$200K/year isn't rich. Why aren't we taxing corporations?

[septimus]

What’s the debate about? In earlier threads right-wingers insisted that “soaking the rich” wouldn’t raise enough revenue, and the middle class would need to “share the pain.” Now another group of right-wingers don’t want somewhat high-income people taxed because they’re “not rich.” Please come back when you get your stories straight.

Isn’t the distinction arbitrary? $20,000/annum is considered rich in some countries; $200,000 is hugely more; yet hugely less than $2 million/annum.

Can we agree a giant bullfrog is “big”? It’s not as big as a horse, let alone a whale. Yesterday I saw some sort of wasp that was scary big.

And none of this has anything to do with corporations. Mods, please move this thread to Mundane Pointless (mainly Pointless).

[Malthus]

@Ravenman

It isn’t a lie. The numbers are an antidote to the pervasive psychological need to believe that one is normal, or average. I understand that you’re arguing a very narrow point, but to except that precise argument (that someone who earns more than 96% of their countrymen is economically – not socially – “nothing too special” [my words]) from the context of this debate is what is misleading. SA is specifically trying to argue that the word “rich” cannot be defined in any meaningful way, therefore nobody should pay higher taxes, and that $200,000 a year in income is, and I quote, “solidly middle class and a far cry from even upper-middle class.”

Even in a high cost of living area like DC, the median household income is $61,000. Someone earning three point something times that income cannot be middle class, and I care not whether you want to call them upper middle class, upper upper upper middle class, or rich. That’s totally subjective. The point is that someone making $200k is living much, much better than someone solidly in the middle class, and the income numbers belie the self-assessments of “I don’t feel like I’m well-off.”

Ultimately, the whole idea behind people with statistically rare incomes not being rich is as deceptive as saying that only football players who get into the hall of fame are the “real pros,” and those who make it into the NFL are just “talented players,” or something like that. The existence of greater levels of achievement which are very rare does not confer commonality on somewhat less rare achievements.

To say it a different way, the fact that people may live in expensive areas and get along just fine is proof of their relatively great income, not a rejection of their wealth, as SA would have us believe.

I don’t agree. I too believe that class descriptions have real meanings; but I hold that these meanings do not change depending on what percentage of the population falls within them. They depend on a multitude of sociolgical factors, including the reasonable aspirations of those who compose the class. These factors taken as a whole are a much, much more reliable guide to who is what than merely a cross-country ranking of relative income.

To give an example, people who earn what I do, where I do, have certain concerns, fears and goals that differ from those earning a tier below and a tier above (or should have - obviously anyone at any income level spend everything and fear destitution if they really try, but we are talking about reasonable concerns, fears and goals).

A typical upper-middle-class goal would be to work to a reasonable retirement; a typical upper middle class fear is that some disaster financial or otherwise would prevent that from happening. By contrast, someone in the lower middle class typically has a quite reasonable fear that the will not be able to work towards a comfortable retirement; for people who are truly upper class, this simply isn’t a concern they usually have (they have other concerns, but not this). A more significant concern is how they can cement their legacy after they are gone.

In addition, there is a certain functional meaning here. Upper middle class people tend to be lawyers, doctors, financial advisors and the like - in short, professionals who earn a living touting specific learned skills.

You gotta look at all the evidence here. Is someone in the typical learned professions? Are they earning from their own skill-set, or from a base of investments? What are their reasonable goals and fears? Then, you put all this info together and make an analysis.

This makes much more sense than simply looking at one indicia - income ranked nationally - which would provide a grossly distorted view: income levels above the lower class are higher pretty well across the board in major urban centres, for example, than elsewhere. For another, in a relatively egalitarian society where (say) everyone was more-or-less middle class ranking by percentages would provide a hugely different outcome than in a highly stratified society.