# $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:** 4
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/61 "2011-09-13T18:43:01Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > It’s easy to say “They chose to live there” but the fact is the salary for the same position would not be as high someplace else. So these are not rich people, they are for the most part middle-middle class people living in high COL areas. Please provide a cite that the top 3% income earners are living middle class lifestyles over 50% of the time due to high COL, because it sounds like a talking point or something you pulled out of your ass. No one would bother with these high incomes if it didn’t come with lifestyle bonuses. Bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/62 "2011-09-13T18:45:07Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > Acknowleging that it’s not the actual number, I’ll use $200k for the sake of comparison. > > Rich is not, IMHO relative to how you choose to spend your money - but it is relative to Cost of living (COL) in your area. This is where I get into the quandary. $200k in San Francisco does not get you a home of your own. In my hometown it would just get you a single family home as opposed to a townhouse/condo. > > It’s easy to say “They chose to live there” but the fact is the salary for the same position would not be as high someplace else. So these are not rich people, they are for the most part middle-middle class people living in high COL areas. > > $200k in Detroit OTOH gets you a ballroom, an outdoor pool and an indoor pool. Not to mention a gardener and a live-in housekeeper. That’s rich. > > So the bottom line becomes how do you set that number, given the disparity? and how many loopholes will that create? Yes, people seem to be assuming you get to make $200K/year, and then you get to pick where you live. That would be nice, but it usually doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/63 "2011-09-13T18:49:13Z")
And living in San Francisco over Mayberry, Nowhere is a lifestyle bonus regular people like myself cannot afford. So where they live itself is a luxury that they have, and it counts. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/64 "2011-09-13T18:50:02Z")
> [@otternell](#): > > I think a lot of people’s dissatisfaction with the current tax code could be assuaged by carefully applying regular income tax rates to capital gains to eliminate the lop-sided tax structure Warren Buffet talked about. I say carefully, because some capital gains tax breaks are good for smaller investors - perhaps a dollar cap on the capital gains, and anything over that amount is taxed at the regular income rate. Or if the capital gain makes up over 30% of the taxable income, then the income tax rates apply. I don’t want to screw over the middle class, but the capital gains loophole does seem to benefit certain people to a greater extent than I think it was originally intended. > > Plus, I’d like to see corporations taxed on revenue, rather than net income. The current calculation allows them to game the system by dumping in a whole lot of costs to offset the revenue (including the non-cash expenses of depreciation and amortization). This does not get around the whole issue of “if you raise their taxes, they just raise their prices”, but if they keep raising their prices (assuming demand does not drop off a cliff - big assumption) then revenue goes up again, as does the tax burden. > > Just some thoughts. > > Plus, as I recall, when you cut their taxes they raise their prices anyway. The short FAA shutdown earlier this year meant that airlines were not being taxed on some transactional items, and rather than maintaining the prices, without the tax (which would have provided a savings to the consumer) they raised their prices so that the impact to the consumer netted to 0. To be fair, I have not gone back to check if they kept the higher prices when the tax kicked back in. And at this point I’d be hard pressed to find a cite, but can sure try. Yeah; I’m more of a mind to agree with this type of structuring. “Tax The Rich” isn’t going to help much because there’s not THAT many rich people to tax. “Tax The Big Corporations” is never going to fly, because, they’ll get their money in other ways that suck even worse for the average citizen/the economy/jobs. What we need is a more streamlined, less arcane and loophole-filled tax structure with fairly low rates across the board, but less ability/incentive to avoid paying taxes in general. Plus, um, spending more wisely would help immensely. I don’t think revenue is as much of an issue as spending, and I’m a Yellow Dog Democrat. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/65 "2011-09-13T18:54:23Z")
> [@An\_Arky](#): > > “Tax The Rich” isn’t going to help much because there’s not THAT many rich people to tax. The top 1% of the country consists of 1.1 million households that have an average income of $1.8 million a year. For the top 10%, there are 12 million households that average $380,000 a year. There’s more wealthy people around than you may think. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/66 "2011-09-13T19:04:27Z")
That sounds like a lot, but those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by households with incomes somewhere between the poverty line and $200-300k. A teensy increase on those households would bring in more revenue than a significant tax increase on the rich. However, that assertion is about as popular as pedophilia in today’s political climate. ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/67 "2011-09-13T19:09:07Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > $200K/year doesn’t strike me as rich though. In some cities, I wouldn’t be that surprised to find a waiter or bartender making $200K and still have three roommates and no car. Well, maybe not, but life ain’t cheap these days. This is an extremely inaccurate statement. I know at least a dozen people who live and work in New York City. They are all able to support themselves fairly comfortably, and none of them make anything close to $200K a year. Feel free to debate the definition of being rich and the merits of different tax plans all you like. But don’t go around thinking that $200K a year isn’t a lot of money because the big city is expensive. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/68 "2011-09-13T19:09:11Z")
Sorry - I don’t mean to belabor the point, just for my clarification: > [@gurujulp](#): > > There are more posh eateries, but they are on the edges of the bell curve, like prixe fixe menus at $500 a person… I am mostly saying that there ARE, however, wait jobs that will pay that much. > > … > > Most people are at the high-end after-club diner that I worked at were at about the $50-75K range, with one or two who I think made closer to over $100K. I’m just unclear on when you say “jobs that will pay that much” whether you’re talking about $100K or $200K, since there’s a big difference between those numbers. Thanks for helping me understand. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/69 "2011-09-13T19:53:19Z")
200K per year is a good salary, and one that can afford a bit higher of a tax liability. Make it work, and move to a cheaper place if you just can’t make ends meet. I make about 1/4 of this and I consider myself to be living pretty comfortably. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/70 "2011-09-13T20:07:47Z")
> [@An\_Arky](#): > > That sounds like a lot, but those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by households with incomes somewhere between the poverty line and $200-300k. A teensy increase on those households would bring in more revenue than a significant tax increase on the rich. However, that assertion is about as popular as pedophilia in today’s political climate. One would think that, wouldn’t they? However, the facts state that the top 10% of income earners take home 41% of all income in this country. If you get down to the bottom 40% of Americans, who are those who most likely pay very little or no income tax (and those who get EITC funds back), those 46 million households take home 12.3% of all the income in this country. It is just math: raising taxes a little bit on poor people will bring in very, very little money; raising taxes a little bit on high earners will bring in a great deal more. ---
**Author:** ![gurujulp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@gurujulp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gurujulp)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/71 "2011-09-13T20:26:23Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > Sorry - I don’t mean to belabor the point, just for my clarification: > > I’m just unclear on when you say “jobs that will pay that much” whether you’re talking about $100K or $200K, since there’s a big difference between those numbers. > > Thanks for helping me understand. 🙂 Perfect- I don’t know anyone who works at the super high end places where the normal meal is $500 per person. But I stipulate that those jobs exist, same as the CEOs everyone is so het up about. I have known waitstaff who DID make close to $100K. This in upscale areas of large-city but low-cost-of-living area in Houston. I do not have any cites, and I can just about guarantee that NONE of these jobs shows these people as earning these wages/tips on their paystubs, as you don’t put down cash you don’t have to- so the point is relatively moot. It would not affect taxation anyway. Follow me? You certainly don’t have to agree, as I don’t have any proof… ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/72 "2011-09-13T20:56:11Z")
Sometimes I think that this is the biggest pile of bullshit we have been ever sold - that $200K is not rich, they are people just like the rest of us poor sods, struggling from paycheck to paycheck. And so many people, even people who make nowhere near $200K have bought it. You know what people do around here that make $200K or more? They absolutely do not live in NYC. Why the fuck would they need to? They buy a nice huge house in Northern NJ or downstate NY and commute. A few of them do live in high-rises in Manhattan, but there are a shit ton of people living in the Hudson Valley who commute to NYC daily or weekly, and they are really really well-off (still not in the $200K range). You will never be able to sell to me that an income that falls in 3% of the population is not filthy fucking rich, and it blows my mind that middle class and poor people buy this somehow. ---
**Author:** ![gurujulp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@gurujulp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gurujulp)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/73 "2011-09-13T21:07:04Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Sometimes I think that this is the biggest pile of bullshit we have been ever sold - that $200K is not rich, they are people just like the rest of us poor sods, struggling from paycheck to paycheck. And so many people, even people who make nowhere near $200K have bought it. > > You know what people do around here that make $200K or more? They absolutely do not live in NYC. Why the fuck would they need to? They buy a nice huge house in Northern NJ or downstate NY and commute. A few of them do live in high-rises in Manhattan, but there are a shit ton of people living in the Hudson Valley who commute to NYC daily or weekly, and they are really really well-off (still not in the $200K range). > > You will never be able to sell to me that an income that falls in 3% of the population is not filthy fucking rich, and it blows my mind that middle class and poor people buy this somehow. So, Anaa- We have talked before, and I don’t recall how much of our situation you recall, but once my wife finishes up her dissertation, her career path and experience will give her an income of $150k+, and with me thrown in we will be over that. At that point we will be comfortable, and we won’t have to worry about me bouncing atm purchases at Starbucks, but we won’t in any way be rich. Now- this doesn’t mean we couldn’t fly out to visit you some weekend, or bring you and hubby out here to visit us sometime, but it would take a bit of planning. Definitely NOT filthy fucking rich, however. I do know people who make more than a million a year, and while they might be filthy fucking rich, they sure don’t show it. I know somebody who put his law firm’s corporate jet on his amex, but I don’t envy him- too many factors, but I wouldn’t want that life! But yeah, I know filthy f’ing rich, and just making $200k wouldn’t be it. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/74 "2011-09-13T21:24:58Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > I’m still struggling to figure out exactly where $200K/year “doesn’t go far.” I used to work in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, one of the ten wealthiest ZIP codes in America. Median household income there was [$111,421](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Palos_Verdes) in 2007. Even in one of the ten wealthiest ZIP codes in the US $200K would be more than about 2/3rds of the households in the town! One can only assume that most of those median income earning residents of RPV had bought in long ago when house prices were lower. For someone moving into the area in 2007–or even 2011, I can understand the _perception_ that 200K doesn’t go far. It’s barely enough to support the Hollywood version of a middle class lifestyle, after all. But in terms of income percentile, it’s still “rich”. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/75 "2011-09-13T21:27:06Z")
Someone earlier made the really fucking dumb assertion that wealth isn’t measured relative to other people’s wealth, as though there’s some other way to measure it. Do you have WAY FUCKING MORE money and/or stuff than most people? If so, congratulations! You’re rich. Most people make significantly less than 200K. They also skip the Starbucks and certainly don’t have sushi three times per week. And they’d be mightily pissed off to hear that people who do think of themselves as just barely “comfortable”. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/76 "2011-09-13T21:59:12Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > [Here’s one for a million bucks](http://www.cummingscove.com/property-426717-new_construction-21-0-10.html&Start=0), which seems to be the general price for 4,500sq. ft homes in gated communities, give or take $100,000 or so. Around here $500k-$600k gets you a _5,000_ square foot home in a gated community. I can find _7,000+_ square foot homes for $700,000. I toured a 7,500 square foot house with custom woodwork and 24k gold leaf accents in some rooms for $699.999 the other week, on 1 acre, in a fantastic neighborhood. Yes, I am house hunting right now… ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/77 "2011-09-13T22:55:55Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Someone earlier made the really fucking dumb assertion that wealth isn’t measured relative to other people’s wealth, as though there’s some other way to measure it. No, I made the very accurate statement that wealth isn’t measured in terms of relative income. And it isn’t, as I’ve shown with examples of people with high incomes buy next to no net worth and people living modestly or with no income at all but who may still be rich. If you all want to start arguing that we should tax high income earners, your verbiage would be correct and we could argue the merits of that. But the Democrats over the decades have done such a good job of capitalizing on class resentment and demonizing the “rich”, and now you’re trying to apply the term to any group whose income makes yours seem puny for no reason other than to justify increasing their taxes too. > [@DianaG](#): > > Someone earlier made the really fucking dumb assertion that wealth isn’t measured relative to other people’s wealth, as though there’s some other way to measure it. No, I made the very accurate statement that wealth isn’t measured in terms of relative income. And it isn’t, as I’ve shown with examples of people with high incomes buy next to no net worth and people living modestly or with no income at all but who may still be rich. If you all want to start arguing that we should tax high income earners, your verbiage would be correct and we could argue the merits of that. But the Democrats over the decades have done such a good job of capitalizing on class resentment and demonizing the “rich”, and now you’re trying to apply the term to any group whose income makes yours seem puny for no reason other than to justify increasing their taxes too. You might note also that no one thus far has answered my challenge to come up with a dictionary defintion of rich that defines it as being relative to other people’s income. Income does not equal wealth. Period. End of story. > [@even sven](#): > > If we were trying to ding “as many people as possible,” wouldn’t we set our aims a bit higher than 3% of the country? Well, 3% of the country is still 9 million people. Plus we’ve exempted half the country from having to pay federal income tax, so the 3% then becomes 6%. And it accomplishes the goal of changing the definition of rich so that it applies to people who earn more than others, which of course creates an ever wider pool of tax targets the lower we get to the 50% who pay nothing. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again - if the government keeps raising the amount people at the lower end have to earn before they have to pay taxes, and it keeps redefining and lowering the defintion of rich, eventually the two groups will pass each other and the lower income group will be paying taxes for the higher income group. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/78 "2011-09-13T23:02:43Z")
Sorry for the semi double post. ---
**Author:** ![Uber\_the\_Goober](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/58956e/32.png) [@Uber\_the\_Goober](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uber_the_Goober)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/79 "2011-09-13T23:02:53Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 200k isn’t “rich”, at least not in the classical definition, which is “enough money in the bank to live off the proceeds”. > > 200k is a well paying job like being a successful lawyer or salesman, 200k isn’t “live off it for the remainder of your days money.” > > Rich is, IMO, isn’t an annual salary, but a state of being when you end up with enough money so that you don’t have to work, or at the very least, where you have significant income from investments. > > \ Horse shyte. If you make $200k a year, and feel the need to spend all of it every year, then you are stupid. Put most of it in the bank, and soon enough, you will have enough to live off the proceeds of interest/investments. $200k a year is rich, because it confers some serious spending power to the person. Seriously…you could buy a new BMW (with cash) every year, and still have a nice house. Unless of course you spend above your means…maybe that’s why it doesn’t feel rich. People feel the need to live like the guy making $500k per year, and then they overspend and feel not so rich. $200k per year is rich, period. How you spend it may make you poor, or may make you richer still. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/80 "2011-09-13T23:15:49Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > They buy a nice huge house in Northern NJ or downstate NY and commute. Which is good, because it means their money went to framers, drywallers, electricians, roofers, masons, etc. The more money we steal from the rich, the less that gets trickled down to other people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=5)