*Rich* *Middle Class* definitions??

From a financial point of view, it appears that Kerry draws the magic line that you are * Rich* if you make 200,000 dollars (net?) per year or more.

And Middle class must refer to anyone from proverty level high mark to199,999 dollars/year net.

What category does one fit in if he/she has for example 3 million in assets but makes 70,000 per year? Is this guy rich? or middle class?

In summary, what makes one family middle class and another financially rich so that we know what these politicians are talking about?

Since the issue is how much these people are taxed, the determining factor would be how much income they receive. The word “asset” is too vague for the purpose of this discussion. Investments earn income; people rarely just put their cash under their mattress and let it sit there. If you have 3 million dollars, it had to come from somewhere.

It’s not just about money. There are also cultural aspects to the question. From Class: A Guide to the American Status System, by Paul Fussell (Summit Books, 1983):

Even this analysis is incomplete as it fails to account for divisions between ethnic subcultures. Are working-class whites in the same “class” as working-class blacks at the same income level? In ten years, maybe, as the last social barriers to interracial socializing and marriage fade, but not today.

That’s a different question, though. We’re talking about taxation, not “class” in general. When Kerry refers to the $200,000 mark, he does so entirely in relation to his tax plan. He certainly wasn’t making any pronouncements about race and it’s relationship to social classes.

If you have more money than I, you are rich.

I don’t think it’s a different question at all. Kerry is using the $200,000 figure has part of a populist message, and when you start getting into that territory the definition of “class” becomes very relevant.

Interesting quote, BrainGlutton. My shopping cart on Amazon just gone a bit bigger. :slight_smile:

In that case, I look forward to either being supported by your tax dollars or supporting you with mine. Both work for me.

I think that Brain Glutton’s post was excellent. But:

Gore was talking about the upper 1% in assets? should pay the huge taxes

Kerry uses the arbitrary figure of $200,000 per annum income to pay taxes at a much higher rate which is not fair in and of itself.

To accumulate that figure in my prime as an Ob-Gyn working close to 24/7 and in solo practice was not easy.

I inherited nothing from anyone…working long and hard at my profession and donated plenty of concern, time, effort, stress, diagnosis and treatment for gratis or was stiffed.

Why should people in this category be more responsible than others to pay taxes at a much higher rate?

Inheritance, I believe, above a figure of 10 million dollars should be taxed higher. This would seem fair to me. You can have 5 estates like John Kerry and his wife and still handle it with 10,000,000 or more.

In other words, *let the *rich pay is not specific enough…your comments, please.

I know this was made in jest, but this is 100% true.

For example, my Dad makes more than $200,000/year and he is voting for Bush only because he thinks his tax burden will be lower under Bush.

To a lot of people, my Dad is rich. There is no denying that he lives well, but he worked hard, put a couple of kids though college and he can’t retire yet. He says, “I don’t feel rich?” To my Dad, rich is having enough money to play golf all day and play with GarageBand all night.

The reason Kerry used $200,000 is because when the median income is $43,000, most people consider that rich. And that is how you get votes…by saying we are going to do all of these things…and the “wealthyist American’s” who make over $200,000/year are going to pay for it.

BTW, I am Kerry supporter, I am just saying…

I had no idea you were a doctor, MadSam. First, I don’t think you really have a handle on the proposal. It’s certainly more specific than “let the rich pay”. It’s the return of income taxes on people earning over $200,000 pa to the levels they were at before Bush. If you were an Ob-Gyn earning more than $200,000 pa a few years ago, you were already paying the rates that Kerry proposes. Did you feel that they were “much higher” and unfair at that time?

You realise that Democrats tend to be in favour of such a tax - an estate tax or “death tax”? I don’t know of any proposal from Kerry to raise these taxes, but perhaps it might be part of a legislative agenda for later years.

Well, I agree with you completely. Remind me, which President is it who decided to phase out the inheritance tax (which did already have a high exemption so that it affected only the top few percent of estates)? [And, also to lower taxes on income that is derived from investing wealth, i.e., dividends and capital gains taxes.]

By the way, it is important to note that the correlation between wealth and income tends to work both ways: Not only does higher income tend to lead to the accumulation of wealth, but also if you have a lot of wealth, you tend to have a high income due to the money you earn on that wealth.

But, for those who feel that it would be fairer to tax wealth more than income, hey, you’ll get support from me.

Atticus Finch: Yes…I felt then that the tax rate was too high for me. I and others like me were paying tax on income and more tax on that remaining and tax on what remained from that.

Capital gains tax was 25% when I finally had an investment that made a profit. Now it is 15%. What did Senator Kerry say he would do with Capital gains tax after he is elected?

That is meaningless, MadSam. You were paying taxes on income, period. Everybody pays a certain level of tax on the first $10k of income and then a higher rate on the next $10k and so on, that’s just the way marginal tax rates in a progressive income tax system are calculated. (Not sure of the exact figures but that’s the general picture.) But what it comes down to is, you paid a certain percentage of your income in taxes, just like everybody else who is too poor to hire high-powered tax lawyers and take advantage of the really juicy loopholes.

A friend of mine, a retired stockbroker, told me that market dips everything Kerry jumps in the polls, because Kerry has promised to raise the capital gains tax and that scares investors. I had not heard that before and it’s not mentioned on Kerry’s website (http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html), so I started a thread on the question, back in July: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268754 It went on for 46 posts, and while there was some intellectually stimulating discussion of the politics, economics, and ethics of taxation, only one poster (jshore) provided any information relevant to answering the question – a link to this CNNMoney article from 7/7/04: http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/07/news/economy/election_ticket/

And I’ve heard nothing since then about this particular aspect of Kerry’s tax policies. Maybe he’ll will clear things up for us in tomorrow night’s debate. We can hope.

Sorry, I still disagree. I think you’re confusing “important” with “relevant”. Issues such as ethnicity and its relationship to social standing are certainly important, but they are not relevant with regard to taxation. I’m reasonably certain a tax code based on race or social standing would not only be incredibly difficult to enforce, but illegal as well.

I still don’t get what “taxing wealth” means. Does that mean a yearly tax on savings? Like, hypothetically, there’s a 15% “wealth” tax, so say you have $1000 in the bank, and you pay $150 tax, so you have $850 left. Then the next year, you pay $127 tax, so you have $723 left. Then the next year, you pay $108 tax, so you have $615 left, etc. That’s insane. You can only tax income. Taxing “wealth” is nonsensical.

On the contrary, it’s not only sane but commonplace. Property taxes are a tax on wealth rather than income.

Taxing wealth at a rate greater than the wealth can be expected to generate income might be insane, unless your policy objective is actually to elminate wealth (which in turn might be an insane objective).

But a tax on capital assets at a lower rate can be an incentive to taxpayers to use their assets effeciently (so as to generate income to pay the tax). So, for example, if I own a large portfolio of residential properties, and I let my extended family and friends live in them for free or for nominal rents, or I am simply letting them degenerate, a wealth tax will encourage me to charge market rents (or to sell the properties to someone who will).

Oooh, great example. Thank you - I stand corrected.

The general rule I have always heard is 200k a year or 2M in assets.

You don’t pay taxes if you make under $7800 or you are filing jointly and make less than $15,600

The reason we have a progressive tax is because %x of a poor persons income of $20,000 is much more of a burden than %x of a wealthy persons income $200,000.

To simply BrainGlutton’s post:

Top out-of-sight - I would not be seen working
Upper - I feel guilty or bored so I will work at something I like
Upper middle - I worked hard to get to where I am

Middle - If you work hard, good things will come
High proletarian - Work sucks
Mid-proletarian - I’m just happy to be working
Low proletarian - I hope I can find work

Destitute - I will probably never work again
Bottom out-of-sight - I would not be seen working

It might be, but it isn’t! :smiley: