# $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:** 16
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/301 "2011-09-15T17:24:16Z")
Conclusion: There are only 400 [rich people in America](http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400). :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/302 "2011-09-15T17:25:51Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > The only one claiming that you need to have a Ferrari and a Tennis Court to be rich are the people in this thread trying to convince us that the top 3% income earners of one of the richest countries in human history isn’t “rich”. That takes such definitional jiujitsu that almost no one is rich. Almost no one is “rich”. That’s correct. Because apart from the “rich” that are beyond both me and you, it would take serious “definitional jiujitsu” to define “rich” that would include me and not you. > [@](#): > > If you don’t wonder how you will have to pay a bill, you do not live at all like many many millions of Americans. Is that how you define “rich” - you don’t wonder how you will have to pay a bill? I know people who earn $50K who have never missed a bill and never wonder how they would pay it. Are they “rich”? > [@](#): > > And that you can’t afford tax increases. Everyone can “afford tax increases”. Can you spare a quarter? Then you can afford a tax increase of a quarter. How about a buck? A fiver? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/303 "2011-09-15T17:28:34Z")
> [@justrob](#): > > I’m confused by how you don’t see that saving is **not** an expense. When the saving goes somewhere I cannot touch for 20-30 years, it is an expense. When you pay for car insurance, you’re buying transportation. When you pay into your 401K, you’re buying eventual retirement. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/304 "2011-09-15T17:30:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In a broad sense, someone earning $200K/year is living the same kind of life as someone earning $50K/year. > > In a broad sense, someone “rich” is living a VASTLY different kind of life than someone who is earning $50K/year or $200K/year. > > “Rich” is qualitatively different from “not rich”. You don’t even see the “rich” people. They don’t have many points of contact with you. You don’t shop in same stores. You don’t fly in the same plane. You don’t go to the same movie theater. You don’t eat in the same restaurants, and if you do, not in the same room. [The Millionaire Next Door.](http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html) > [@](#): > > **Meet the Millionaire Next Door** > > ``` > These people cannot be millionaires! They don't look like millionaires, they don't dress like millionaires, they don't eat like millionaires, they don't act like millionaires--they don't even have millionaire names. Where are the millionaires who look like millionaires? > > ``` > > The person who said this was a vice president of a trust department. He made these comments following a focus group interview and dinner that we hosted for ten first-generation millionaires. His view of millionaires is shared by most people who are not wealthy. They think millionaires own expensive clothes, watches, and other status artifacts. We have found this is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/305 "2011-09-15T17:30:44Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > So what you’re saying is that they have access to nicer, better, more expensive stuff than you do. No. That would be a quantitative difference. The difference is qualitative. ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/306 "2011-09-15T17:31:25Z")
I’m one of those $200K households. I don’t consider myself _Rich_ (like Warren Buffet rich) but do I have it a hell of a lot better than most people? Damn straight I do. Can I afford to pay more in taxes so that the less fortunate can get a break? Damn straight I can. Willing and able. Terr is being incredibly disingenuous. Entertainment, a mortgage, gourmet food etc… isn’t the “basics”. Basics are: 1) a roof over your head - maybe 5 people squeezed into a dingy 1 bedroom apt, 2) enough food so that you don’t starve and get your minimum daily nutritional requirements, 3) some minimal standard of health care (in the USA, this might not even qualify as basic). We used to live as a family on about $20K a year. To say that my life now is qualitatively the same as then is flat out stupid. Being poor sucked. Having to beg family for money so that we could cover my spouses medical bills sucked (we had student insurance but it only covered 80% of the bill - a 4 day hospital stay came to about $40K, leaving us many thousands on the hook). I’ve been poor and now I’m well to do. I have it easy now. Don’t believe anyone who tries to sell you something different. If they make that much and have problems paying their bills, they can’t handle money and their problems are of their own making. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/307 "2011-09-15T17:33:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In a broad sense, someone earning $200K/year is living the same kind of life as someone earning $50K/year. Having been in both situations in a fairly short period of time, I can assure you that it’s only true in a VERY broad sense. Yeah, I still have a house, a job, and a commute, but it’s amazing how much _easier_ having four times as much income makes everything. At 50K a year, the eight or nine thousand we currently spend on day care would have knocked an impossible hole in our budget. At 200K a year, we barely notice it. At 50K/year, the 40K we spent to adopt the Firebug from Russia would have been completely out of our reach; instead, we paid it out of pocket. Having a cleaning lady come in every other week is no big deal instead of a barely affordable luxury. And so on. True, our life has the same superficial appearance as it did 13 years ago when we were in our 50K bracket, kind of like the way someone wearing a backpack full of lead weights would look superficially the same as someone wearing a backpack full of balloons. And that’s about how different it is. Yeah, the difference between my life now, and that of a rich person, is even bigger. But the difference between 50K and 200K is still pretty damn big. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/308 "2011-09-15T17:37:38Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No. That would be a quantitative difference. The difference is qualitative. You continue to be quite mistaken about what that word means. And other stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/309 "2011-09-15T17:38:01Z")
> [@mozchron](#): > > I’m one of those $200K households. I don’t consider myself _Rich_ (like Warren Buffet rich) but do I have it a hell of a lot better than most people? Damn straight I do. “Having it a lot better than most people” is your definition of “rich”? That’s pretty pathetic. It’s like that discussion of “trust fund babies” that I saw on this forum. People giving examples of someone they called a “trust fund baby” and relating how he had to go find work after he burned through the money. That’s hilarious. A true “trust fund baby” cannot possibly burn through the money and wind up in a situation where he has to work. It would be physically impossible, both because of the size of the trust fund and of the way the trust fund would be set up. And in response to someone above who said that “rich is always at least twice your current net worth” - no. Someone who has twice my net worth is still not rich. You would have to have about ten times to twenty times more than I do to even scrape the lower bound of “rich”. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/310 "2011-09-15T17:39:07Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Having it a lot better than most people” is your definition of “rich”? That’s pretty pathetic. I’m curious, what’s your definition of “poor”? ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/311 "2011-09-15T17:41:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Having it a lot better than most people” is your definition of “rich”? That’s pretty pathetic. No, “rich” in this discussion is a meaningless term, and clouds the real issue. Rich is the word that the haves are using to dupe the have-nots into supporting policies that directly hurt them. To say that $200K isn’t rich, therefore “I’m just like you!”, and “my taxes shouldn’t be increased, but hey, you guys who don’t pay taxes (because you earn shit-all to begin with ) need to pay up!” isn’t just dishonest, its (as said upthread) downright evil. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/312 "2011-09-15T17:45:24Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > I’m curious, what’s your definition of “poor”? In a “rich/poor” dichotomy? Roughly - anyone who must work in order to lead a comfortable life. Ascetics needn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/313 "2011-09-15T17:56:08Z")
Really, “disingenuous” is far too kind. ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/314 "2011-09-15T18:06:52Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Really, “disingenuous” is far too kind. Well, this isn’t the pit. ---
**Author:** ![gurujulp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@gurujulp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gurujulp)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/315 "2011-09-15T18:07:12Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I suspect you aren’t being entirely honest but I am not calling you a liar, I just think the picture you paint is unrealistic. Let’s try again: Are you really claiming that someone who makes $200,000 a year, has to decide between taking a vacation that year, or flying some guests in at a cost of (let’s be GENEROUS and say their tickets are $1500 for a couple, which is absurd since I pay around 1000 to fly from the west coast U.S. to the PHILIPPINES every year)? > > Do you think it sounds convincing that someone who makes 200k a year can’t take a vacation if they spend an unplanned $1500? Why can I do it when I make around 8x less? Just did a search on flights, and wow- they are much cheaper than I thought. I had expected (and was arguing from the point of) flights being more like $1500 _per person_ for same day flights, and Priceline just smashed that assumption. I know it used to be that bad- but for whatever reason, it is nowhere near that now! So, first, I have absolutely no idea how you can get to the Phillipines every year making $25K, one- so go you! I haven’t been able to make it overseas, EVER, and I make a little more than twice that. So I can’t go overseas, but I do bet that the $200K people could. Looking at what flight prices ARE right now vs what I THOUGHT they were, I even think you are right, it would indeed likely be possible to do it same day/week. So yes- it would not be a hardship, nor would it likely require planning, for me to fly Anaa out here once we are making $200K + per year. Thank you for re-stating the question, and for making me challenge my own assumptions… ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/316 "2011-09-15T18:11:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In a “rich/poor” dichotomy? Roughly - anyone who must work in order to lead a comfortable life. Ascetics needn’t apply. I made no mention of a dichotomy and I doubt many people who are poor lead a comfortable life, given your earlier description of what you consider the basics of life. However, your answer reveals that you only think there are two categories and apparently you define rich as those who do not have to work to lead a comfortable life. Your strange world consists of billionaires and poor folk, with nothing in between. Sociologists and reality would beg to differ. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/317 "2011-09-15T18:13:30Z")
> [@justrob](#): > > I’m sure it’s not “nice” but it’s a [detached house](http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=10216705&PidKey=1329395757)less than an hour from Toronto. From the listing: > [@](#): > > 2 Storey Detached Home Being Offered ‘As Is’ Pretty well says it all. When a real estate listing simply states “As Is”, you know it is, indeed, a doghouse (or rather, is being sold for the lot - a tear down). Also, by car Oshawa is 60 km from Toronto. While in a perfect world this ought to take an hour or less, in real life it is going to take longer if you are a poor slob who is commuting to work in Toronto’s notorious rush hour gridlock that appears to last much of the day. In short, even the hyperbole is pretty well true - you can only find a detached home within commuting distance of Toronto in that price range if it is (a) at the limits of “commuting distance” and (b) is a shithole. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/318 "2011-09-15T18:17:18Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > If you don’t wonder how you will have to pay a bill, you do not live at all like many many millions of Americans. Which is not a bad thing, congratulations on your good fortune. Just don’t try to talk to me like I’m a chump and say that we are even in the same neighborhood financially. And that you can’t afford tax increases. That’s just stupid. Having enough financial security to not worry about covering your bills doesn’t make one rich. If that’s the case, then I’ve always been rich, because even back in 1997, making 30k a year right out of school, I was always able to pay my bills and have some left over. Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb for rich/not rich ought to be: If you’re paid a periodic salary, and it’s the majority of the money you make, you’re probably not rich. If the money you make consists primarily of stock options, high-dollar bonuses, etc.. you may be rich. If the money you make comes from dividends, direct profits, or gains on your stock portfolio, you are likely rich. It’s essentially **Malthus’** comment, except clarified a little more. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/319 "2011-09-15T18:18:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Is that how you define “rich” - you don’t wonder how you will have to pay a bill? I know people who earn $50K who have never missed a bill and never wonder how they would pay it. Are they “rich”? You’re conflating two of my arguments: 1) People who make 200k/yr, being in the top 3% of one of the richest nations in human history, are inarguable rich by any reasonable definition. 1. People who have 200+k/yr incomes do not ever have to worry about which bills they will pay and which they won’t. That is ONE of the many reasons people in that income bracket are in no way similar in lifestyle to myself and many millions of Americans. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/320 "2011-09-15T18:19:45Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s just stupid. Having enough financial security to not worry about covering your bills doesn’t make one rich. The statement you quote here was not meant to imply that anyone who doesn’t worry about paying bills is rich. I can understand now why it might have seemed confusing though. > [@gurujulp](#): > > snip Well I retract my suspicion that you were being dishonest then. 🙂 You should definitely try to go overseas, save up for your tickets, check out hotel reviews online and then book, and just do it, you will not regret it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=17)