# $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:** 18
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/341 "2011-09-15T19:10:22Z")
> [@justrob](#): > > I can understand what you’re saying here but your break down earlier implied, at least that’s how I read it, that after taxes and all the “basic” expenses you had there was only around $9K left from your original $200K. When in actuality there was that $9K plus the unspecified thousands of dollars (probably around $20-30K) you put away for retirement. $9K liquid. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/342 "2011-09-15T19:10:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That’s interesting. In my discussions with people, we usually agreed that today $3-4M minimum is required in order to “live off the interest” ok indefinitely, and $10M is the usual theoretical cut off point for being able to “live off the interest” reasonably well (if not extravagantly well). From your data, it seems that that point is a fairly constant one through the ages. Heh, there’s a graduate thesis in this somewhere … 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/343 "2011-09-15T19:10:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In a “rich/poor” dichotomy? Roughly - anyone who must work in order to lead a comfortable life. Ascetics needn’t apply. Does that mean you actually think you’re poor? ---
**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, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/344 "2011-09-15T19:12:43Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Does that mean you actually think you’re poor? In a “rich/poor” dichotomy, yes. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/345 "2011-09-15T19:15:25Z")
And in a context that has some relation to actual life as it is experienced by humans? ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/346 "2011-09-15T19:17:49Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > When I was saying “not even a doghouse” I was using a bit of obvious hyperbole. I would have thought it obvious anyway. > > I readiily admit one _could_, in point of fact, buy a “doghouse” (or for the less literal-mined, “a really crappy house - As-Is”) 60k out from Toronto. If it was sufficiently shitty. > > Point here is that this hardly resembles the “nice” house complete with in-ground swimming pool etc. in Texas I was commenting on. It rather proves my point, rather than disproves it. I concede that housing prices around Toronto must be higher than those of Texas. Just being pedantic, my apologies ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/347 "2011-09-15T19:23:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [QUOTE=SciFiSam] > Does that mean you actually think you’re poor? In a “rich/poor” dichotomy, yes. [/QUOTE] > [@Terr](#): > > $9K liquid. Hahahhahahaa!!! So you have $9K in cash that you can blow on anything without affecting your current or future lifestyle and you think you’re poor? That’s rich. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/348 "2011-09-15T19:27:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Why is 3% reasonable and not 4%? Or 3.5%? Is there an income threshold past which you’re “rich” and before it you aren’t? I think it’s pretty obvious that doing that is not “reasonable”. I think it would be better to look up average and median salaries and select the top 5% of median salaries. Average can be a little misleading, since there are some earning extremely low wages and living ten to a room and some earning extremely high wages and having ten rooms per person, but the vast majority of people don’t live like either of those extremes. You might say why 5%, and I’d say the cut-off has to be somewhere; at that point, the person is very likely to be able to live without working for a year or two if they use their savings, make some cutbacks, rent out one of their spare bedrooms, put their private-school kid into public schools and stop spending more on groceries than many people make in net salary. ‘Has to work to lead a comfortable life’ is completely unworkable without a universally-agreed definition of ‘comfortable,’ which we’re never going to get. I mean, your definition of ‘basic’ includes private schooling and an enormous house, so your definition of ‘comfortable’ must be way out there. > [@gurujulp](#): > > I have at no point in this conversation attempted to state that $200K isn’t rich, although I think some people think differently. I am just trying to say that $200K isn’t \*\*\*very \*\*\*rich, and people like me might not notice when they got rich… I agree - but some people on here seem to think that ‘very rich’ and ‘rich’ are the same thing. Are ‘very tall’ and ‘tall’ the same thing? It’s a weird way of thinking. It’s different if the person makes 200k one year and 10k the next, of course, like some actors - average income over five years might be fairer, but not many people have an income that fluctuates as wildly as that. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/349 "2011-09-15T19:29:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In a “rich/poor” dichotomy, yes. Well, I earn less than a tenth of what you do and I live in central London. If you’re poor, what the hell am I? ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/350 "2011-09-15T19:35:15Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > You might say why 5%, and I’d say the cut-off has to be somewhere; at that point, the person is very likely to be able to live without working for a year or two if they use their savings, make some cutbacks, rent out one of their spare bedrooms, put their private-school kid into public schools and stop spending more on groceries than many people make in net salary. The same exact thing can be said of someone who’s at the 5.1% level. Why is he not “rich”? ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/351 "2011-09-15T19:36:19Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Well, I earn less than a tenth of what you do and I live in central London. If you’re poor, what the hell am I? Poor. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/352 "2011-09-15T19:40:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Why is 3% reasonable and not 4%? Or 3.5%? Is there an income threshold past which you’re “rich” and before it you aren’t? I think it’s pretty obvious that doing that is not “reasonable”. > [@Terr](#): > > The same exact thing can be said of someone who’s at the 5.1% level. Why is he not “rich”? He included your 3.5% and 4% in his 5% line. Now he has to include 5.1%? Does this argument continue until everyone is considered rich? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/353 "2011-09-15T19:43:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > There were quite a few years when my income was a lot more than $200K. And yes, $120K left over is a good estimate, after FICA, federal income taxes, state taxes and 401K contributions are subtracted. I didn’t include FICA, but $200K is way above the cap. Sorry, you don’t get to deduct 401K contributions. “Please give me welfare, ma’am. I put all my money into savings and I’m broke.” If you are in Austin, you may pay high property taxes but you don’t pay income tax. You can’t sum the highest tax rate for each state in this calculation. > [@](#): > > I beg to differ. We go shopping once a week, so I have a good handle on this. I doubt your food is more expensive than mine. I suppose if I shopped at the really high end grocer I might make it this high, but, as I said, anyone can spend everything they have. > [@](#): > > As I pointed out, in MD if you have an $800K house that is how much you will pay in property taxes. In Austin, TX, if you have a $400K house, your property taxes will be around $1K/month. In Austin you don’t pay income tax, so it doesn’t count. In any case, time for a tax revolt. My house is worth around $750K, and I pay maybe $300 a month thanks to Prop 13. > [@](#): > > For two cars, insurance is around $2K/year. Add the two work commutes - and you get $400/month easy. You need to talk to the Gecko, man. Around here those with long commutes do it to be able to buy cheaper houses far from Silicon Valley. But I don’t deny that you can shoot yourself in the foot by buying an expensive house far away. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/354 "2011-09-15T19:45:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In a “rich/poor” dichotomy, yes. In a[relativistic fallacy](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html), you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/355 "2011-09-15T19:47:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Upper middle class, yes. If your house is 2300 square feet, I doubt you belong in that category. At $750K, I think I do. In some places you can get a mansion and a ranch for that money - just not around here. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/356 "2011-09-15T19:54:14Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Poor. You think your income is basically the same as mine? Heh. Like others have said, then, it wouldn’t matter if taxes took away 90% of your income then, would it? How can rich/poor not be relative, anyway? In comparison to an Ethiopian famine victim, I am rich. In comparison to most of the world, I’m rich. In comparison to others in my country, I’m not. ‘Living comfortably’ within the same country is also relative - it would cost a lot more to buy a 5,500 sq ft house in NYC than in Kansas City. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/357 "2011-09-15T19:55:29Z")
> [@gurujulp](#): > > I am still waiting for a non-relative definition of rich that I can agree with. The roman senator thing was nice, and awesome, but not applicable here. Normally, I’d agree - but I brought up the Roman example in response to a direct challenge. 😉 Actually, what the cut-off level for 'rich" has been in various times and cultures would make a fascinating study - as I said upthread, graduate-thesis stuff (and I’d be surprised if it hasn’t been attempted). My point, upthread, is that in our particular society (unlike the Romans) there isn’t any firm figure for "upper class’ or “rich”, because it tends to be measured functionally rather than by income or assets. But if there was, I would argue, it would be closer to the Roman notion of owning a lump of dependable assets in the multiple millions, rather than the proposed measure of having a salary in the top 3%. I think this measure is reasonable not only because it appears to have an elegant cross-time-and-culture uniformity (:D) but because it indicates a pool of assets sufficient to live on without the necessity of wage-slavery, and it is _congruent_ with upper-class type occupations such as investment and money-management. Say “somewhat rich” if you have $4 million and “really rich” if you have $10 million. That eliminates those who are “millionares” on paper but whose “million” is mostly tied up in their house. ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/358 "2011-09-15T20:03:29Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > In a[relativistic fallacy](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html), you mean. Not really. He’s commenting on the forcing of the debate into an artificial dichotomy, which itself implies a fallacy - the “exclusion of the middle”. If the middle is excluded, we are all “poor” if we are not “rich”. The “middle has been excluded” when all you are allowed to classify someone is as either rich or poor. > **[False dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)** > > A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with... Amusingly, the prototype of the false dilemma emerged from an argument very similar to the present: > [@](#): > > Morton’s Fork, a choice between two equally unpleasant options, is often a false dilemma. The phrase originates from an argument for taxing English nobles: > > ‘Either the nobles of this country appear wealthy, in which case they can be taxed for good; or they appear poor, in which case they are living frugally and must have immense savings, which can be taxed for good.’ > > This is a false dilemma and a catch-22, because it fails to allow for the possibility that some members of the nobility may in fact lack liquid assets as well as the probability that those who appear poor also lack liquid assets. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/359 "2011-09-15T20:07:54Z")
Except that he’s the one doing that. I’m sorry, but not everyone who makes more than $20K a year but doesn’t have a private island is middle class. ---
**Author:** ![geneb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a88e4f/32.png) [@geneb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geneb)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/360 "2011-09-15T20:08:06Z")
This thread makes me a little sick to my stomach. If you have more than you need, then you are rich. Not a subjective “need”, but a physical “need” to maintain life. I’m willing to bet that everyone in here has something that they don’t strictly need, thus we are all rich. It doesn’t matter that someone is making $200,000 a year and someone else is making $20,000 a year. If you have enough clean food and water and a safe place to sleep at every night, then you have it a lot better than the truly “poor” in this country who regularly have neither of these things. (Assuming, of course, that you aren’t getting these things on credit that you can’t pay for) I make much, much, much less than $200,000 and, at the end of the month, I barely have a penny in my bank account. But I can cancel Netflix and my wife and I can skip our bi-weekly “out of the house” dinner and pay that money in taxes if needed. For a person to insist that they can’t give up one or two of life’s finer things for the greater good is simply sickening, no matter your income. For a person who has a higher income to give up more makes perfect sense in that they have more finer things to give up. But, despite that, I am all for raising taxes across the board. Do I agree with everything my taxes are spent on? Hell no. Not by a long shot. But it’s not about me, it is about my country and everyone in it. (This isn’t to say that I don’t think that wasteful spending shouldn’t be curbed, but I don’t see that ever happening. The argument over what the definition of “rich” is went on for pages by normal people. I don’t see a bunch of politicians agreeing on what is “wasteful” before the sun goes dark.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=19)