# Taxing the "rich" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 24, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209 "2011-07-24T21:14:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/21 "2011-07-24T22:14:37Z")
Well, if his net income can’t meet his bills because he’s living in a mansion and driving an Aston Martin, it’s not as if he’s in the same financial boat as someone who makes $30k a year and is $30k in debt. I’m willing to accept varying definitions of the word rich, though, so I understand where you’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/22 "2011-07-24T22:20:53Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > No, I welcome your corrections. The 250k number I’ve seen so many times that I was convinced that it was essentially what the 380k number actually is. Is there some sort of circumstance in which 250k is the top bracket? Other people have heard the 250k number over and over, right? I’m not crazy and making it up? I don’t think that that would ever be the top bracket, but it may be the basis upon which some tax proposals have been made. If that were the case, however, it would require either changing the brackets (lowering the top from 380 to 250 for instance) or raising the taxes on more than 1 bracket. I have no doubt that you’ve heard it somewhere, but I think that whomever you received the message from failed to flesh out the full meaning (which, to me, is the problem). For example, they may have referred to the group as ‘top earners’ - intending to imply that they were in the top 3% or something, when it sounds like they are implying that they are in the top bracket, making the word choice either disingenuous or ill-conceived. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/23 "2011-07-24T22:24:46Z")
“Rich”\* is when you don’t have to worry about how much money you have anymore. Specifically, that is when you have enough money that, no matter what, you’ll be able to maintain your standard of living indefinitely. So, earning $250,000 a year from a job doesn’t necessarily make you rich, but owning assets that pay you $250,000 a year definitely would. \*Not scare quotes, quotes to show I’m defining the word. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/24 "2011-07-24T22:31:06Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Really that much more than S Cal huh? Well, good to know some places cost more but now I’m _really_ confused at the Dopers who thought we are rich making less than half of that. You’re absolutely right. I live around there, and don’t quite make $250K, but am not living hand to mouth. San Jose itself cost a lot compared to El Paso, but nothing compared to Los Gatos and Cupertino. The people getting screwed around here are not the managers making $250K, but the average Joes who can’t command that kind of money but have to deal with the prices set by those who can. > [@](#): > > I can’t agree with this - if someone is making, say, a million a year but makes such awful choices that he can’t cover his bills, I’d say he is just rich and stupid. Again, I agreed. Michael Jackson wasn’t poor, he was a rich moron. Almost all people like this could get out of debt rapidly giving heir income if they just stopped throwing away their money. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/25 "2011-07-24T22:33:11Z")
In general, capital does play a role. If you talk about someone who’s making 250K, but has only been making that for a couple of years, has students loans, owns a house that recently lost a bunch of equity and is going through a merger where he or she thinks they may lose their job - I doubt that they’d be comfortable being labeled as rich. The thing is that that situation isn’t exactly a stretch in today’s economy, and it’s not like the person described above wasting their millions of dollars. It’s someone who may be on their way to being rich but is still, rightly, concerned about money and faces the possibility of being broke with just a couple of bad breaks. But from the point of view of someone making 30 grand - yeah, that person probably is rich. They see them with a nice car, eating out at good restaurants, and living a good life that may well never be accessible to them. The thing is, I’m not sure that comparing which of those perspectives is correct is particularly helpful when it comes to fiscal policy. Probably just easier to deal with facts. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/26 "2011-07-24T22:36:47Z")
Well, those of us who actually are rich would never consider someone making a paltry $250k/year “rich”. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/27 "2011-07-24T22:37:01Z")
Could I reiterate that, as I said, someone who’s making around the minimum of that tax bracket isn’t who’s in question? It misses the whole point. It appears that the number is actually 380k rather than 250k, but my point is that if you’re right at 380k, you’re not paying an extra cent due to a rate increase on the 380k+ bracket. You’d need to be making 600k+ before you felt the tax increase meaningfully. And I don’t think many people would dispute that 600k+ per year is rich. So granted, someone making 250k or 380k whether they are rich or not are not impacted at all by a top marginal tax rate increase. Someone making a little above that, say 300k or 450k, is only affected on the last portion of their income, so their taxes would only increase a small fraction of the increase in the top marginal rate. ---
**Author:** ![emcee2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emcee2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emcee2k)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/28 "2011-07-24T22:39:06Z")
Didn’t Obama use the $250k figure while he was campaigning? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/29 "2011-07-24T22:39:35Z")
> [@](#): > > **Households with net worths of $1 million or more may be identified as members of the upper-most socio-economic demographic** , depending on the class model used. While most contemporary sociologists estimate that only 1% of households are members of the upper class, sociologist **Leonard Beeghley asserts that all households with a net worth of $1 million or more are considered “rich.”** He divides “the rich” into two sub-groups: the rich and the super-rich. The rich constitute roughly 5% of U.S. households and their wealth is largely in the form of home equity. **Other contemporary sociologists, such as Dennis Gilbert, argue that this group is not part of the upper class but rather part of the upper middle class** , as its standard of living is largely derived from occupation-generated income and its affluence falls far short of that attained by the top percentile. The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth without depending on occupation-derived income. This demographic constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley’s definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class employed by most other sociologists. The top .01 percent of the population, with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been characterized as the “richest of the rich”. Boding mine. From wiki, ftfoi. > **[American upper class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class)** > > The American upper class is a social group within the United States consisting of people who have the highest social rank, due to economic wealth, lineage, and typically educational attainment. The American upper class is estimated to be the richest 1% of the population. > The American upper class is distinguished from the rest of the population because its primary source of income consists of assets, investments, and capital gains rather than wages and salaries. Its members include owners of larg... eta: didn’t see your post, before posting this **Senor** , and would respond that yes, you’re right - although the conversation has diverged a bit (big surprise :)) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/30 "2011-07-24T22:42:00Z")
> [@emcee2k](#): > > Didn’t Obama use the $250k figure while he was campaigning? Yes. IIRC, he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/31 "2011-07-24T23:00:31Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And I disagree with this. A person is not rich if he has no net worth and his income cannot meet his bills. He can certainly live an affluent or even rich lifestyle until it all comes crashing down, but he is nevertheless not rich by any definition I’m aware of. Then apparently there are not many rich people out there, under your definition, since people tend to spend more as they make more. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Well, if his net income can’t meet his bills because he’s living in a mansion and driving an Aston Martin, it’s not as if he’s in the same financial boat as someone who makes $30k a year and is $30k in debt. Well, they are both idiots and if the first guy loses his job he is going to be in the same boat as the second guy should he lose his job, right? > [@Voyager](#): > > Again, I agreed. Michael Jackson wasn’t poor, he was a rich moron. Almost all people like this could get out of debt rapidly giving heir income if they just stopped throwing away their money. At that level, probably, as long as people kept buying his recordings. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/32 "2011-07-24T23:03:21Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > $250,000 a year in income is hardly rich, especially when you subtract taxes from it (and I’d wager that the vast majority of $250,000 a year income earners pay a significant amount in tax). “Affluent” would be a more correct term, and in my opinion $250,000 a year gross wouldn’t be near the top of that classification. Households that make over $250,000 constitute [the top 2% of all households in the country](http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/americans-making-more-than-250000/). If “rich” is to have any meaning at all, it must be fairly applied at least to this group. Where would you draw the line? 1%? .1%? .0001%? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/33 "2011-07-24T23:08:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Households that make over $250,000 constitute [the top 2% of all households in the country](http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/americans-making-more-than-250000/). If “rich” is to have any meaning at all, it must be fairly applied at least be this group. Where would you draw the line? 1%? .1%? .0001%? While there’s certainly some correlation between the two, I’d base the definition more on net worth rather than income. That will shift the rich demographic to a higher age group. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/34 "2011-07-24T23:09:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Households that make over $250,000 constitute [the top 2% of all households in the country](http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/americans-making-more-than-250000/). If “rich” is to have any meaning at all, it must be fairly applied at least be this group. Where would you draw the line? 1%? .1%? .0001%? From your article, it seems that the language was actually meant to apply to households making 250, and that there could be potential tax increases for individuals making 125,000. > [@](#): > > The candidates haven’t said exactly how a $250,000 limit would be applied. But often these figures are meant only for couples filing jointly, and the limit is half that for singles filing alone. > > Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year. That group is projected to earn 27 percent of all personal income and pay 47.9 percent of all personal federal income taxes in 2009, according to the TPC’s calculations. While that’s a small group - I just can’t agree 125 is rich. I make more than that and don’t even have a car. (note that I’m not opposed to raising taxes, I’m just saying is all) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/35 "2011-07-24T23:11:29Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > While that’s a small group - I just can’t agree 125 is rich. I make more than that and don’t even have a car. You can’t afford a car, or you choose not to have one? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/36 "2011-07-24T23:12:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > While there’s certainly some correlation between the two, I’d base the definition more on net worth rather than income. That will shift the rich demographic to a higher age group. Why would that be a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/37 "2011-07-24T23:14:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You can’t afford a car, or you choose not to have one? I would prefer to have a car, but I can’t justify the expense. If I save up for a while, and things go well at work, I would like to get one next year. If it was a neceissty, I could squeeze it into my budget. But, imho, the rich don’t need to make decisions like that. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/38 "2011-07-24T23:15:56Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Then apparently there are not many rich people out there, under your definition, since people tend to spend more as they make more. Correct. I view rich as a description of net worth rather than income. A person might be making two million dollars a year, but if he’s blowing it all on hookers and blow he really can’t be said to be rich. On the other hand, there might be a person who has no income at all but keeps many millions of dollars secreted in a vault buried in his back yard, and that person certainly could rightfully be called rich. Plus, people’s wealth is almost always referred to in terms of net worth. Bill Gates is called a billionaire because he’s worth many billions of dollars, not because he makes billions of dollars a year. Really, it’s fallacious to apply the word rich to income. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/39 "2011-07-24T23:18:08Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Ha, that’s true. Only the people on this board even use the air quotes term “rich” anymore. I’ve heard the term “job creators” about a billion times more than rich/wealthy/etc recently. That’s just more **Orwellian shit designed to change the way you think about the issue by controlling the language**. Thank you. That a perfect description. If you want to make an argument that the rich shouldn’t pay more taxes, fine. But don’t insult my intelligence by using bullshit terms like “job creators.” That’s really little more than just another form of the overly-sensitive PC crap that conservatives so like to rail against. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/40 "2011-07-24T23:19:49Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Why would that be a good thing? I was stating a fact, not making a value judgement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=3)