tax cuts for rich vs. middle class

[Vacant Horizon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68B1SH20100913

[cryptique]

This shouldn't shock anyone.

 

If that's the peg on which the Republicans want to hang their hat, that's fine with me.

[ikol]

Eh, it doesn't matter. Everyone's taxes are going up sooner or later with the amount of debt we're in. We cannot sustain this system where most Americans get more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

[Tweedling]

I just can't believe you're "rich" if you make $200,000.

[ikol]

After you get done paying taxes, you're not!

[LouieB]

I just can't believe you're "rich" if you make $200,000.

The tax thing is for those making over $250,000 and unless you live in a big city, I think you can live pretty comfortably on a quarter of a mil a year, but that is just me. Meanwhile I don't make anything near that and I make way more than your average worker.

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

I just can't believe you're "rich" if you make $200,000.

 

Maybe spend some time with people who pull in a quarter of that, then?

 

What does "rich" mean to you? I can cover all my expenses and still save a bit with my (embarrassing by comparison) salary; if I made $200,000 that would be fucking obscenely rich to me. I was raised in a family with a salary less than that, living in a town with a pretty high COL, and compared to my peers my family was fucking obscenely rich.

[Tweedling]

Well I grew up with a mother who waited tables and a grandmother on disability. The cost of living was mild and we were dirt poor.

The way I see it is people don't need the gov qualifying them as rich when they've been blessed, worked hard and put themselves in a position to succeed. I know not everyone has the opportunity to succeed but that's no reason to penalize those who have.

With the future of so called Social Security I, and everybody in this country, need to save all they can. That system is broke and taxing people till they bleed will not save it.

[Guest Jules]

I just can't believe you're "rich" if you make $200,000.

Maybe that's because you spend that much on haircuts!

[Guest Speed Racer]

Well I grew up with a mother who waited tables and a grandmother on disability. The cost of living was mild and we were dirt poor.

The way I see it is people don't need the gov qualifying them as rich when they've been blessed, worked hard and put themselves in a position to succeed. I know not everyone has the opportunity to succeed but that's no reason to penalize those who have.

With the future of so called Social Security I, and everybody in this country, need to save all they can. That system is broke and taxing people till they bleed will not save it.

 

I don't necessarily believe in raising taxes for ONLY the poor - like Ikol said, we just need to raise taxes, period. On the other hand, the whole point of low-income subsidization programs is that these people can't afford certain necessisities and need assistance; taxing them to pay for programs that are subsidizing them seems, well, stupid to me. I agree with taxing low-income families at a lower rate than those above that rate, but I don't really believe in taxing the "rich" more than the "middle-class."

 

You still didn't explain why $200,000 isn't "rich" to you.

[Guest Jules]

You still didn't explain why $200,000 isn't "rich" to you.

It really isn't that much money if you live anywhere near a larger city. And have kids.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Like I said, I grew up in Oak Park (hello, property taxes) in a family of four with an income of less than that, and I considered us (and I think we all considered us) to be very, very well off.

[Guest Jules]

Like I said, I grew up in Oak Park (hello, property taxes) in a family of four with an income of less than that, and I considered us (and I think we all considered us) to be very, very well off.

You didn't "grow up" in Oak Park in 2010. 200,000 today is much much different than 200,000 even 5 years ago.

[Tweedling]

Come on, "rich" is relative. When I was 5 I thought we were rich. When I was 10 I thought we were poor. When I was 20 I knew I was poor. Isn't "rich" different for many people? Now that I've been noted as rich to the US government it damn sure doesn't feel like I'm rich. Am I happy? Yes. Comfortable. Able to give my kids things I didn't have. All the things I was brought up to believe you can do in America with out being labeled as rich.

Why is 200,000 rich? Why not 150? Why not 300? Why not just say after you have a car, house and can pay your bills you are now rich?

[Sir Stewart]

Not trying to say what's right or wrong, but two-hundred-Jesus-thousand-dollars a year is a shit-goddamned-load of money, no matter where you live in this country (except maybe places where cars share the roads with golf carts).

[Guest Speed Racer]

You didn't "grow up" in Oak Park in 2010. 200,000 today is much much different than 200,000 even 5 years ago.

 

I agree with you completely that a $200,000 salary isn't what it used to be, but I think it is absolutely preposterous to try to argue that, for a family of four, $200,000 isn't rich, even in Oak Park. ETA: As of 2007 (is that close enough to 2010?), the median income in OP was $74k and change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Park,_Illinois#Demographics

 

Why not just say after you have a car, house and can pay your bills you are now rich?

 

I'm years away from a house, and I'm cheap as hell - almost laughably so - and I consider myself to be pretty wealthy.

[Guest Jules]

As Tweedling was pointing out, though, "rich" is just a word; a label. Of course 200K is "a lot of money". I don't think anyone would dispute that. But grouping incomes in this range with the millionaires is misleading. Those two income levels are not living the same kind of lifestyle.

[Sir Stewart]

As Tweedling was pointing out, though, "rich" is just a word; a label. Of course 200K is "a lot of money". I don't think anyone would dispute that. But grouping incomes in this range with the millionaires is misleading. Those two income levels are not living the same kind of lifestyle.

 

Yes.

[Guest Speed Racer]

As Tweedling was pointing out, though, "rich" is just a word; a label. Of course 200K is "a lot of money". I don't think anyone would dispute that. But grouping incomes in this range with the millionaires is misleading. Those two income levels are not living the same kind of lifestyle.

 

No, they're not. A couple making a combined income of $50,000-$60,000 are also living a different lifestyle than those earning $70,000-$80,000, in my opinion - and the couples in the second tier live a different lifestyle than those earning $80k-$100k.

 

Like I said, I don't agree with a tiered, separate tax for the $250,000k+ crowd - I was just wondering how Tweedling could think $200,000 wasn't rich for anyone other than the Gosselins or Duggars, or, you know, a single person in D.C.

[ikol]

I don't necessarily believe in raising taxes for ONLY the poor - like Ikol said, we just need to raise taxes, period.

 

That's not exactly what I said. My point was that tax increases are inevitable if we maintain/increase the current level of spending. My solution, of course, would be to cut spending. At the very least, we need to raise the Social Security retirement age.

 

And everyone here knows what we're really talking about here as to labeling people "rich." Once you get that label, any tax increase is justified. Why shouldn't their tax rate be 50%? They're rich. Hell, it should be 90%. After all, they're rich. We're not raising taxes on regular folks like us. We're just making the rich pay their fair share.

[Guest Speed Racer]

My point was that tax increases are inevitable if we maintain/increase the current level of spending. My solution, of course, would be to cut spending.

 

Right now, we need to cut spending AND raise taxes. This is just ridiculous.

[Good Old Neon]

Unless you’re living outside your means, $200,000 a year is just a shitload of money. Assuming you work thirty years, at the about the same rate, you will have made six million or so dollars. A not insubstantial chunk of that would go towards taxes, but that’s the price you pay for living in a country whose infrastructure allows one to accumulate such wealth. If you cannot live obscenely comfortably on $200,000 a year, you’re doing something wrong.

 

http://www.globalrichlist.com/ - for when you’re feeling bad about your finances.

[Guest Jules]

Unless you’re living outside your means, $200,000 a year is just a shitload of money.

No one here said otherwise.

[Good Old Neon]

It really isn't that much money if you live anywhere near a larger city. And have kids.

[Atticus]

what are the numbers on what the tax rates are right now, per income bracket, and what they will go to if nothing is passed? I know it's a silly question, but none of the political articles seems to mention it.