So, making $250,000 means you're poor?

[Tree-Hugger]

A lot of my conservative friends keep repeating that there shouldn't be tax increases on people making over $250,000 because they claim that it's "not much money at all." There is a post that just popped up in my feed from a friend who said that making $250,000 means "you're just getting by in this world."

Now, I will admit that I have no clue what I'm talking about when I say $250,000 seems like a lot of money. My frame of reference comes from my family. With my family of four, we have never made it above $24,000 a year, though we live at poverty level now and have stacks of medical bills. So, $250,000 is "rich" to me. I just wonder why so many say that amount is "barely anything."

[graham4anything]

1. because they are greedy MF'ers

and they keep forgetting that the rate on the FIRST dollar to $250,000 will be less
and then every dollar from 250,001 and up will be a few percent higher

but they don't tell you that

[Sedona]

2. $250K a year is $4800 per week $19K a month

....just getting by? Not.

[Tree-Hugger]

21. $19,000 a month?

I don't make that in a year. Wow.

[Enrique]

3. if 250,000 is just getting by

then 98.5% of the country is not getting by, because that's what percentile that is.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

4. i couldnt imagine maing that.

I don't hate people who do, there are a lot of people who make it honestly unlike some presidential candidates and more power to them.

250,000 would mean I wouldn't have to put off the dentist, medical tests, put 5 dollars of gas in my car at a time. I work hard but 250K isn't happening anytime soon.

[Incitatus]

5. If $250K isn't much money, we REALLY need to raise the minumum wage. nt

[PoliticAverse]

6. If the amount you spend equals what you make you are 'just getting by'...

no matter how much you make. If you are making $250,000 and feel you are 'just getting by' you probably need
to get your spending under control.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. I have a nephew that has a friend that makes 250K, and he says that

it is hard for his friend to make it. This conversation happened well over a year ago.

I'm not sure what all these people making 250K per year are doing, but they apparently don't know how to save it.

For 250K per year I could buy a 3 bedroom house and pay it off in less than 10 years.

[BlueMan Votes]

12. your nephew's friend probably tries to live a $400K lifestyle...

that would make it tough to 'make it'.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. No kidding? When he told me this my jaw nearly hit the floor.

I remember asking him how can you not be able to live on 250K? What was his friend's burn rate?

The majority of America lives on far less.

[BlueMan Votes]

30. a LOT of Americans, no matter how much or how little they make...

try to live a lifestyle that's above their pay grade.

that's why there's so much debt out there.

[salin]

36. They are spending their earnings.

Live large - and then complain that one has as many hardships as people earning 8x less.

[MADem]

8. Jesus--I'm fucking INDIGENT.

And I'm helping out a couple of family people in worse shape than I am!

Amazing what a clever serf with a pittance can do!

If I made that much a year, I'd feel like a Trump (without the hairstyle and the assholish attitude).

[limpyhobbler]

9. That's about where you have to draw the dividing line to keep the lawyers on your side.

[Recursion]

10. $250K is a median couple in Manhattan or Fairfax County

Which is to say, it's roughly what you need to blend in with the rest of the upper middle class. So, certainly not poor.

You have to live somewhere like that to find the kind of job that pays that kind of money, but it also means your rent or mortgage is $3600 per month, etc.

So, even with the "depends on where you live" caveat, it's well past "just getting by", even in a rich area.

[bluestate10]

11. Annual earnings of $250,000 is not poor, but some people that earn that are over-extended.

One of the absolute behaviors that most people don't learn is to size their lifestyle to what they earn. A person earning $25,000 a year may be happier than one earning $250,000.

[democrattotheend]

13. In some cities, it's not THAT much money

In New York, real estate and other expenses are so high that while $250,000 will make you comfortable, it's not fabulously wealthy.

Obviously, though, making $250,000 a year anywhere is far from poor.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

14. It also depends on where a person lives

$250,000 a year is A TON of money if you live in rural Pennsylvania where I am, but if you go to New York City or suburban areas, it is not A LOT, but still a considerable amount. I think the President is aware of this and wants to appeal to the vast number of people who live in areas where $250,000 is a ton.

[Bjorn Against]

15. Strangely many of the same people who claim $250,000 is not a lot of money...

Also seem to think $10.00 per hour is too much to pay the people who serve them.

[Tree-Hugger]

25. Yep. They don't believe in raising minimum wage nt

[TBF]

16. Here we go again. Every couple months someone throws

this up to get people to fight again.

The real problem in this country is the massive inequality between the 1% and the rest of us. $250K is certainly not poor, but for professionals who started out broke and have over $100K in student loans to pay back when they graduate it is not a life of extreme luxury either. And if that job (or 2 jobs added together) is lost these folks are just as likely to show up in the food bank as anyone else.

Let's look again at what the REAL issue is in this country - families like the Waltons (founders of Walmart) that control more wealth than 40% of the country. Yes, we can let the tax cuts expire for those at $250K and up. But make no mistake that the top 400 families in this country should be the ones shouldering the bulk of this burden because they have been the ones hoarding most of the rewards for the past 30 years.

Charts from Mother Jones for review:




http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[Tree-Hugger]

26. Yikes...

...not intending to start a fight. Just looking for perspective as I can't even imagine that amount of money.

I agree there is a huge disparity in wealth in this country and it's not right. There is nothing wrong with the ultra wealthy paying a little more.

[TBF]

49. I think it got to be a fight because folks like the Kochs

will do anything to keep middle America fighting while they keep stealing our money hand over fist.

At a professional salary level folks can certainly pay more & many of us are willing to do so.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. I'm with you

And my husband owns two small businesses that do very very well. We are well off - but we are for the working people . . . because that's how we got where we are.

But 25K in Somerset County NJ? Obviously this country can't see fit to tax us enough or we wouldn't have to do weekly runs and volunteer efforts at our local foodbank.

And let me tell you - some of these folks are legal executive assistants, dental hygenists, etc. etc.

The reality is - $25 K - yes 25 thousand dollars a year in dirt poor in Somerset County NJ.

That's why I think across the board - TAX ME. Triple, double, dog dare ya.


But - we need to start weighing poverty levels on different tables. I watch how much NJ gives into the till - and how little we get back. Can we have some more back? If pay more can we have some more back? Because we need a LOT of Section 8 housing here in these posh little communities.

[taught_me_patience]

40. This chart is meaningless

because it uses average rather than median. The upper tier is severely distorted by the "average".

[TBF]

50. Sure, if you're blind.

Give me a break. If you want to apologize for the billionaires you're going to have to sell that on some other website because democrats are not buying what you're selling.

[Romulox]

52. $250k puts a person in the top 10 percent. Your chart shows this group has the most wealth.

[TBF]

59. Oh definitely -

not arguing that professionals should not pay taxes. The chart also shows that the top 1% controls a full third of the wealth in this country - which is completely obscene.

I'm willing at my level to pay more. I used the President's calculator and figured out that if he lets the Bush tax cuts expire we will owe about $10K more per year. I can live with that. It's worth it to see the billionaires actually have to pay taxes.

Is that a problem for you or can you adjust as well?

[JustAnotherGen]

53. Thanks you

On the one hand - we have liberal Southerners angry that folks are picking on them at DU.

On the other hand - we have high earners who know to keep our mouths shut at DU.


It's gonna be a beautiful day at DU!



Up thread - someone kind of stated that alllllll high earners think that $10 an hour is too much for minimum wage. Where I live in - in Central NJ? 35 miles from Manhattan? 48 from from Philly?

I say the person who made that statement is showing very low expecations and a lack of knowledge about who the TRULY working poor are in this country.

I'm a high earner in a high cost of living state and I say raise it to $16 an hour in NJ. You know why?

$10 is a fucking nightmare to live off of. And the person who posted that is saying - Well she doesn't get it.

No - nope - I do. Because I have not always been in this bird dog seat financially. But they don't get it.

They don't get $10 an hour in Central NJ or NYC is committing someone to poverty for life.

So thanks for the chart. They can live in their gilded rural and square state bubble but that's not the reality for follks in the North East. Oh btw - we also voted blue.

[TBF]

60. With you -

I'm professional level now but I was a factory kid growing up. My parents actually made decent money in a small town working in factories ... they were high school graduates and my mom sometimes waitressed as well. Now it seems the only jobs are service-orientated and you're lucky if you're getting $10/hr. Those piece-work jobs in the factories have all moved to other parts of the world.

It's really sad.

[Fresh_Start]

17. The problem is that areas where you can make $250K are very expensive areas

Major urban areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Washington DC, Boston and all the costs in those markets are much higher.

Over $1 million for a tract house.
Parking for your car if you drive to work $25/day or more.....
Even McDonalds and BK charge more in those markets.

So you are still on a treadmill trying to make it.....
But its obviously a world of difference then trying to make it on $25K per year.

But you don't feel wealthy.
You feel like you are working hard and not getting rich.

[Tree-Hugger]

28. Yes and no

I live in an area where you can make $250,000/yr and get a pretty nice house with plenty of room and a yard for $300,000 and even less in some neighborhoods.

[TheKentuckian]

39. How is even this caveat reasonable when there is no tears shed for

the folks who are not a few miles away making 10% or less of that?

There is tolerance for the desire of these folks to hold on to that extra 3% or whatever on the money they make above a quarter million dollars but the guy on the bus line a few miles away that makes a tenth of what poor struggling upper class folks aren't even getting a tax increase on is a deadbeat because he doesn't see how he can afford his tithe to the insurance cartel under the mandate?

Good God, imagine the plight of being homeless in one of these areas or maybe most crunched the folks actually at minimum wage or so. Busted on a good month with nothing to show for it, no nice home, no new automobile, no private schools, no best food, no savings, no investments, no beautiful furniture but rhetorically "middle class" with all the responsibilities but few of the privileges.

Not a tenth of the sympathy and accommodation. I think that is a values statement and I don't care for it and it is fool's gold to doing much at all for the vast majority of us over the long term as an electoral strategy.

Nothing wrong with concern for people that are doing well but most have to make due with 20% or less no matter where they live.
How do folks even begin to tolerate the minimum wage or the whole share of the bottom 80%? How is it the agitation is not at a fevered pitch when we have consistent and earnest concerns for people at these levels? Especially when those folks at the bottom but not quite fallen off don't get anything but heckled when they are expected to pony up a higher percentage, that just doesn't square or match with the reality of American incomes.

[JustAnotherGen]

55. I posted this in the NJ

Forum in early September. Somerset County is my community.


Don't start at the homeless.

You have to go a single woman making $25K a year to START the poverty level in my community. That's *awesome* to many DU'ers - but not for her. Consider that a one bedroom apartment starts at about $1200 per month in her community . . .

[rufus dog]

19. Perspective!

250k in SF, LA, Boston, NYC, etc, means you pay the bills, can stash a bit of money away to pay for the kids college, take a decent vacation. It is not rich, but it is far from poor.

It also means you don't pay the electric bill one month and the car payment the next. You don't manage the checking/savings account daily to make sure checks don't bounce. You aren't forced to pick between one kid playing a certain sport and not eating decent meat for a month.

[GiaGiovanni]

20. Depends on where you live: in SoCal, 250K is middle class suburban living, comfortable but not rich

In Tennessee, 250K could start to approach upper crust.

That's why 250K seems low to start taxing when you're looking at the nation as a whole. Starting at a half a million makes more sense.

[SheilaT]

22. In the end, as several others have already pointed out,

it comes down to income vs. outgo.

And yes, while 250k does not go as far in NYC as in rural PA, the underlying problem for an awful lot of people is that they want more than they can afford.

Watching TV is the culprit, in my opinion. The ads make it seem as if anyone at all can afford whatever it is they're selling. In reality, the vast majority of us (95% or so) really do have limited means. But the possibility of going off to the Greek Islands on a whim, redecorating the house at any time, eating out every day of the week -- these things and more are held up as something ordinary people can do or should do at any time. It's not that way at all.

When I relocated after a divorce four and a half years ago, I decided I couldn't afford a TV. I can watch just about everything I want over the internet. Best of all, I see very few ads, so even though I have noticeably less cash to spend than I used to, I don't feel very deprived at all.

I think we ought to think about all of the ads that encourage us to buy as tools of the overlords to keep us indebted forever.

[Tree-Hugger]

33. Keeping up with the Joneses

I notice among a good number of my friends this need to keep up with everyone - with people they know and with people on TV. There is the socialite mentality that I blame on reality TV (starting with Paris way back when and now with Real Housewives and other shows that focus on the ultra rich). Even gals making less than $20,000 are wanting to buy designer shoes and clothes, carry giant designer purses, wear giant designer sunglasses, walk around with their $7.00 Venti chai mocha soy latte whatever, get their nails done eveey week and their hair done every 4 to 6 weeks. Then they complain that they don't know where all the money goes and I'm like, really? I believe every person should be able to treat themselves, but I think some take it too far, especially when it puts them in debt. Then everyone needs a bigger SUV than the neighbors, giant flat-screen TVs, multiple gaming systems, iPads, "professional" landscapers, McMansions, etc. When does it end?

I can't imagine changing much if I were to suddenly make that much money. Our TV is 9 years old, but I have no desire to replace it. I don't want my kids playing video games all day. We have a PS3 and my son has never played it. I cook from scratch, which is ultra cheap, and that wouldn't change with more money because it's still the healthier option. Heck, I'd be paying down my medical bills and getting new tires for my car.

[SheilaT]

45. You've expressed it very well.

The imbedded commands to consume and spend money are so insidious that most people don't really notice them. But they do find they need the latest electronic device and so on.

Among the reasons I won't get a "smart" phone is that I'm not willing to get caught up in the need to download application after application. I know many are free, but many more are not. It's just like the nails and hair and new clothes.

Oh. And don't get me started on debit cards. I keep on urging people to use cash instead of the debit card, and I usually get looked at as if I'm speaking Martian. So many people who use their debit cards all day long, especially for the fancy coffees, just don't understand why they have no money at the end of each payday.

If I suddenly got a lot of money I would do a lot more travelling, because that's something I value enormously.

[FieryLocks]

23. ...

So, making $250,000 means you're poor?

Gee, I wish I were that poor!

A lot of my conservative friends keep repeating that there shouldn't be tax increases on people making over $250,000 because they claim that it's "not much money at all."

Only if they are living waaay beyond their means and not being smart with their finances.

There is a post that just popped up in my feed from a friend who said that making $250,000 means "you're just getting by in this world."

HAHAHA! LOL! Ask them if people making a quarter of a million dollars a year ever have to decide on what bills to pay, if they or their kids ever go to bed without eating, if they have to clip coupons or use food stamps just to get by...I would bet not.

So, $250,000 is "rich" to me. I just wonder why so many say that amount is "barely anything."

It's not filthy rich but it's a lot more comfortable than what most people 'get by' on. This is all politics as usual with conservatives. They are led to believe that raising taxes on people making $250,000 a year or more will hurt job creation (lie). They did it during the Clinton years and these people still made out like bandits.

[MrSlayer]

24. It's all relative. The $400k Mittens made for speaking really wasn't that much money to him.

Because he's a billionaire. Now that same $400k to me is great deal of money. That's four years of work with OT. For others that's TEN years of work. And for others, it's TWENTY years of work.

Relative.

[surrealAmerican]

27. It would be awfully tempting to ask them ...

... what they think the minimum wage should be under the assumption that $250,000 is "just getting by". Shouldn't anybody with a full time job have the opportunity to "get by"?

[Tree-Hugger]

34. I can tell you

...that a lot of these same people are VERY much against raising the minimum wage.

[lunasun]

48. Exactly !! The very same people who claim 250K ain't nothing will not raise it at all

good for me
but bad for you..... ....always the same story from them

[Posteritatis]

41. I'd imagine most of them think the minimum wage should be $0.00/hr. (nt)

[Warpy]

29. It means you frequently have cash flow problems

if you live in something bigger than a walk in closet in Manhattan.

However, most of the people who feel pinched on that kind of money rolling in year after year are people who are trying to float a lifestyle of the rich and famous. Or who have multiple kids in Ivy League colleges with no scholarships.

I want to smack them all with a clue by four, too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. But, but you have Internet and a microwave!

Now stop the joking. In some areas of the country, read San Fran, NYC and LA, $250,000 does not go as far as oh, let's say Cleveland...but I will not call that poor by any stretch. It is anywhere from upper middle class to well to do...not poor.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

32. We can probably put a number on what it takes to have a comfortable living

but some people will say they need 'more' than others and it's not our right to tell them how they should live. I agree. But $250K a year is well ABOVE what is needed to live a comfortable life. We KNOW that.
How many steaks can you eat at one time? How many cars can you drive at one time? How many beds can you sleep in at one time?

[upi402]

35. They're out of touch

And it seems to me that greed is a soul sickness these folks have. $250K is NOT squeaking by.

[Ilsa]

37. It's a great position to be in, but it is still work,

versus sitting by the pool waiting for a dividend check. You can't work one or two years and retire on it.

And for people who have small, one-person corporations, that money is usually double-taxed.

I aspire to be in that position. But I wouldn't mind seeing exceptions for small business owners to prevent double-taxation until it reaches a higher income level.

Yes, but hit the higher levels of income hard, like in the 1980s.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

38. I guess it's not just the wages from the job

it's the investments, stocks and shares, dividends etc as well as the job salary?

Wealth should be taxed not just salary. There are people sitting on mountains of wealth which is being hoarded offshore.

[taught_me_patience]

42. 250k is not poor, but it is not "rich" in expensive cities. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

63. If that city is Monte Carlo, maybe...

[LynneSin]

43. Well to be honest that depends

If you're married and have a couple of kids and live near a major urban center, $250k/year can be pretty tight budget.

Personally I think that number should be raised to $500k. Yes I know many of us here survive on alot less but I think using that as the cutoff would bring in more supporters to the tax plans. Anyhow even if these were people that netted $1mill a year they aren't the ones I'm worried about - I'm looking at the 1% which most probably make 10 digits a year salary or are trust fund babies of massive estates.

[stevenleser]

44. All relative. To folks in Kenya and Tanzania, $24,000 a year makes YOU wealthy. There is also the

difference between income and wealth.

You will not find anyone who says that $250,000 a year is poor because it isn't. But $250,000 a year without any prior wealth saved or invested is definitely middle class. It's upper middle class, but it is middle class. That person has more in common economically with someone making $40,000 a year than they have in common with someone in the lowest tier of what is considered wealthy.

I generally consider as wealthy someone with a combination of income about $600,000 a year or more and $1,000,000 or more in saved/invested wealth. But, you can play with that a bit. Someone who has $10,000,000 of invested wealth and a wage income of $200,000 a year is someone I would consider wealthy. And someone with a wage income of $1,000,000 a year or more with nothing as yet saved would be someone I would also consider wealthy.

If you take the folks I described in the paragraph just above and compare that with someone making $250,000 a year, there is no comparison to their lives.

[HiPointDem]

46. because they're idiots. it puts them in the top 2% of income.

[TexasBushwhacker]

47. Timeout, that's $250K AGI wages

Someone who lives in an expensive city will probably have big mortgage interest, property tax and state income tax, plus personal exemptions and perhaps local income tax. For a family of 4, that will probably mean a gross income closer to $300K. Right now $250K taxable puts you in the 33% bracket. If they go back to the Clinton era rates, it would go up to 36%. Not exactly the end of the world. The top tax bracket of 39.6% was only for the top 1.2% of wage earners.

[Cobalt Violet]

51. It's rich.

No doubt about that. Very comfortable life for sure.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

54. I'll never feel sorry for anyone making $250,000 a year. Tax the hell out of 'em...

Everyone I know makes less than $50,000. But most less than $30,000.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

56. Evidence of poor messaging by Obama...

...it's $250,000 taxable income not gross. Your friends don't know the deduction people who make that much take. They could make significantly more than $250,000 and still not be affected.

Additionally, the extra 3% is applied only to that taxable income above $250,000. In *most* cases, that's just not much.

This was so poorly messaged...

[DemocraTim]

57. Tax Capital Gains the same as wages

Please sign this petition

http://wh.gov/XCZm

[Still Sensible]

58. Our household income is a little over that threshold

and I can assure you it is plenty. Of course, living in Oklahoma (Redneckistan), it goes a lot farther than it would in many places, but I don't care if it's New York or San Francisco or Boston... One can live very comfortably on that income. In no context is this "barely anything."

According to the census bureau's report released last year, the median household income in the U.S. is just over $50,000. The same report said that there were nearly 50 million people living in poverty in this country, an outrage.

To ask people in my position to basically pay 1.5-3.0% more in income taxes on income over that threshold is not in any way asking too much. Anybody that says it is... is just an asshole, period.

[standingtall]

61. People regularly make over 250k a year should be millionaires

unless they don't know how to manage their money. And I don't care what part of the country they live in their wealthy.

[subterranean]

62. Under Obama's plan, a family making $250K would see no tax increase at all.

Taxes would only rise on income above $250,000. Do your conservative friends think $500,000 a year is a lot of money? $1 million? $50 million? Those are the people who will be affected if the top tax rate reverts to the Clinton-era level.

Under Obama's plan, a family making $250K would see zero increase in their income tax. A family with income of $300,000 would see their taxes go up no more than $2,300. Possibly less, depending on where the top tax bracket starts.