Well, no, I won’t go THAT far. 
But if my taxes are being raised so that we can feed the hungry at a subsistance level, I’m not complaining.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. A dollor amount is not as great an indicator, as there are wide variations in cost of living across the country.
My paycheck goes only so far in Los Angeles (decent, but not wealthy by any definition). In Florida, it would go a hell of a lot farther. Or Ohio, Or Minnisota.
In Hawaii, I would be starving.
WTF and I are WTF?
DINK = Duel Income No Kids
Warren Buffet, IMHO a person that can speak for the undeniably rich better than anyone on these boards, weighed in with an Op-Ed in the NY times today. NY times requires registration but here are two snippets.
One paragraph: I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Buffet ends with: My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
I think that kind of confuses the issue though. Everyone has to pay taxes as part of the cost of living in a society with schools, roads, police, fire and other services that are necessary to keep that society functioning, but don’t necessarily lend themselves to a free market capitalist model. And I don’t see anything particularly unfair about a progressive tax system where billionares pay a higher percentage than people who earn $250,000 who pay a higher percentage than people earning $30,000.
But somehow, it has become a political issue where some people interpret such a system to equate to socialist wealth redistribution.
and She Who Must Be Obeyed
(and knowing this crowd…it’s a joke!)
I hope you are not implying your net is after subtracting the $60,000 for college?
Which, of course, is completely not what I said but you go on with whatever makes you feel better.
The thing is, they aren’t going to tell you that your taxes are going up because of the billions being wasted overseas, they are going to sell you on it by pretending they cannot afford to feed the hungry. It’s a matter of priorities with the government, and for some reason they would rather meddle in other countries affairs than take care of the problems we have here.
I don’t know anything about any of that so can’t comment!
It is certainly a complicated system. But I’m not against paying taxes to feed hungry children, pay for schools, defend the nation, improve public health, fund research, et.al. - at reasonable levels. The debate about what is important to me vs. you and what I consider reasonable vs. what you consider reasonable is likely unending - and comes down to a matter of opinion.
I also expect waste in any system. Including the government. I’ve worked for big public corporations for 25 years, and I know that waste is not restricted to the government. The question is…do we get value out even with the waste?
What I’m getting at is that it’s utterly ridiculous to define the middle class as including the 98th percentile of income. There is nothing middle about $250,000 a year, no matter where you live. You might be able to convince me that a household income of $100,000 a year is middle class in a high cost of living location, but two and a half times that is way over the threshold everywhere.
You’re not the first poster in this thread to point out that people with an income of $250,000 a year can’t afford this or that luxury, and I really don’t get it. Do you think I don’t know how much money $250,000 is? I believe those with an income of $250,000 a year are rich because they’ve got more money coming in than the vast majority of US households, not because I think that’s enough money to buy whatever they want. You seem like a very nice person (and I base that on past threads as well as this one), and if you’re concerned that I am picturing you lighting cigars with $100 bills while you complain about “the help” and how the caviar isn’t as good as it used to be then let me assure you that I am not.
What people are trying to say is that there is nothing about a $250,000 a year income alone that get you anything that other middle class people don’t have fundamentally. The main difference is that your versions of everything are generally nicer is some ways than a family making $50,000 a year but not fundamentally different. Money doesn’t scale up like some people think it does either. It is very expensive to be poor in some ways but it is also very expensive to maintain a $250,000 a year income. The work expenses alone for jobs that people that have those types of careers have to pay are something most people don’t have to deal with. Also, you pay full price for most things because you have the money. People with lesser incomes don’t often realize the breaks they get whether it is from government programs or private scholarships for their kids to go to college. In short, you get nicer things at a $250,000 a year income than a family with a $50,000 income but it is certainly not 5 times nicer for lots of reasons. The big difference would be that if you lived below your means on that income for a long time, you could become rich from investing the remainder but few people do that and they live paycheck to paycheck just like most other people do.
Middle class doesn’t actually mean a middle area on an income Bell Curve and one of the big reasons is that the upper end of the spectrum at the 99.5% and above is many times higher than those below it. Income isn’t distributed on a Bell Curve at all. You have to look at the big swoop upwards at the extreme far end to pinpoint the true rich who do have fundamentally different lifestyles than those below them and aren’t way slaves.
BTW, $100,000 a year for a family or four or more isn’t just upper middle class in my Boston suburban area. It is below average and middle-middle class. A couple making $50,000 a year each make that in some pretty unimpressive jobs. It sounds like a lot of money when you are in college but try it around here sometime to see how far that goes. You won’t starve but you will be shopping garage sales on the weekend and not just for fun or even having your own when times get tough.
Yes, but the dictionary definition of the word “rich” is not “I have more money coming in than most American households” - if it is, why stop with the U.S. Why not describe rich as “have more income than most of the world?” If its about owning luxuries - then how about a TV? Cable? Access to junk food? High speed internet? Books you own? None of those things are necessary for survival. The word rich means having “abundant” income - now, defining abundant is - as I said - relative. But my feeling is if you can’t have that level of luxury, than your income is not abundant. Its those luxuries that define rich.
You are free to disagree with me, that is fine. But you are not right, nor am I right. As I said, its like defining beautiful. I do not consider myself rich. The gap between myself and the wealthy is rather large. I do consider myself beautiful. 
These days, I’d be close to saying no. If you break it down to specific areas, such as taxes used to work on the roads, taxes used to fund war, etc then there are areas that I think we are getting negative value!
Where in my posts did I say anything about a bell curve? I didn’t. Are only the top 1% rich? Clearly the middle class isn’t shrinking, since people in this thread are stretching it up to include very high income earners. How about people earning a million a year, is that middle class?
By your logic, those earning 20 times more money have the same stuff someone with $50,000 has, it’s just better stuff. A house worth $5 million doesn’t make you rich, it’s just a house, you are still comfortably middle class, living within your means.
Sociologists have created models that define the middle class, btw, so it’s not as subjective as people here are pretending. Generally they don’t extend the income level much past $100,000 or the top quintile.
From that wiki cite:
I’m not saying I’m not upper middle class. I’m certainly that.
Actually,** Implicit **, the problem is that there are many different models, and the language being used in this thread and in the whole debate about taxes is mainly that of the most useless model, not used by academics- the one with only three classes, rich, middle and poor in which the middle class includes everyone who is not at the extremes. Other models have up to 12 classes, and generally include three levels of middle class ( upper or professional/managerial middle class , the middle-middle class, and the lower middle class) and sometimes two levels of rich ( the rich and the super rich ). I’m not sure that anyone would say that $250K is not upper or professional/managerial middle class.
Thing is, those who are for the tax increase have to portray it as a tax on the “rich” , which is not entirely accurate and that then causes people to argue that $250K isn’t rich (and it generally isn’t) and therefore it’s middle class.
At the height of the dot com era, if you counted bonus, benefits, perks and side work/consulting, I MIGHT have topped out at something over $190k/year or so. These days it’s not even half that, even with consulting on the side.
-XT
I do.
Not sure how to answer this–the number can get pretty high for loose values of “know.” Suffice it to say the answer is “a lot.”
It may surprise you to find out that some people advocate a policy based on their belief that that policy creates the best society, not out of some direct personal benefit they receive from that policy. For example, I’m pro-choice even though it is extremely unlikely that I will ever have the need to have an abortion (being a man and all).