Uh.. Where I’m at, we’ve got a comfortable household of a single income, two people, on 45k. Hell yes, 'd consider 200k/year rich.
It’s laughable to suggest that an income in the top 3% of the population of the richest nation in the history of the world is not rich. It’s no different than claiming Wilt Chamberlain wasn’t tall, because Robert Wadlow was taller.
The problem is that income doesn’t define wealth.
I’m more interested in that conversation, but most of the respondents seem fixated on the “$200k rich or not?” discussion. And you have to admit that you pretty much hijacked your own thread. 
True, but let’s keep it limited to one pedantic war at a time, can we?
Oh, all right. 
Didn’t Kenneth Lay’s wife make the exact same argument? That they barely had money to keep up with the payments on their one house, their retirements were at risk, and so on? I guess they were not rich, by your standards.
That’s right. With apologies to JohnT, if you don’t have enough income to pay your bills, and your assets don’t outweigh your liabilities by a large amount, you aren’t rich.
Conversely, a person might be living in a small two bedroom house worth $75,000 but be holding 10 million in stocks and securities, and that person would be considered rich.
Current living conditions and/or lifestyles do not determine wealth. In order to be rich you have to have a large amount of unencumbered wealth.
Apologies accepted. 
And you’re exactly right, of course. Ken Lay borrowed millions on his Enron stock, facing margin call after margin call as the stock sank in 2001, his liabilities finally exceeding his assets, which is the opposite of “rich”, no matter how large those numbers are.
Thank you. 
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.
As for the OP, the reason they don’t tax corporations as much is because in general, corporations are what employ people and drive the economy. They do get taxed fairly seriously, but there’s some governmental interest in promoting the growth of businesses, so that they employ more people and provide more tax revenue that way, as well as directly. Plus, bigger companies trade more, and have knock-on effects at their business partners (i.e. a bigger company buys more stuff, making their suppliers bigger, etc…).
Well, gee, if you have an income of $80 million a year, and every year you go out and buy a new Boeing jetliner (and at the end of the year, you have the old one fitted with a remote control device and fly it into the side of a mountain), you won’t be rich. You’ll also be an idiot.
In the vast majority of this country, if you’re making $200,000 a year, possibly you aren’t rich–yet–but you should be able to live very comfortably while accumulating assets towards joining the ranks of the “rich”. Even in the nation’s enclaves of super-high cost of living, you should still be able to live comfortably on $200,000 a year, and have something left over to put away for a rainy day. If someone can’t live on $200,000 a year–in fact, well within that figure, with something left over to put towards a cushion and accumulation of wealth–then they need to figure out how to
a. spend less
b make more money, or
c. both.
Same as anybody else. What they don’t need to do is whine about how they aren’t rich and they can barely make ends meet and they live paycheck to paycheck and the cost of living in their chosen neighborhood is just so high. Send the kids to public school; eat at home sometimes instead of at fancy restaurants; move to a slightly cheaper neighborhood. Suck it up, whiny 97th percentilers! There are millions of Americans out of work–running up credit card debt to pay the bills, trying to live off unemployment insurance, living in someone else’s basement, hoping nobody gets seriously ill 'cause there’s no health insurance. Millions more have part-time jobs, not by choice, but because that’s all they can get.
(I’m not remotely complaining about my financial situation, even though I’m “only” in the fourth quintile. I live well within my means and regularly put money away towards a rainy day/early retirement.)
Yeah, but I think the IRS only allows you to crash your jetliners at a loss for up to five years in a row, and after that they make you take the deductions. And of course the insurance companies will be flooding you with money after each crash. All in all you’ll have a hell of a time trying to go broke that way.
What’s all this about not taxing corporations? We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, as 35%. Japan is higher, and so are a few Arab countries, but that’s it.
And the rates are exactly the same as for the individual, which means that companies should wind up with a higher percentage, since they are generally richer. Look at this chart from 2005.
No, the real problems are the tax breaks and loopholes that lower the de facto rate for most companies. Not that we don’t set a high enough percentage.
Not only that, but proposals to raise tax rates for the wealthy would only be imposed on the income above the threshold. If rates went up by 5%, someone making $200,001 wouldn’t owe an extra $10,000, he’d owe an extra nickel.
Wow, I never understood before that being rich was simply a lifestyle choice based on how little of one’s income one wishes to spend. I guess the crazy ol’ cat lady who lives in a paid off house, only eats cheap tuna, and stashes tens of thousands of dollars in cash under her mattress could be considered rich, while the NFL star who spends all his money on $7 million houses, a dozen cars, and leases private jets is really just a middle class guy.
Thanks for clearing that up, guys!
Why do you seem to think that just because someone buys something, that money is lost? Do you really not understand that a guy buying a $7 million home and a dozen cars still retains the wealth those assets represent?
Being rich is a matter of having accumulated wealth. If you blow your money as fast as you make it, you’re not rich. And, to use your example, if you’re a little old lady stashing [many, many, many, many] tens of thousands in her mattress, then yes, you are rich.
Furthermore (and this will probably really blow your mind) you can be rich and have no income at all. You could have $10 million sitting in a bank account earning nothing (which would be foolish, but still possible) and you’ll still be rich. And you know why that is? It’s because “rich” and “income” are two different things.
If you make $200,000 a year, you are well off. If you can’t cover your bills with it, you’re an idiot.
Here’s a thought if you’re having a hard time with your tax burden … don’t buy a fifth flat screen for down in the rec room … maybe send little Muffy back to private school with the same laptop she had last year … possibly let young Biff drive that 2010 Mustang one more year.
This notion that $200,000 a year is a pittance because you have to actually pay for things with it is ridiculous.
Lots of people are for “taxing the rich.” But they never talk about why they want to tax the rich. I’ve always found this interesting.
Why does one rob banks? 'Cause that’s where the money is.