# $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:** 20
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/381 "2011-09-15T22:01:42Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > There are a LOT more people with “fuck you money” in the US than a few hundred. There are a LOT more such people in the UK than a few hundred, as well. > > I know we already discussed that $1M net worth is not enough to be the “fuck you” money - but still - what do you think is the % of people in the United States that have greater than $1M net worth? [5%](http://emlynscott.articlesbase.com/self-help-articles/what-percentage-of-people-are-rich-424585.html). But you don’t think they are rich, these people are a few ticks from the poverty line according to you. So why do you want the number? For everyone else, I’ll go out on a limb and say that I think the top 5% by whatever metric you like ($1 million in assets or $200k/year) are at least at the very top of upper middle class and the top 1% are undoubtedly rich ($5 million in assets or \>$500k/year). We can haggle the percentile between there if you want, but that’s a pretty realistic range to define rich. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/382 "2011-09-15T22:06:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Agreed, several self-identified wealthy people have agreed with progressive taxation in this thread, and I should have made note of that. But that still does not change the fact that claiming that $200K a year is not rich is being used by conservative commentators as a rhetorical device to persuade the gullible that they should not be taxed at a higher rate, even if that is not your personal intention. > > I do not know if any on this board are lying, for the purposes of maintaining a civil discourse I am happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to all who participate here, but I remain certain that many media and broadcast pundits are absolutely lying their asses off. I think what the politicians are doing is playing on the same (mis?)perceptions that we see here. Obama repeatedly talks about “millionaires and billionaires” and corporate jet users, then talks about increasing taxes for the wealthy (having implanted “millionaires and billionaires” in our minds) who earn more than $200k. The Republicans are correct in pushing back that your average $200k earner is not what the masses think of when thinking “rich person”, but of course they take it too far the other way. They push the $200k earners as being the small business owners who provide jobs. Of course, most small business owners do not make $200k. But some do. As ever in politics, the truth is somewhere in-between. ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/383 "2011-09-15T22:25:38Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I > > Perhaps the better way to think of rich is that the rich have what could be called “fuck-you money” (the reference is to _Cryptonomicon_ by Neal Stephenson … “Multiply those two things together and you get the kind of exponential growth that should get us all into fuck-you money before we turn forty”). The point of 'fuck-you money" is that it is a sum sufficient to cater to a reasonable lifestyle without dependency on working for others, i.e., you could say “fuck you” to your boss, clients, etc. and do your own thing without a care. By definition, someone who _must_ earn a salary doesn’t have “fuck-you money”. I don’t know. If you remember, during the crash the Wall Streeters said they needed their massive bonuses in order to pay for their expensive apartments and nannies and stuff. People making over $500K a year are probably rich, but if they stopped working their lifestyle would take a nosedive. If you’re really, really rich your investment earnings are more than you can spend (oil wells pump all night, make more money than you can spend the next day as Justin Wilson put it) but plenty of people who are rich aren’t this 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, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/384 "2011-09-15T22:38:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > There are a LOT more people with “fuck you money” in the US than a few hundred. There are a LOT more such people in the UK than a few hundred, as well. > > I know we already discussed that $1M net worth is not enough to be the “fuck you” money - but still - what do you think is the % of people in the United States that have greater than $1M net worth? So are you including property too? If you’re including property then yes, there are lot more than a few hundred. If you’re not including property, as Malthus isn’t, and you’re talking $10million, like you were before, not $1million (you’ve just moved the goalposts there), then the numbers get teeny tiny. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/385 "2011-09-15T22:44:15Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > [5%](http://emlynscott.articlesbase.com/self-help-articles/what-percentage-of-people-are-rich-424585.html). But you don’t think they are rich, these people are a few ticks from the poverty line according to you. So why do you want the number? > > For everyone else, I’ll go out on a limb and say that I think the top 5% by whatever metric you like ($1 million in assets or $200k/year) are at least at the very top of upper middle class and the top 1% are undoubtedly rich ($5 million in assets or \>$500k/year). We can haggle the percentile between there if you want, but that’s a pretty realistic range to define rich. If top 1% net worth individuals are undoubtedly rich, that’s what - 1.5 to 3 million people (depending on 1% of what). I would say that’s a bit more than a few hundred that our British friend claimed above. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/386 "2011-09-15T22:46:23Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > So are you including property too? If you’re including property then yes, there are lot more than a few hundred. If you’re not including property, as Malthus isn’t, and you’re talking $10million, like you were before, not $1million (you’ve just moved the goalposts there), then the numbers get teeny tiny. What is “teeny tiny” to you - a few hundred? I would say there are at least half a million such people in the US. Correspondingly fewer in UK. ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/387 "2011-09-15T22:51:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If top 1% net worth individuals are undoubtedly rich, that’s what - 1.5 to 3 million people (depending on 1% of what). I would say that’s a bit more than a few hundred that our British friend claimed above. If? Since you still are defining rich far, far about that, then he seems to be bang on with the numbers that you claim are rich. But carry on with whatever semantic game you are playing. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/388 "2011-09-15T23:23:41Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > If? > > Since you still are defining rich far, far about that, then he seems to be bang on with the numbers that you claim are rich. But carry on with whatever semantic game you are playing. I would say that $5M+ in assets qualifies as “rich” under my definition. There are about half a million such people in the United States. That’s a bit more than “a few hundred”. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/389 "2011-09-15T23:37:24Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Disagree about what ‘rich’ really means in our society. > > ‘Fuck-you money’ already has a word: extremely rich. There’s also the term ‘independently wealthy.’ Which is the problem with these debates - nobody agrees and they never will. It’s like the debate over where to draw the line between ‘young’ and ‘middle-aged’. NOBODY agrees :). I define rich roughly the way **Malthus** does and have since I was a small child. And I was raised by _Marxists_ :D! To me it has always defined a teensy-tiny segment of society. Everybody else was upper-middle class and below. I find these these arguments kind of interesting from an IMHO and sociological POV. But it seems to me that this really is just semantics and kinda beside the point when we are talking about who, what and how much we should be taxing. There is really no reason that we need to nail down who is “rich” and who isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/390 "2011-09-15T23:43:13Z")
Or really what **RTFirefly** said pages ago ;). ---
**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, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/391 "2011-09-15T23:46:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What is “teeny tiny” to you - a few hundred? I would say there are at least half a million such people in the US. Correspondingly fewer in UK. Exlcluding property is what makes the difference. If you’re including property, then the numbers do get a lot larger. I did say that I was excluding property as per Malthus’s paradigm. Tamerlane: Actually, that makes sense to me, because Marxism does talk a lot more about property and investments than about income. It was formulated at a time when extremely large salaries were less common, and the rich were the landed gentry. That’s not the case now. It’s just that… well, TBH, it’s laughable when someone who’s in the top 3% of earners of a rich country claims he’s not rich, and claims that he’s poor. No matter how you define rich and poor, it’s ridiculous that anyone earning $200,000 can claim to be in the same income category as someone earning $20,000. If you don’t want to call the top 3% rich, then what are you going to call them? Comfortable? Doing OK? But those apply to people earning far less than $200,000. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/392 "2011-09-16T00:10:00Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > No matter how you define rich and poor, it’s ridiculous that anyone earning $200,000 can claim to be in the same income category as someone earning $20,000. Oh, I certainly agree. > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to call the top 3% rich, then what are you going to call them? “Well off”? But, really - why call them anything in the context of tax discussions? Other than _the top 3% of income earners_? ETA: Of course the top 3% of income earners would also include what I would consider “the rich.” So I think we should refer to them all collectively as **the rich and the well-to-do**. There. Problem solved ;). ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/393 "2011-09-16T00:51:20Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Oh, I certainly agree. > > “Well off”? But, really - why call them anything in the context of tax discussions? Other than _the top 3% of income earners_? > > ETA: Of course the top 3% of income earners would also include what I would consider “the rich.” So I think we should refer to them all collectively as **the rich and the well-to-do**. There. Problem solved ;). In the context of this thread, it’s because the OP and some others are claiming that 200k isn’t rich, therefore they shouldn’t pay more tax. (Of course, unless they earn a lot more than 200k, they won’t get taxed much more anyway, but that doesn’t matter when people hear the words ‘tax increase.’) I guess he thinks that only rich people should pay the higher rate of tax (otherwise why would he bring it up?). I’ve certainly heard the same said elsewhere. So it does matter a bit. And if someone in the top 3% still considers themselves poor then they are going to be even more against taxes that affect them. Even if they have several thousand to spend after a big pension, private school, a mortgage on a huge house, an extremely large grocery budget, entertainment and a nice car. They’re still poor, so if anyone is against taxing the poor then the 200k person shouldn’t get taxed extra either. Well-to-do is a simile of rich. If people earning ten times as much as me have some visceral hatred to being called rich, but will accept well-to-do, then that’s fine by me, but I suspect they’d protest that too. ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/394 "2011-09-16T01:11:35Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Well-to-do is a simile of rich. If people earning ten times as much as me have some visceral hatred to being called rich, but will accept well-to-do, then that’s fine by me, but I suspect they’d protest that too. Simile? I think you mean synonym or euphemism. I have fallen in love with income-elite, and that’s the term I will be using when I debate this topic in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/395 "2011-09-16T02:22:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Voyager** : > “Rich” is being able to pay for both our kids colleges (not cheap) and let them get started in life without a pile of debt. Rich is paying off the loan of the younger one (not much, but gotten to reduce the annual cost) because we thought the interest rate was too high and because it was annoying to have to deal with every month, and not even thinking twice about it. “Rich” is getting a bit bonus (kind of like in the what do you do with extra money threads) and sticking it in our investment account because there is absolutely nothing in our queue of things to buy if we ever get enough money. You know what’s funny? By that standard, I grew up rich. Neither me nor my sister had to take out loans for college, and when Mom got a windfall, she either saved it, or gave it away to charity. You can even add to your criteria, that she owned her house outright, without a mortgage. And yet, for a significant period of my childhood, we were actually below the poverty line. The things you list aren’t indicative of being rich; they’re just indicative of being really, really good at living within one’s means (as Mom was). ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/396 "2011-09-16T02:25:40Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > It kinda make you wonder, if $150K makes no qualitative difference, why all the pissing and moaning about the couplefew grand you’ll have to pay in taxes? Exactly. It has already been stipulated that a 400% increase in income makes no real difference in one’s life, so obviously a 0.6% tax (3% of $250K-$200K) will have absolutely no impact at all. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/397 "2011-09-16T05:41:15Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Exlcluding property is what makes the difference. If you’re including property, then the numbers do get a lot larger. I did say that I was excluding property as per Malthus’s paradigm. [http://www.offshore-services.biz/corporate-training-tools-templates/article-what-is-millionaire.html](http://www.offshore-services.biz/corporate-training-tools-templates/article-what-is-millionaire.html) There were, in 2003, 29,000 people with 30M+ net worth in the US. Is that more than “a few hundred”? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/398 "2011-09-16T05:44:18Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Exactly. It has already been stipulated that a 400% increase in income makes no real difference in one’s life, so obviously a 0.6% tax (3% of $250K-$200K) will have absolutely no impact at all. Will $20 “make a real difference in your life”? If not, send it here - I can PM you the address. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/399 "2011-09-16T08:59:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [http://www.offshore-services.biz/corporate-training-tools-templates/article-what-is-millionaire.html](http://www.offshore-services.biz/corporate-training-tools-templates/article-what-is-millionaire.html) > There were, in 2003, 29,000 people with 30M+ net worth in the US. Is that more than “a few hundred”? Didn’t you earlier have a problem with arbitrary cut offs? Can I now ask, if someone with exactly $30m net worth loses a $1 item, are they no longer rich?! In any case, this whole thing is beside the point. No-one has claimed that to pay the top tax rate you need to be someone who never has money troubles, who “never shops at the same places that you and I do”, who swims through money like Scrooge McDuck. They’re saying the money you earn over 200k is far less critical than the money another person earns over 10k. It can be taxed at a higher rate without causing hardship. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/400 "2011-09-16T10:27:39Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Didn’t you earlier have a problem with arbitrary cut offs? What does that have to do with what I posted? I was responding to someone who claimed that there are only a few hundred people in the US that fit my definition of “rich”. This shows that there are a hell of a lot more than “a few hundred”. > [@](#): > > They’re saying the money you earn over 200k is far less critical than the money another person earns over 10k. Yes. Someone else’s money is always far far less critical than your own. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=21)