What if they make $1M/year, but they both work, and they have three children...and one of them is addicted to cocaine, gambling, and prostitutes.

HOW CAN YOU SO CASUALLY DESCRIBE THEM AS RICH?

2/15/2011 12:46:51 PM

terrible strawman.

2/15/2011 12:50:33 PM

?

It's not a genuine argument.

2/15/2011 12:52:15 PM

i'm really confused about the post accusing liberals of destroying the middle class

thats one backwards ass accusation

2/15/2011 12:56:23 PM

At first I assumed that was rather absurd as well, but as I considered his point of view more closely I grew to understand his perspective. I do not think that all democrat policies destroy the middle class, nor do I believe that democrats are alone in middle class implosion; however, I do think oppressive tax policies on middle class families who may make between $100k and 250K contributes to the destruction. The only instance in which I can view these policies as maintaining the middle class is by hindering upward mobility so that those who would have transcended into the upper classes are forced to remain in the middle.

2/15/2011 1:24:55 PM

Democrats are destroying the middle class

...the middle class that has six-figure salaries.

2/15/2011 1:27:57 PM

taxes are lower now than they have been in decades, which ones are destructive?

2/15/2011 1:37:17 PM

^^ You haven't yet provided any clear reason or concrete distinction why those with six figure family incomes can't be considered middle class.

^I would say the structure of the system itself is destructive. Tax codes barely take into account one's disposable income but rather focus on what one earns. As has been demonstrated many times in this thread, a high salary income does not in and of itself make a person "rich" or even "well-to-do".

2/15/2011 1:43:24 PM

so consumerism is destroying the middle class then

i'll agree that the 1920's style division of wealth we have digressed to is bad, but its precisely the policies helping the people at the top that are to blame.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2011 1:44:04 PM

^^We were supposed to be taxing six figure salaries a bit more in order to relieve the tax burden on the actual middle class.

In general, the ideas presented in this thread are kinda silly. On the one hand, people want to claim that it's reasonable for someone making 40k/year to retire as a millionaire...on the other, we're expected to believe that a household with four children and 250k can't comfortably save for retirement or their children's college.

In my experience, people making six figures don't even have to save for their kids' college. It's just another check you write each semester and month...like, "You need money? BAM. Here you go." Unless, of course, you own a beach house, a ski spot, spend heavily on cosmetic work/clothes/jewelry, invest in the stupid business ideas of friends and family, drive a luxury car, buy new cars for your kids, go to showy charity benefits so you can do networking, subsidize your kid's drug habit and then send him to a luxury rehab, buy a big tacky house, etc...

I don't even think a single parent of four earning 50k qualifies for assistance in NC...but you times that by five and you wanna tell me that ain't rich? If 50k with four kids is middle class or even working class, then 250k is most definitely rich... And this business about them having to have a budget so they can't be considered rich is ridiculous...everybody has should have a budget, even billionaires...people without budgets sure are fun to hang out with though!

That said, if the idea here is that we wanna reduce taxes on six figure salaries (rich people) and just start raiding the accounts of wealthy people...then I'm totally down.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : Done.]

2/15/2011 2:20:02 PM

Quote :

"As has been demonstrated many times in this thread, a high salary income does not in and of itself make a person "rich" or even "well-to-do"."

It hasn't been "demonstrated" at all. That claim has been made in this thread, but it's just someone's opinion. Terms like "wealthy", "rich", and "middle-class" are relative, but not terribly ambiguous.

To me, income does define what "class" one is in - particularly how much income one makes beyond the standard cost of living, and what portion of the population makes at least as much. An individual making $100k is in the top 6% of earners, so in my opinion its inappropriate to call that "middle-class".

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM. Reason : poplarashun]

2/15/2011 2:26:15 PM

Whoa guys, this thread is here in order to make sweeping generalizations. Don't go ruining it by bringing in reasoning and statistics.

2/15/2011 2:33:18 PM

^^ that's great and all that you have that opinion, but the people that actually research and study this stuff disagree.

low, middle, and high do not refer to a point on some bell curve.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2011 2:34:49 PM

You mean the sociologists you quoted from wikipedia? Please. Sorry if I don't ascribe to the idea that the term "rich" excludes anyone whose income is derived from their occupation.

2/15/2011 3:36:37 PM

Quote :

"We were supposed to be taxing six figure salaries a bit more in order to relieve the tax burden on the actual middle class. Working Class so they can buy bigger trucks, widen their trailers, put bigger TV's in their living rooms, and drink more beer. "

Fixed it for ya

For a dual income earning household, 6-figures is the apex of middle class America.

My biggest problem is that anyone household making less than $60K, subtracting roughly $5K per child, likely pays MINIMAL income taxes anyway. So the whole point is moot.



Tax cuts for so called "middle america" is not that I belive i am going to be rich one day and want lower taxes. My problem is that these tax cuts do not help the Real middle class and are just a way to placate the high volume of working class americans who after proliferant baby making (and homes they can barely afford) don't have much of a tax burden to begin with.

As a young professional single childless wage earner my federal effective tax rate last year was 12%. Half the people that liberals and dems are crying about have income tax limits approaching 6.5% or lower. At this point the majority of their "taxes" are going into the medicare fund for which they will rely for retirement; due to statistically correlated poor financial planning.

Historically today's working and lower classes enjoy greater economic freedom and benefits than anytime in history.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : a]

2/15/2011 3:36:42 PM

Quote :

"n general, the ideas presented in this thread are kinda silly. On the one hand, people want to claim that it's reasonable for someone making 40k/year to retire as a millionaire...on the other, we're expected to believe that a household with four children and 250k can't comfortably save for retirement or their children's college."

yeah, i also see the problem with claiming both of these to be true

2/15/2011 4:03:00 PM

Quote :

""In general, the ideas presented in this thread are kinda silly. On the one hand, people want to claim that it's reasonable for someone making 40k/year to retire as a millionaire...on the other, we're expected to believe that a household with four children and 250k can't comfortably save for retirement or their children's college.""

40k would be difficult (still possible), but make it 50k or 60k and it's well within reason. Calling that task 'reasonable' is not the same thing as saying it would or could be common. It should be, but it never will be. That would require a widespread, fundamental change in people's attitudes and behavior. And that doesn't happen often. But, for the folks that don't require much in the way of luxury or spending to be happy, it's quite doable.

Likewise, with a lot of the people I see out there, I can easily envision how they have brought themselves a lot of financial stress despite being well into the six figures. This is a reasonable and expected outcome, given their outlook on spending and wealth.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : s]

2/15/2011 4:17:27 PM

Quote :

"On the one hand, people want to claim that it's reasonable for someone making 40k/year to retire as a millionaire...on the other, we're expected to believe that a household with four children and 250k can't comfortably save for retirement or their children's college."

I believe your lack of understanding stems from an unwillingness to do so, rather than an inability. One situation (40K) takes into account an individual and the other (250k) takes into account a family of 6 (2 parents + 4 children). While there are 6 times as many individuals in this family, the family of 6 has expenses that the individual will never incur; these include, but are not limited to, college education for 4 at a time when tuition rises at 4x the rate of CPI, health insurance for 5, child care for 4, etc... I'm sure with this now brought to your attention you can see the other hidden costs a family may incur that an individual would not.

Furthermore 1million at retirement isn't that much. The outlook you possess is part of the mentality of the country as a whole. People focus on the now instead of the future. 1 Million 38 years from now will have no where near the purchasing power as 1million does now, especially when needed to sustain a person without work for 15+ years.

If I need to further illustrate these fundamentals, just let me know.

Quote :

"particularly how much income one makes beyond the standard cost of living"

Please define "standard cost of living" Once you do, consider the post above and perhaps that will demonstrate for you how little past the standard costs 100k can get you.


Furthermore, how do you people think people tend to get these high paying jobs? Do you believe that they are granted these jobs out of no where? Your comments give the impression that
these jobs have not been earned by merit. In the top 5% of income earners higher education, including post-graduate degrees, and Ivy league education are common. Law school, Dental School, Medical School, Vet School and MBA programs can easily come with 200k - 300k in debt that must be repaid. While you may view someone with 100k/year salary or a family making 250k as having income far past standard living expenses, their salaries dwindle quickly when they have 800/month in student loans.

2/15/2011 4:47:38 PM

If you want to argue like that, then I will argue that if it's such a tight squeeze on them financially, then maybe they couldn't afford to have 4 kids in the first place.

This argument is fucking stupid because it's so subjective and when someone tries to make it objective that's when personal politics are brought into play, which is something on which none of us agree.

2/15/2011 5:27:22 PM

Quote :

"if it's such a tight squeeze on them financially, then maybe they couldn't afford to have 4 kids in the first place."

I don't disagree with you, as long as we also stop feeling sorry for families that make 30,40,50, 60, or 70k that chose to have children at all and raise taxes on everyone in order to pay for the entitlements that only a few of which reap the benefits.

2/15/2011 6:04:18 PM

Quote :

"Geppetto: I believe your lack of understanding stems from an unwillingness to do so, rather than an inability. One situation (40K) takes into account an individual and the other (250k) takes into account a family of 6 (2 parents + 4 children). While there are 6 times as many individuals in this family, the family of 6 has expenses that the individual will never incur; these include, but are not limited to, college education for 4 at a time when tuition rises at 4x the rate of CPI, health insurance for 5, child care for 4, etc... I'm sure with this now brought to your attention you can see the other hidden costs a family may incur that an individual would not. Furthermore 1million at retirement isn't that much. The outlook you possess is part of the mentality of the country as a whole. People focus on the now instead of the future. 1 Million 38 years from now will have no where near the purchasing power as 1million does now, especially when needed to sustain a person without work for 15+ years. If I need to further illustrate these fundamentals, just let me know."

1. I never said 1 million by retirement was unreasonable for someone earning 40k/year or that 1 million dollars is a lot of money. I've had my little thingy with Vanguard since I got my first paycheck.
2. I did say it was silly to maintain the million at 40k scenario and simultaneously maintain a scenario in which 250k isn't waaaay more than enough for a family of 6 to "cover the basics, contribute 10% to their 401k, max out Roths and have some additional disposable leftover." These two assumptions should present crazy cognitive dissonance for you, but for some reason, they're not.
3. Nobody ever said the person earning 40k didn't have any children. I didn't get the impression that theDuke866's schoolteacher, auto mechanic, or Marine officer was automatically single and childless.
4. Tell me more about this family of 6 that is apparently smart enough to earn 250k/year but too dumb to figure out economies of scale. So they have six one bedroom apartments, four sets of children's clothes that can't be handed down, go to four different daycares/summer camps so they can't get sibling discounts, four sets of toys, books, and educational materials, six TVs/DVD players/cable/Internet connections, six sets of food that they don't share, four babysitters, six sets of furniture, six home phones, six hotel rooms when they go on vacation, six cars, six gas tanks that need refilling...

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 6:15:22 PM

Quote :

""if it's such a tight squeeze on them financially, then maybe they couldn't afford to have 4 kids in the first place.""

True. Maybe they could afford it easier if they didnt have to pay for other people's "free" childcare, health care, food, diapers, education, etc etc.

I think you have touched on the reason why people tend to have less children the more educated they are. Follow the money.

2/15/2011 6:20:59 PM

^^

replying in order

1. While you did not say it, I inferred it since you juxtaposed the 40k earner with 1mil for retirement, as if it were a healthy sum, with the family of 6 who has trouble adequately saving for retirement. For that family, savings of 2million may not be sufficient.

2. See item 1 here, and my post above. I fail to understand how you can't reach this conclusion on your own. The only explanation I can provide is that you still see $250K and think rich, 40k and think middle class and millionaire and think rich. Sadly, its not that simple and that is why we're discussing this issue.

3. I believe the person describe in the 40k situation was constantly referred to as "someone" or "an individual" and never referred to as a single earner with dependents of any type. This is in contrast to the other groups who have explicitly labeled as single earners or families with dependents. I thought this was a fairly simple sequitor and apologize that it was not clear.

4. A family of six will likely have a bigger home than a single income earner at 40k. Children of any type have varied interests and thus summer camps would be different, same with toys, etc.. It doesn't take six cars and six different hotel rooms to make up the difference from the 40k single earner to the family of 6; it can be done with the things I mentioned in my previous post. Do the math and the explanations will become abundantly clear.

Also, instead of waiting for someone to bring up a few things and then me jump in with the "a-ha" moment that highlights the consistency absent from the minds of some, I will come out and say it. Here is the thing, people act as if making more means that a person has less right to use the fruits of their labor the way they see fit. In the same breath some of you will argue that families in one end have the right to have kids, have a private residence, internet, cable, two cars, cell phones, etc... while we provide them with tax breaks, incentives and entitlements to do so and then express those who earn more should just tighten their budgets, not send their children to the school of their choosing and perhaps not by the house or car of their choosing. Why? Both parties are equally trying to survive and provide their kids with the best they can, yet only those who can only achieve it through subsidies have the right to do so and those who could otherwise do so at their discretion should tighten their budgets and live with less? The entire argument seems incredibly inconsistent to me, and I would love to hear a structured rationale for this outlook.

The fact of the matter is most families live past the basics. If you have food, water, and a shelter of any type then you are past the basics. Why should we promote one group to leave past the basics and then turn our noses at another?

2/15/2011 6:48:55 PM

This debate effectively exposes the flaw of any income tax. If we say that the amount of taxes one pays should be based on their ability to pay, and their current expenses, why don't we take into account their future expenses? If we treat the single guy making 250,000 a year so differently than the family man making 250,000 a year, why? Perhaps that individual is doing the responsible thing and saving his money in preparation for having a family in the future.

We should really have a consumption tax. Stop punishing savings - it's what a fundamentally sound economy has to be based on.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 6:53:46 PM

Quote :

"it's what a fundamentally sound economy has to be based on"

Wrong, it's a balance between the two. If everyone invested and no one consumed, what would people people invest in?

A sound economy is based on trade, which is a combination of savings and spending.

Quote :

"why don't we take into account their future expenses?"

Because it's difficult to predict the future.

2/15/2011 7:11:32 PM

Quote :

"1. While you did not say it, I inferred it since you juxtaposed the 40k earner with 1mil for retirement, as if it were a healthy sum, with the family of 6 who has trouble adequately saving for retirement. For that family, savings of 2million may not be sufficient."

I think you have this backwards. The single person needs far more in savings for retirement than the one with 4-6 kids.

If your kids don't suck, then having 4-6 kids means having 4-6 whole families committed to helping you in your old age. That's a support network that far exceeds having an extra mil in the bank. You housed, fed, and clothed those kids for 20 years, now there's 8-12 of them (including spouses) able to help the one or two of you for a similar amount of time. That's easy and stable.

Yes, if you have a large family, and they all refuse to act like family, then an adequate retirement is very hard when you earned 40-60k your whole life.

2/15/2011 8:17:10 PM

^^^^I don't know where you're at, but I'm in Wake County, NC. A million dollars is not an abstraction. Seriously, around here, if you don't belong to a family pulling in 250k or more a year, then at the very least, you know somebody who does. And, no, you don't resent their success or good fortune. And you don't fantasize about maliciously doubling their tax rate. But you sure as shit don't lie awake at night, worrying about how they're gonna get Junior off to college or whether or not they're gonna have to work past 60.

You wanna argue about taxes and incentives, you do that. But arguing the hardships of a quarter million dollars ain't the way to do it...especially not with folks who live in a technical/professional new money paradise. We may not know wealthy, but we know rich.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 8:19:07 PM

Quote :

"that's great and all that you have that opinion, but the people that actually research and study this stuff disagree. low, middle, and high do not refer to a point on some bell curve."

I'm pretty sure that the curve is nothing like a bell curve, one implication of which is precisely the reason that someone making $100k/year, the top 6% of earners supposedly, can still be considered (upper) middle class.

Quote :

"HOLY GOODNESS, WHO PAYS $415 A MONTH FOR A CAR?!?!?!"

I don't think that's all that great of an idea, and I personally only buy cars with cash nowadays, but $415/month is a pretty normal car payment. That's roughly a $20k car.

(that said, I'm not one of these Dave Ramsey-types who thinks all debt is the devil.)

Quote :

"I would love to see a back of the napkin calculation of how someone making 40k/yr manages to retire a millionaire. Without considering what taxes, fuel, food, rent leave you with at the end of the month on that salary, I put 5k in yearly for 45 years at 5% nominal and still only get to about 875k to draw on. Somehow, I feel like someone making 40k a year is going to struggle to put away an extra 415/month."

Well, I figure 8% average annualized growth, but for only 43 years (graduate college at 22 and start saving, retire at 65). You may say, "well, not everyone goes to college", but that also means they can start working even earlier, and a 40k salary is very attainable for most people. Those figures yield a nearly $1.8 million nest egg at retirement (tax free, if saved in a Roth IRA).

At any rate, if I remember correctly, I earned $37,000 as a Lieutenant during my first year out of college in 2004. Since, being active duty military, I didn't have to pay for health insurance, figure another few thousand bucks...so right around $40k. From the very first month, I put away my $415 to max out a Roth IRA, and I have never missed a month since then. I had no trouble at all putting that money away--in fact, I still drove nice sports cars, bought a jet ski, dined out a good bit, and generally lived just fine.

Well, you say, I had no kids. That's true. However, when my daughter was born in 2006, I was just getting promoted to 1st Lt, and I believe I was making just over 50k at that point. My child support amount was $1020, which is easily more than a child actually costs anyone under normal circumstances. I was continuing to put away my $5k/year for the IRA, plus another $400/month into stocks (which I started doing just before my promotion to 1st Lt). I also started putting away a couple hundred bucks per month to save up for a house down payment.

I stand by my point--saving up a million or two (or more) dollars is pretty attainable for most people...just not by practicing the financial dumbassery that is prevalent across most of our society.

2/15/2011 8:55:30 PM

Quote :

"HOLY GOODNESS, WHO PAYS $415 A MONTH FOR A CAR?!?!?!"

with so many car companies offering 0% financing over the last few years, why wouldn't you want to take the larger car payment instead of paying more money up front? I'm a little bit biased because I get a vehicle allowance from work to keep a newer personal vehicle for work reasons, but car payments aren't the money pit that so many people on here make them out to be.

2/15/2011 9:49:30 PM

Yeah, the issue isn't so much the interest in the case of new cars...it's the deprecation hit that you get by buying a new car.

That's a little less severe with a used car, but then you don't get 0.0% or 2% or whatever financing.

2/15/2011 10:00:57 PM

Yeah, I didn't mean for my reaction to sound as shocked as it did.

But, yeah, not buying new cars would be part of my religion if I had one. So hearing $415/month is like a teetotaler finding out how much beer costs these days.

I guess I could understand if you had a long commute and spent a lot of time in your car...or if you're like a business person who has to drive clients around...but goodness gracious...

2/15/2011 10:14:17 PM

'06 330i is $655/mth (4yrs) for me. But I got 0.9% financing on a pre-owned. Purchased in April '09.

At 0.9% financing I would never consider putting a penny down or paying a loan off early.

But jesus lord please tax me harder because I bought a car to get to work everyday.

2/15/2011 10:20:18 PM

yeah, i mean, i've paid >$500/month for a car, but it was at prob 5% interest (maybe less?), and I sold the car for a profit. Never say never, but yeah, I'd agree that situations where a car payment like that is a decent idea are the exception rather than the rule.

Quote :

"At 0.9% financing I would never consider putting a penny down or paying a loan off early."

agreed, and you won't get thrashed TOO hard with depreciation on buying a 3-year old car. I would guess, however, that the price you paid for the car wasn't nearly as attractive as it would have been had they thought they would've made some money on you with financing.

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2011 10:20:59 PM

Quote :

"A million dollars is not an abstraction. Seriously, around here, if you don't belong to a family pulling in 250k or more a year, then at the very least, you know somebody who does."

Quote :

" We may not know wealthy, but we know rich."

I have no clue what you're talking about at this point. I never stated a million was anywhere near an abstraction. I pointed out that it was very possible, but that it isn't that much money. That aside, I live in Raleigh, and have for 10 years and since then I have gotten a better understanding of what is rich and what isn't, and 250k isn't.

Quote :

"If your kids don't suck, then having 4-6 kids means having 4-6 whole families committed to helping you in your old age."

I just couldn't impose on my kids like that, but you do make a valid point.

2/15/2011 11:12:51 PM

Quote :

"Geppetto: I have no clue what you're talking about at this point. I never stated a million was anywhere near an abstraction. I pointed out that it was very possible, but that it isn't that much money. That aside, I live in Raleigh, and have for 10 years and since then I have gotten a better understanding of what is rich and what isn't, and 250k isn't."

My bit about abstraction was my way of letting you know that you don't have to tell us that a million dollars isn't a lot of money. It's not abstract...we've all stayed in our friend's bazillion dollar beach house and been disappointed to discover that it wasn't even on the ocean.

This area is mired in relative prosperity. Six figure salaries are common. We know people can comfortably pay for their four kids' college and retire on 250k/year because we actually know people who do just that, or we know people who do three kids on 150k or whatever. For you to suggest that families with that kind of money can't do this comfortably is absurd, and you can't condescend your way out of that. You can't just be like, "Oh, well, you don't even know that a million dollars isn't a lot of money. You're a rube. I'm right."

Now I'm not going to pretend like 250k is some jawdropping figure, and OMG that's so much money!!!! But I'm also not going to be blase about it. You don't have to be an independent software developer or a CFO of a pharmaceutical company to be rich. 250k/year is rich.

And, yeah, there are bunch of people who make even more, but that doesn't mean 250k/year is no longer rich. For more perspective on that, just drive from here to the coast and stop anywhere along the way.

[Edited on February 16, 2011 at 2:42 AM. Reason : Spelling is hard.]

2/16/2011 2:39:25 AM

Quote :

"My bit about abstraction was my way of letting you know that you don't have to tell us that a million dollars isn't a lot of money. It's not abstract...we've all stayed in our friend's bazillion dollar beach house and been disappointed to discover that it wasn't even on the ocean."

$1,000,000 is a lot to spend on a house, but it isn't a lot of net worth on which to retire and live the rest of your life. I mean, you won't go hungry, but you'd pretty much life a lower to middle-middle class lifestyle.

Also, $250k/year is a very nice salary. It's very upper middle class. You can do and have a lot of nice stuff pretty comfortably at that level of income. It is not, however, rich.

2/16/2011 7:46:53 AM

Quote :

"Also, instead of waiting for someone to bring up a few things and then me jump in with the "a-ha" moment that highlights the consistency absent from the minds of some, I will come out and say it. Here is the thing, people act as if making more means that a person has less right to use the fruits of their labor the way they see fit. In the same breath some of you will argue that families in one end have the right to have kids, have a private residence, internet, cable, two cars, cell phones, etc... while we provide them with tax breaks, incentives and entitlements to do so and then express those who earn more should just tighten their budgets, not send their children to the school of their choosing and perhaps not by the house or car of their choosing. Why? Both parties are equally trying to survive and provide their kids with the best they can, yet only those who can only achieve it through subsidies have the right to do so and those who could otherwise do so at their discretion should tighten their budgets and live with less? The entire argument seems incredibly inconsistent to me, and I would love to hear a structured rationale for this outlook. "

well stated. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I take from it that this attitude wont change and has been around for awhile now, sadly.

2/16/2011 8:49:08 AM

^^Again, I really don't need anyone to explain a million dollars to me. My point about the beach house was to show that even people who aren't ever gonna save that much independently are most likely familiar with the figure. Nobody on TWW is fantasizing about retiring on a million dollars and buying a jet plane to fly around to all the properties that they're gonna acquire with what's left of the million bucks after the jet plane. We're not retarded.

I'm glad you agree that 250k is a really nice salary that is comfortable. Geppetto is claiming that a couple with four children cannot comfortably send their children to college and save for retirement on 250k/year--in fact, they may just barely cross into upper middle class, according to him. I'm saying he's wrong on that point, and I'm pushing to use the word, "rich." You don't gotta agree with me on rich, but I think a dude paying full child support and working on becoming a millionaire would support the notion that 250k/year is plenty to raise four kids on and be well into upper middle class.

^No, not well stated. This idiot thinks he's gonna blow our inconsistent minds with an AHA moment after claiming that a family of 6 cannot live comfortably on 250k/year. THIS WHOLE THING IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY PERVERTED. UTTERLY TWISTED.

I mean, argue against taxes or whatever. But don't try to convince us that 250k/year ain't a comfortable living and then launch into some nonsense about how only poor people have the right to bear children. I understand being up in arms about taxes...but this type of stuff is delusional. If it's so damn sweet on the other side, then leave your job, find work at the grocery store, and start making babies. Live the good life.

[Edited on February 16, 2011 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

2/16/2011 9:06:40 AM

it's not that you can't live comfortably on $250k a year. The point is that people making that much money are frowned upon in society when they actually go out and buy the things that everyone else wants. People making less than that amount feel entitled to tax breaks that allow them to live as comfortably as the person making $250k.

We watched this just in the past presidential election when Obama was promising tax cuts for everyone making under $250,000 a year, and everyone acted like it was the greatest idea ever. Then Biden let it slip that tax breaks would only be for people making under ~$80,000 a year, and then suddenly everyone was infuriated that they might not get a handout.

2/16/2011 9:25:25 AM

^exactly.

I think his main point bridget is that 250k is a nice salary but you still have to be aware and plan if you have a family. Its not a do whatever the hell you want kinda of income.

2/16/2011 10:02:50 AM

Quote :

"Both parties are equally trying to survive and provide their kids with the best they can, yet only those who can only achieve it through subsidies have the right to do so and those who could otherwise do so at their discretion should tighten their budgets and live with less? The entire argument seems incredibly inconsistent to me, and I would love to hear a structured rationale for this outlook."

Sure. I believe your question is something similar to "why do we have progressive taxation?", the answer is, because it works. Progressive taxation is an automatic stabilizer helping to maintain a balance between consumption and investment. It helps to encourage spending during recessions, and discourage it during bubbles.

Now if you question instead is "what right do I have to take what you own?", then the answer is, you don't "own" anything. Everything you could own is a product of capital and labor, while you may justification of ownership of your labor, you have no justification for excluding others from capital you had no hand in creating. This world would be nothing without society, and indeed any riches you withdraw from it are the product of that society being there, the idea that you owe something back to it is completely within reason.

Quote :

"The point is that people making that much money are frowned upon in society when they actually go out and buy the things that everyone else wants. People making less than that amount feel entitled to tax breaks that allow them to live as comfortably as the person making $250k. "

I don't really see the +$250k/yr as being a very persecuted and suffering class. On the other hand, I don't think the poor demand quite as much as you think they do.

2/16/2011 10:12:39 AM

^3 and ^^ Thank you. For some reason ^4 has difficulty understanding this most simple concept of the conversation.

^4what you and I consider comfortable is arguably different. I believe in savings and investments as a means to build wealth. For me, in order to live comfortably, I would need to be able to save for the college education of my children, max out his and her IRAs, commit 10% to a 401k plan, pay back school loans, provide for the essentials and still be able to put aside money into savings.

I am not saying that being able to do that would not be something out of the reach of many others, but I am saying that doing that would require significant planning and fiscal responsibility on the part of an individual with three or four kids. Given the restraints and delayed gratification necessary to meet these needs, I could not, in good conscience, label anyone in this situation as rich.

[Edited on February 16, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ^]

2/16/2011 10:30:29 AM

^^^^There is a (entirely appropriate) stigmata associated with living comfortably while others do not.

If you can afford to mortgage a 5bed+ home in a metro, have all the insurances, send a couple kids to private college, drive new cars and save adequately for retirement, you are way better off than most Americans. You might not have your own jet, but the difference between you and a multi-millionaire is less than the difference between you and the average american.

^That is why this entire thing is semantics. You have your own idea of what "rich" is. For some of us, "rich" is what we see on "lifestyles of the rich and famous". For others, "rich" is not having to struggle to make ends meet.


[Edited on February 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ^]

2/16/2011 10:35:58 AM

^who says it isn't a struggle? Fiscal restraint and delayed gratification are a struggle for many.

Quote :

"(entirely appropriate) stigmata associated with living comfortably while others do not. "

Why is it appropriate? Why should others view me negatively because I make more?

Quote :

"If you can afford to mortgage a 5bed+ home in a metro, have all the insurances, send a couple kids to private college, drive new cars and save adequately for retirement, you are way better off than most Americans"

What is wrong with a 5 bed room house when you have 4 kids? What is wrong with a home in a metro area if it shortens your commute and allows you to spend more time with your kids? What is wrong with paying for the best education that you can afford for your children? I agree this might mean I am "better off", but it doesn't mean that I earned it any less than anyone else earned what they have. Why is someone who earns less justified in living beyond their means and those who earn more are expected to live below?

Quote :

"you don't "own" anything. Everything you could own is a product of capital and labor, while you may justification of ownership of your labor, you have no justification for excluding others from capital you had no hand in creating... and indeed any riches you withdraw from it are the product of that society being there, the idea that you owe something back to it is completely within reason."

Do you mean to imply that individuals are property of the state and, therefore, by extension so are all good produced?

How do you conclude that I had no hand in creating the capital acquired? Demand alone contributes to the creation of capital because without it there would have been know incentive to create the goods or services acquired. Furthermore, the capital I have acquired is a direct result of my labor and has been acquired by a fair exchange of my labor for capital that is then fairly exchanged for goods.

Do I have the right to take from anyone a good that I have made after they have purchased it? I'm not seeing your logic at all.


[Edited on February 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2011 11:03:31 AM

the word is "stigma".

2/16/2011 11:03:36 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb: ^exactly. I think his main point bridget is that 250k is a nice salary but you still have to be aware and plan if you have a family. Its not a do whatever the hell you want kinda of income."

There is no such thing as "do whatever the hell you want" income. If you want proof of that, just ask one of our nation's many beloved but bankrupt professional athletes or every third person who has ever won the lottery.

^^^It's not just a semantic argument about the word, "rich!" This guy is also trying to claim you can't comfortably put 4 kids through college and save for retirement on 250k/year. And he doesn't actually believe it...he's just saying it because he thinks it's a good jump off point for his argument about how, at the ripe old age of 27 and with some of the lowest taxes we've seen in a while, he's tired of subsidizing the lives of poor people.

His argument against me is that I don't realistically understand money.


^^^^What you and I consider comfortable is not arguably different. If you earn 250k/year and find that you can't do all those things and then some, just know that your wife probably has a secret gambling habit.



Discussion is most likely over now. I don't think I can tolerate any more condescension from a bunch of boys who want to show off their big financial balls by being blase about a quarter million dollars. For the future, there is no need to ever tell anyone that a million dollars does not constitute a very healthy retirement. Everybody already knows that, and y'all are the ones who look foolish for thinking that this is novel information that must be passed along. Also, in case y'all are just this unaware, it's cruel to repeat that over and over because there are a lot of people out there nearing retirement age, and they don't have ten thousand dollars, let alone a million or two. Don't let your excitement to tell everybody just how much money you're investing get ahead of you.

2/16/2011 11:06:55 AM

^^no, I uh mean that wealthy people should bleed out their hands and feet.

2/16/2011 11:20:08 AM

i just want you all to know that i am indeed 'hood-rich'

2/16/2011 11:23:20 AM

I certainly have everything in my mama name.

2/16/2011 11:25:17 AM

Quote :

"he's just saying it because he thinks it's a good jump off point for his argument about how, at the ripe old age of 27 and with some of the lowest taxes we've seen in a while, he's tired of subsidizing the lives of poor people."

Your comments display your ignorance. On this site, and IRL, I've argued for certain government programs and have most often done so against destoryer (he can attest to this). Despite my awareness that certain programs are needed that does not mean I agree that all individuals at a certain income have equal disposable income or that a certain salary dictates how much you can afford. However, despite the evidence to the contrary you, in your stubbornness, refuse to acknowledge this fact and stipulate that income is synonymous with wealth. I have never stated that some people at $250k aren't well to do, only that in some situations $250k is barely upper class and is definitely not rich. I believe you refuse to acknowledge this because you have, without rationale, argued so vehemently the other position that to state otherwise would tear a gaping hole into the poorly structure fabric of your beliefs.

Quote :

"Everybody already knows that"

Your assertions of wealth and income would indicate that you do not. We did not attempt to edify all, only you based on your commentary.

Quote :

"What you and I consider comfortable is not arguably different. If you earn 250k/year and find that you can't do all those things and then some"

You clearly refuse, or are not capable, to do the math.

2/16/2011 11:35:17 AM