# $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:** 8
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/141 "2011-09-14T16:05:21Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > A long time ago I was visiting a friend and his wife that lived way out in Indiana. They shit themselves when I told them the rent on by 1BR in Manhattan’s East Village was more than the mortgage for their entire house. People I know all over the country shit that my rent is more than a thousand dollars for what I have had here in the SF Bay, when my dad just bought a foreclosed house in Houston for $50K. What exactly is the point of this? Yes, location matters. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/142 "2011-09-14T16:13:20Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > I’m a Democrat because I’d like to see the rest of my countrymen also not be screwed. Is there some reason SDMB hasn’t added a “like” button yet? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/143 "2011-09-14T16:22:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Obviously the truly rich are concerned about their kids - everyone is. The point is that they are not concerned financially. Note that your own article points out that mere money was not enough to secure the privilege these guys sought. You said , “their concerns are typically middle-class - housing, education for their kids, retirement savings. The difference is the ease of meeting these burdens.” You say this as if rich people don’t have the same concerns. Those are always concerns and they are not all that different from yours or mine. Concern is not solely limited to the ability to write a check. That’s where I think your thinking is flawed. You somehow think that having fewer financial constraints means finances don’t become an issue. That’s not true in the vast majority of circumstances. Your financial obligations just grow along side your income. Yes, you may reach a point where that is not the case, but even people in those situations don’t feel that way (eg. Howard Stern). More importantly, the standard is competence, not excellence. Anybody making 200k/year can afford to have their kids in schools good enough that they don’t really need to worry about their education. That’s the point. The real difference is between insufficient and sufficient, not really good and great. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/144 "2011-09-14T16:23:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’d suggest that a definition of “rich” that included perforce everyone who owns their own house and car demonstrates that whoever is proposing it is pushing that definition lower than common sense would allow. Not everyone . . . but expensive real estate (driven up by high incomes of the upper class) doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly just an average, middle class Joe. If houses in places you want to live cost $800k, it’s because there are enough rich people who want to live there who can afford to pay what for a sizable percentage of the population is more than 1/2 their lifetime, pre-tax earnings. That’s rich. > [@](#): > > Things such as home ownership and car ownership used to be the indicia seperating the middle class from the lower class. If they are now “luxuries” that only the “rich” can afford … Not everywhere, but some places, perhaps. Using home ownership as a marker for class is problematic, because the value of property varies dramatically depending on its location. Saying, “earning enough to buy a home at whatever location a person wants to live, and not in too slummy a neighborhood either, makes a person middle class,” is just as useful as saying, “earning enough money to eat whatever a person wants for dinner makes a person middle class.” What if I want to eat lobster every night? If I spring for lobster every night and barely scrape by at the end of the year, am I middle class? What if I’m happy with rice and beans every night, and I end up with a lot of money left at the end of the year? Am I rich then, since I can afford way more than I choose? The stereotypical ‘middle class,’ 1950s dream is still accessible to the middle class in some locations, but in others it is not. This doesn’t turn the wealthy into the middle class in expensive locations (nor does it turn the middle class into the poor in those locations); it means that the standard for the middle class has shifted. > [@](#): > > When you demand that someone earning 200K save 150K, “mere details” such as taxes matter. 😃 Fair enough. 🙂 Since these values are all well beyond anything I’ve ever had practical experience with, it’s easy to get carried away. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/145 "2011-09-14T16:25:27Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The argument against taxing corporations higher is that they just pass those taxes onto their customers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages. Wait, how about the free market and competition and all that? I mean, if they’re already charging what the market will bear for their products, they can’t pass on additional costs without losing market share. And if they’re already paying as little as they can get away with for qualified workers, then paying less will hurt their productivity and their bottom line. > [@](#): > > There is also an argument that higher taxes discourages businesses. Besides, if you’re taxing corporate _profits_, remember that profits = revenues - expenses. Presumably they’re already maximizing profits, and if you tax profits at a higher rate, it doesn’t lessen the incentive to maximize profits: more profits ==\> more after-tax profits, any way you cut it. > [@](#): > > Not just large faceless global conglomerates (which are evil), but small businesses as well. And without businesses, you don’t have jobs. Did you know that only about 1/3 of working Americans work for businesses with \<50 employees? [Now you do](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/chart-of-the-day-americas-surprisingly-tiny-small-business-sector/2011/09/12/gIQAMaNQNK_blog.html). And the fraction of Americans who work at really small businesses (1-5 employees, not counting the self-employed) is probably down in the white noise of our economy. Of course they’re always going to be bellyaching that they shouldn’t be paying more taxes, but in this case, we’re talking corporate taxes. Well, if you’re the proprieter of a really small business, that one’s easy enough to avoid: _don’t incorporate_. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/146 "2011-09-14T16:39:40Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Wait, how about the free market and competition and all that? > > I mean, if they’re already charging what the market will bear for their products, they can’t pass on additional costs without losing market share. And if they’re already paying as little as they can get away with for qualified workers, then paying less will hurt their productivity and their bottom line. > Besides, if you’re taxing corporate _profits_, remember that profits = revenues - expenses. Presumably they’re already maximizing profits, and if you tax profits at a higher rate, it doesn’t lessen the incentive to maximize profits: more profits ==\> more after-tax profits, any way you cut it. > > Did you know that only about 1/3 of working Americans work for businesses with \<50 employees? [Now you do](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/chart-of-the-day-americas-surprisingly-tiny-small-business-sector/2011/09/12/gIQAMaNQNK_blog.html). And the fraction of Americans who work at really small businesses (1-5 employees, not counting the self-employed) is probably down in the white noise of our economy. Of course they’re always going to be bellyaching that they shouldn’t be paying more taxes, but in this case, we’re talking corporate taxes. Well, if you’re the proprieter of a really small business, that one’s easy enough to avoid: _don’t incorporate_. I guess this is an argument about what a small business is. From your link of 2007 data: 1-50 = 34.1% 51 - 249 = 13.2% (derived) 250+ = 52.7% I think that having close to half of all jobs at companies with less than 250 employees is a fair amount of jobs out there. I don’t know how you define small business (kind of link the debate on who is middle class going on elsewhere), but I don’t consider my company of around 200 employees to be “big business.” ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/147 "2011-09-14T16:44:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You cannot own a house and a car in this city, and have children, on $50,000. My sister and her husband live in Toronto with their 2 children on less than $50,000, and they are pretty comfortable. They rent a place, but it is nice and centrally located. They don’t have a car, but there is a great public transportation system there, so they just take a tram to work. The point is that they have a pretty nice life. Their kids don’t go to special extra-curricular activities, but there are school activities they can join for practically free. Their lack of a car and home-ownership aren’t a major impediment to their lives. They seem and feel middle-class. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/148 "2011-09-14T17:07:46Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > I absolutely was not complaining, or trying not to. My point is that my life isn’t that different in day to day details from what people picture as a typical middle class American life. The word rich conjures up yachts and indoor pools and top hats, monacles, etc. But should it? Let me preface all of this by saying that I think we are largely in agreement, but I think some of the problem is that everyone is more aware of luxury than they were in the past. Ferrari has been making car since the 40’s, but it only been recently that people of normal means can identify a model and know its costs. That sort of insight is obviously gonna make some people feel inadequate by comparison, but it doesn’t mean that objective standards have no meaning. > [@madmonk28](#): > > I live in the Petworth neighborhood of DC, it has really changed in the 7ish years since we moved in and has recently ‘gentrified.’ I know. I have a condo on the Petworth/CoHi border near the metro. Great area. I do miss it sometimes. > [@madmonk28](#): > > That’s were I feel that my wife and I are; on the right side of the wall, but just on the right side of it. > > You are correct that we have some savings and can raise money for an emergency if need be, that is what middle class is, the ability to have some property plus a nest egg for a rainy day. The fact that there are people who can’t do that, doesn’t mean I’m not middle class, it means that they are not middle class and the fact that the vast majority of America doesn’t fit into that category means that our society is fundamentally broken. While I agree with your framing of the issue in general, the term “middle class” has to on some level reflect the reality of people in the middle. If that middle currently cannot afford to save money or respond to emergencies, then that is the new reality. Being above that makes you a defacto member of the upper class. Even if that title does not have the privilege it once had, it is still relatively enviable. > [@madmonk28](#): > > I’m a Democrat because I’d like to see the rest of my countrymen also not be screwed. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/149 "2011-09-14T17:37:25Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/150 "2011-09-14T17:38:35Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Concern is not solely limited to the ability to write a check. That’s where I think your thinking is flawed. You somehow think that having fewer financial constraints means finances don’t become an issue. That’s not true in the vast majority of circumstances. Your financial obligations just grow along side your income. Take a look at if from a reverse perspective. For a wealthy person, financial issues don’t have to be solved by writing a check, they can be solved by NOT writing a check. Expenses are too high, you make an effort to stop spending so much, own a cheaper car, own a cheaper house, use public school, take a cheaper vacation, etc. Those who are not wealthy cannot do this nearly as well, the cheaper car is an unreliable POS, the cheaper home is an apartment too small for your family, the cheaper vacation/school is nonexistent because you weren’t spending money on that in the first place. Your financial obligations only grow when you choose to take on additional obligations. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/151 "2011-09-14T17:43:07Z")
> [@Agent\_Violet](#): > > i’m still not understanding why 3 or 3.9% of the country should be supporting the rest of the country by paying higher taxes when nearly half the country doesn’t pay taxes at all. Has that figure that [the top 20% of the Americans controls roughly 80% of the wealth](http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) in the country just not gotten through to you? Why WOULDN’T we go after them for taxes? They have almost all of the money! In fact: > [@](#): > > In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. From the cite quoted above. Let’s tax the guys who own everything, not working stiffs struggling to get by. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/152 "2011-09-14T17:51:21Z")
> [@Palo\_Verde](#): > > My sister and her husband live in Toronto with their 2 children on less than $50,000, and they are pretty comfortable. They rent a place, but it is nice and centrally located. They don’t have a car, but there is a great public transportation system there, so they just take a tram to work. > > The point is that they have a pretty nice life. Their kids don’t go to special extra-curricular activities, but there are school activities they can join for practically free. Their lack of a car and home-ownership aren’t a major impediment to their lives. They seem and feel middle-class. Your anecdote appears to support my point - your sister and husband indeed cannot afford a house and a car (or at least, they don’t have them). They do not have extra-curricular activities for their kids. That they “have a pretty nice life” I do not doubt … but what does that have to do with what social class they are? Not all lower class people live miserably, and not all upper class people live well. All those houses, cars, and other material goods will not grant anyone a “nice life” and their lack will not prevent anyone from enjoying a “nice life” (though to be sure, having money is easier than not having money). My point is that if owning a car and a house is suddenly the indicia of the “rich”, we have effectively moved the definition of the term. What used to be solidly “middle class” is now being defined as “rich”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/153 "2011-09-14T17:58:18Z")
> [@gurujulp](#): > > What, exactly, don’t you believe. 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. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/154 "2011-09-14T18:06:25Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Not everyone . . . but expensive real estate (driven up by high incomes of the upper class) doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly just an average, middle class Joe. If houses in places you want to live cost $800k, it’s because there are enough rich people who want to live there who can afford to pay what for a sizable percentage of the population is more than 1/2 their lifetime, pre-tax earnings. That’s rich. > > Not everywhere, but some places, perhaps. Using home ownership as a marker for class is problematic, because the value of property varies dramatically depending on its location. Saying, “earning enough to buy a home at whatever location a person wants to live, and not in too slummy a neighborhood either, makes a person middle class,” is just as useful as saying, “earning enough money to eat whatever a person wants for dinner makes a person middle class.” What if I want to eat lobster every night? If I spring for lobster every night and barely scrape by at the end of the year, am I middle class? What if I’m happy with rice and beans every night, and I end up with a lot of money left at the end of the year? Am I rich then, since I can afford way more than I choose? > The stereotypical ‘middle class,’ 1950s dream is still accessible to the middle class in some locations, but in others it is not. This doesn’t turn the wealthy into the middle class in expensive locations (nor does it turn the middle class into the poor in those locations); it means that the standard for the middle class has shifted. One problem with this analysis is that one’s income is often tied to where one lives. The big salaries are in the big cities. In Toronto, $800K isn’t outrageous for housing, but you cannot effectively take your $200K salary and simply decide to live in a small town, because you have to live within communting distance of a place like Toronto to earn it. It seems meaningless to me to say ‘well, you have enough money to live like a rich person in Bancroft, Ontario, and that makes you effectively rich - why, you could if you chose live in a student basement apartment like my wife’s cousin, who raised three happy children in one, and save all your money, then you’d be rich, rich I tells you!’. The really, truly rich can live rich without such strategems; moreover, and this is the real point, you can’t really _get_ really, truly rich through wage-earning unless you are a famous actor or sports star. Being rich is a difference in _kind_ of earning, not simply _amount_ alone. When I was earning a bare living, I would have thought as you do - that $200K is an unimaginable amount, luxury beyond dreams. But it really isn’t. Now I’ve met actual, truly rich people through work, and I know the difference. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/155 "2011-09-14T18:15:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > One problem with this analysis is that one’s income is often tied to where one lives. The big salaries are in the big cities. In Toronto, $800K isn’t outrageous for housing, but you cannot effectively take your $200K salary and simply decide to live in a small town, because you have to live within communting distance of a place like Toronto to earn it. Sure. But the thing is, lots of people in Toronto only make $50K, and still manage to find somewhere to live close enough to the city to work there. > [@Malthus](#): > > When I was earning a bare living, I would have thought as you do - that $200K is an unimaginable amount, luxury beyond dreams. I don’t think anyone here has said that. What they’ve said is that it’s more than four times the average household income, which makes you better off than approximately 97% of the population, WHICH MAKES YOU RICH. ---
**Author:** ![Thurston\_Howell\_IV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@Thurston\_Howell\_IV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thurston_Howell_IV)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/156 "2011-09-14T18:17:37Z")
> [@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. Because you can’t factor the cost of taxes on your profits into your pre-tax revenues at ALL. 😛 > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Has that figure that [the top 20% of the Americans controls roughly 80% of the wealth](http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) in the country just not gotten through to you? Why WOULDN’T we go after them for taxes? They have almost all of the money! In fact: Well there you go. Progressive taxation is nothing more than class warfare disguised as a benevolent act of punishing the “rich” for the poors so the politicians can address what is perceived as some sort of injustice being done. A poor man is only poor because the rich man stole from him. Thus he needs to be taxed for this theft of wealth. Who cares who controls what? If Bill Gates gets taxed 10% more does that mean your slice of the pie is 10% more? You’re getting 1/8th of a table leg at best. So why does it matter since your slice of the potential tax pie amounts to virtually nothing? ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/157 "2011-09-14T18:23:09Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Sure. But the thing is, lots of people in Toronto only make $50K, and still manage to find somewhere to live close enough to the city to work there. Yes. But so what? That doesn’t thereby imply that those who can afford a house and a car are “rich”. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone here has said that. What they’ve said is that it’s more than four times the average household income, which makes you better off than approximately 97% of the population, WHICH MAKES YOU RICH. EVEN PUTTING IT IN ALL CAPS doesn’t make an argument based on simple assertion any more convincing. 😉 Why 3% rather than, say, the top 10%? Are the top 10% not better off than 90% of people out there? WHY AREN’T THEY ALL “RICH”? Point here is that any amount you choose by this method is simply arbitrary. That’s why a “functional” and “class-based” definition is to be preferred over simply grabbing a figure and declaring it as self-evidently “rich”. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/158 "2011-09-14T18:30:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Why 3% rather than, say, the top 10%? Are the top 10% not better off than 90% of people out there? WHY AREN’T THEY ALL “RICH”? Sure. You wanna argue for raising taxes on the top 10% I’ll back you up on that. > [@](#): > > Point here is that any amount you choose by this method is simply arbitrary. That’s why a “functional” and “class-based” definition is to be preferred over simply grabbing a figure and declaring it as self-evidently “rich”. This thread is about income tax. A figure may be arbitrary, but it’s very measurable. I don’t think that they can tax you based on your perceived social standing. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/159 "2011-09-14T18:37:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > … My point is that if owning a car and a house is suddenly the indicia of the “rich”, we have effectively moved the definition of the term. What used to be solidly “middle class” is now being defined as “rich”. For as long as I can remember\* owning a house was a pretty good definition of glargleflargel. \*Born in '63. The “middle class” are renters, they just have 30 year leases they can’t break and call their “landlords” mortgage companies and banks. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/160 "2011-09-14T18:39:43Z")
It reads as though people are getting too hung up on the use of the words “rich” and “upper class.” Americans are strongly culturally averse to using these terms to describe themselves. Rather than worry about what’s “rich” or “truly rich” and what’s “upper middle class” vs. “upper class,” it might be more useful to determine what sort of incomes can afford to pay, say 3% more in their upper marginal rate. So can someone earning $250,000/year afford to pay an additional $1,500 in taxes (not an actual tax rate, just randomly imagining a 3% marginal rate increase on incomes over $200,000/yr) and can someone earning $201,000/year afford to pay an additional $30 in taxes? Where does it start to get silly? Is it just as reasonable to expect someone earning $18,000/year to pay an additional, say $60 tax, on the $16,000-$18,000 margin on their income? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=9)