’re talking 3500-4000 sq ft. houses vs. 18,000 sq ft houses with private tennis courts, pools and separate 5 car garages. That’s rich. Having live-in nannies and servants is rich. Hiring some guy to mow your lawn isn’t rich. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/187 "2011-09-14T21:27:30Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > A slight hijack but it already came up in this thread. Agent Violet said the more they pay in taxes, the less they have to pay their employees. But they don’t pay taxes on their gross revenue, they pay it on their profit. They are taxed on what they have left AFTER they pay their employees. > > I’m sure I’m missing a detail somewhere. I see how regulations that add to the cost but can’t be passed to customers could be an issue, but not taxes. Yeah, something sounds fishy. Recently, more than once, I’ve heard financial talking heads like Buffet or someone saying that if a business opportunity seems good, business will move forward on it taxes or not. That is, taxes alone isn’t a deal breaker. Also, businesses who can bluff their employees and unions with a threat to move to Mexico or China or lay everyone off and slash benefits, have already played that hand. If they could move to Mexico or China, they probably already have. If Ma & Pa business owner have made their salaries, the employees salaries, expenses, etc. and they’re saying, “I refuse to pay taxes like everyone else who mad $200K last year and if you make me I’ll slash my employees wages and benefits, lay half of them off, and move to Mexico” well, go for it. Don’t let the door smack you in the ass on the way out. See how much you like making zero income in Mexico or China vs. making $140K after taxes just like everyone else who makes $200K. Ooh, ooh! Make me pay taxes I’ll quit job-creating! Ha! Nice try but you’ve already quit job-creating and you’re perfectly happy squeezing your current level of productivity out of your employees, and your customers are already paying what you can squeeze out of them, so by all means go out of business or move to China if you can. Lay off half your employees and jack up your prices and see how that works out for you. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/188 "2011-09-14T21:56:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The term “middle class” doesn’t mean “average salary” and never has. It is perfectly possible to say things like “in a third world country, only a small minority of the population is middle class” or “in America today, the middle class is disappearing”. If your definition were true, these would be meaningless statements. I think it is totally meaningless to say that a middle class lifestyle is affordable only by the top 5% of wage earners. That is stretching the definition of middle class in a way to make it unrecognizable. What does a middle-class life-style mean if someone in the middle of income brackets can’t afford it? How do you define a ‘middle-class life-style’? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/189 "2011-09-14T22:08:47Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > I’m just looking for proof of your comment that “$200K doesn’t go far in some areas in this country.” I wasn’t talking about corporations. Let’s try to figure it out. $200K income will get you $120K net or so. Now let’s look at reasonable monthly expenses for an upper middle class family - husband, wife, one kid. Not “rich” - just upper middle class. Somewhere like California or NYC. # $4K mortgage payment $1.2K groceries $1.5K school tuition for kid (if in private school) $1K real estate taxes $800 utilities/internet/cable $400 gas/car insurance $400 entertainment $9.3K total. Multiply by 12 = 111K - basically there is your 120K. And I really just took basics into account. Left out all kinds of expenses. I am sure you can think of quite a few. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/190 "2011-09-14T22:08:48Z")
> [@Palo\_Verde](#): > > I think it is totally meaningless to say that a middle class lifestyle is affordable only by the top 5% of wage earners. That is stretching the definition of middle class in a way to make it unrecognizable. > > What does a middle-class life-style mean if someone in the middle of income brackets can’t afford it? How do you define a ‘middle-class life-style’? The “middle” in “middle class” does not refer to the middle of the income spectrum, but rather to the fact that it is the “middle” class between “working class” and “upper class” or “the rich”. There is nothing inherent in this term as to how large each class has to be. The fact that there are, very broadly, three classes doesn’t imply that 1/3 are working class, 1/3 are middle class, and 1/3 are upper class/rich. The size of the social classes is a reflection of the type of society a particular country happens to have. For example, in some third-world countries, only a small fraction of the population could be described as “middle class” or “upper class”. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/191 "2011-09-14T22:11:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And I really just took basics into account. Private school is basic? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/192 "2011-09-14T22:13:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > **gurujulp** is absolutely right though. I know people who make upwards of 200k, and I’ve been to a party at a person’s home who had Ross Perot as a neighbor, invited him to the party, and he showed up (I actually met him). > > There’s no comparison; we’re talking 3500-4000 sq ft. houses vs. 18,000 sq ft houses with private tennis courts, pools and separate 5 car garages. > > That’s rich. Having live-in nannies and servants is rich. > > Hiring some guy to mow your lawn isn’t rich. While I agree with you _somewhat_ I found his claim that their household makes 200k but it would take “planning” to fly a friend to visit them spurious. Either they spend all their money on crap and don’t have any cash, or he was dishonestly saying “plan” for it to mean time-wise, because the implication was that someone making 200k would have to plan to host some guests and that is VERY hard to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/193 "2011-09-14T22:15:50Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Private school is basic? In a lot of areas, yes. Public schools in a lot of areas are absolutely atrocious. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/194 "2011-09-14T22:15:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > $1.2K groceries I’m a 200lb male and I don’t spend 400 a month on groceries for myself, and families that can buy in bulk without worrying about spoilage like a single guy should be able to manage less per person than I do. What kind of house/loan has a mortgage for 4k/mo? That seems awfully high to me. Their take-home is 10k a month, that seems like they are spending beyond their means. Which is not a good reason to not raise their taxes. ---
**Author:** ![gurujulp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@gurujulp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gurujulp)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/195 "2011-09-14T22:25:26Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I do not believe you know what you are talking about. > > A few years ago, my wife and I simultaneously went through some job hell that knocked us right into the poverty zone for a time. She was working a job that paid about the same as the top rate for unemployment here and there were NO benefits. Especially no medical benefits. I was working at Target doing entry level stuff at even lower wages while I searched for better work. Target offered a medical benefit program but it cost more than I made. Literally, I would have brought no money home if I had taken insurance. > > We had to do things like sit down one week and figure out if we were gonna pay for food or medicine cause we could not afford both. > > Understand, we had income. We could just barely pay our bills, but any little upsetting of our boat, like an unexpected car repair, and we were screwed. > > We’re doing much better now. We are not anywhere near the 200,000 mark or even the 100,000 mark, but we can pay our bills and handle adversity. We have not had any of those horrible “WTF are we gonna do?” moments that used to come up every so often. > > If you’re making $150,000 and you do not think you are wealthy, I have to believe you are really, really, really out of touch. And you ought to be damn glad you are. America is not a happy place for a lot of people. I am not making $150K. I am making just over $60K in a good year, and this is not a good year. Together, my family is making about $100K and we will likely hit $200K eventually. > [@Terr](#): > > Let’s try to figure it out. > > $200K income will get you $120K net or so. > > Now let’s look at reasonable monthly expenses for an upper middle class family - husband, wife, one kid. Not “rich” - just upper middle class. Somewhere like California or NYC. > > # $4K mortgage payment $1.2K groceries $1.5K school tuition for kid (if in private school) $1K real estate taxes $800 utilities/internet/cable $400 gas/car insurance $400 entertainment > > $9.3K total. Multiply by 12 = 111K - basically there is your 120K. And I really just took basics into account. Left out all kinds of expenses. I am sure you can think of quite a few. Real estate taxes on a new house here in Berkeley are more along the lines of about $15K per year for a house with a $4K mortgage, and that IS a reasonable mortgage. > [@rogerbox](#): > > While I agree with you _somewhat_ I found his claim that their household makes 200k but it would take “planning” to fly a friend to visit them spurious. Either they spend all their money on crap and don’t have any cash, or he was dishonestly saying “plan” for it to mean time-wise, because the implication was that someone making 200k would have to plan to host some guests and that is VERY hard to believe. Wouldn’t have to be long term plans- but wouldn’t be able to afford same-week fares, either- short term tickets are in the $1000’s… > [@rogerbox](#): > > I’m a 200lb male and I don’t spend 400 a month on groceries for myself, and families that can buy in bulk without worrying about spoilage like a single guy should be able to manage less per person than I do. > > What kind of house/loan has a mortgage for 4k/mo? That seems awfully high to me. Their take-home is 10k a month, that seems like they are spending beyond their means. Which is not a good reason to not raise their taxes. That mortgage is totally reasonable. Many people took 50 year mortgages, as it just takes that to own a home… the kids will be paying off the house. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/196 "2011-09-14T22:27:05Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > What kind of house/loan has a mortgage for 4k/mo? That seems awfully high to me. Their take-home is 10k a month, that seems like they are spending beyond their means. Which is not a good reason to not raise their taxes. The kind with “$1K/mo real estate taxes”? Is that meant to say property tax? If so, that’s some house, based on my property taxes that scales up well over $2 million. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/197 "2011-09-14T22:31:19Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I’m a 200lb male and I don’t spend 400 a month on groceries for myself, and families that can buy in bulk without worrying about spoilage like a single guy should be able to manage less per person than I do. For yourself - no. For a family - $1.2K is easily spent on groceries. > [@](#): > > What kind of house/loan has a mortgage for 4k/mo? That seems awfully high to me. $700K mortgage ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/198 "2011-09-14T22:43:46Z")
> [@gurujulp](#): > > Wouldn’t have to be long term plans- but wouldn’t be able to afford same-week fares, either- short term tickets are in the $1000’s… If you are making 200k a year and you don’t have 1% of your yearly income in cash on hand that you can host guests, why is that not an indicator that you are doing something wrong as opposed to “they cannot afford more taxation”? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/199 "2011-09-14T22:46:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > For yourself - no. For a family - $1.2K is easily spent on groceries. He said 3 people (one of which is a KID and doesn’t eat that much) for 1200 dollars. How does the price per person scale UP with a family and not down, you’re not making any sense. Dollar per pound it is cheaper when you can buy larger containers that won’t spoil, families with any common sense should be able to eat cheaper per person than a single person. > [@](#): > > $700K mortgage Forgive me if I don’t think that we should increase taxes on the poor before someone who lives in a 700k home. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/200 "2011-09-14T22:48:04Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > The kind with “$1K/mo real estate taxes”? Is that meant to say property tax? If so, that’s some house, based on my property taxes that scales up well over $2 million. Depends on the state. In MD, a $800K house easily pays $12K/year in property taxes. In Austin, TX, a $400K house pays around $12K/year in property taxes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=11)