Anyone who says $250,000/year isn't a lot of money is either stupid or they think we are

[NNN0LHI]

I don't care where they live. Fuck them!

Don

[vi5]

1. Amen....

I fucking hate when idiots say that. I live in one of the most expensive areas of the country (just outside of NYC), and I make less than that and I am not even close to struggling. Wife, 2 kids, house, 2 cars and enough to do what I need to on considerably under $250K.

The thing I love is when these same people talk about how hard it is, and list the "essentials" they need to pay for before having anything left over they include private school and vacations, as though both of those things aren't complete and utter luxuries.

[Bonobo]

2. Hell, one poster even included 2k/month in savings and called it an "expense".

Fucking crazy! 2k savings per MONTH! And they tried to sneak it by as an expense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=921311

[vi5]

4. And here is the other thing about the discussion....

Assuming it IS too expensive to live there on that salary.......then move.
If an area is too expensive for you to make ends meet, then move to a less expensive area. People do that all the time.

Yes, I understand that it's hard to leave certain areas behind, but that's the sacrifice that people make sometimes. That's why these places are so expensive because so many people WANT to live there. However, not everyone can and most people realize that the reason they can't is because it is too expensive.

[HiPointDem]

103. when the 'little people' bitch about not being able to live on $12K or whatever, they're told to

move, get a second job, cut back...

but if you make $250K and can't make expenses, great reservoirs of sympathy...

[fishwax]

144. lol -- indeed

So true.

[frylock]

114. yeh, but that fremont zip doesn't carry the same cache as that noes valley zip code..

you really want to people to have to drive over the bridge to get to their wine parties?!! you unfeeling bastard!

[diane in sf]

130. The money you save by not commuting, cleaner air, socialized medicine, public transit might make Noe

Valley worth paying for/worth living in a smaller space.

[badtoworse]

12. I have always considered savings as an expense, i.e. not optional.

It is irresponsible to treat savings any other way and that is true no matter how meager your salary.

[1-Old-Man]

18. The monthly food bill is an expense, savings is a luxury some can not afford.

[badtoworse]

44. My wife and I have always used payroll deductions for savings

We learned to live within what was left after the savings were taken out and we didn't miss the money. As a result, we have accumulated a substantial nestegg. If you take the approach of saving what's left over after you've paid for all your "necessities", you wind up saving little, if anything.

There are people who are not in a position to save: You're out of work and have no income (hopefully, you were saving and have some reserves to fall back on). If you're facing extraordinary expenses (e.g. medical expenses), and need to draw upon savings, then obviously, you're not in a position to save. If you are retired and living off savings plus retirement income, you're using the savings for their intended purpose and would likely not be adding much to the savings. Pretty much everyone else should be saving.

I just don't buy the argument that run of the mill living expenses can prevent you from saving.

[riderinthestorm]

47. You have not been poor. Or had an expensive chronic health problem. Or had kids with problems...

"I just don't buy the argument that run of the mill living expenses can prevent you from saving."


Ever. Just stop ASSuming you could do it better. Until you've worked a year on minimum wage or even $10/hour you absolutely cannot lecture. I don't give one single fuck whether you "buy" anything but one thing I know is poor and saving anything on $8.25/hour is impossible.

[badtoworse]

51. What would you do if you if your boss cut you back by 3 hours per week?

You'd have to get by on about $25 less per week. I wouldn't expect someome making $8.25/hour to be able to save much.

[JBoy]

57. But you'd expect someone to save "something" on $8.25/hr?

To answer your question - if the boss cut you back by 3 hrs/wk you'd see if the boss at your 2nd job could give you 3 more.

Seriously, you have no clue. Stop lecturing.

[riderinthestorm]

68. You can't save ANYTHING on $8.25/hour

If the boss cuts you back by 3 hours per week it means you eat another meal out of dumpsters or eat more of the leftovers from your customer's plate that they didn't finish. Or you don't have heat or you keep your oldest kid home from school one day/week to watch the baby while you go to work to save on daycare. Or you don't buy tampons and tape toilet paper in your underwear and hope to hell menstrual blood doesn't leak down your leg. Or you stop feeding your cat or dog....

Seriously. Just stop. You have absolutely no idea and your ASSumption that everyone can save! is grotesque.

[xmas74]

75. toilet paper tampons

Been there, done that.

[riderinthestorm]

141. And gawd forbid its a heavy flow month.

I waitressed one month like that, taping toilet paper pads on my underwear... banquet waitressing no less - sheer physical labor... I was completely freaked. Have you ever stolen toilet paper from public facilities because you are too poor to buy your own? (or to sell to neighbors or because your mind is so warped from poverty that anything you can rip off for free is fair game?)

Unless you've been THAT poor, it makes me crazy trying to talk to someone who just thinks "everyone can save".

Yeah, well, if its a choice between eating or putting a couple pennies in (your local corrupt mega chain) bank? Yeah well, most poor folks spent it on milk, bread and baby formula.

[xmas74]

148. Never stolen from public places

though have taken extra rolls home from places I've worked. It's always the rough, scratchy stuff that no one would ever buy. I worked in a motel as a housekeeper and I needed it at the time-they were only paying per room cleaned, not per hour. That was a rough time!

Not everyone can save, no matter how hard they try. There's an article on cracked.com about things that poor people do that keep them poor. It was really interesting-lots of things about how, once they get money, they still don't know how to save it or how to buy things properly because they're too used to never having the money in the first place.

It's a comedy site but a few of the examples are spot on, such as the comment about crappy food. The author says that once they made enough money to buy fresh they realized they didn't like the taste-they were used to eating mushy canned veggies and didn't realize how different fresh tasted.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-develop-growing-up-poor/

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying_p2/

[MADem]

152. I've swiped toilet paper AND brown rest room paper towels AND light bulbs--oh, yeah!

And I knew a few pals who worked at the cafeteria at Harvard University who used to give me food samples from the corporations that were trying to make sales to the school--case lots of chili, soup, macaroni, all in cans.

I lived on that shit for months and was glad to have it. If I wanted a "treat," ten cents would buy a pack of jello I could make. I was lucky to have a really decent landlord--he raised my rent every time he could (it was a rent controlled apartment) but he didn't make me pay extra. He just did it so he could get the diff out of the next guy after I moved out.

[justabob]

82. grotesque is right

That poster has NO CLUE what it is like for those of us who are only able to bring in 100-200 a week (if that). Savings? HA! My 'savings' consist of a two or three dollars in coins in a jar that I am going to have to raid later to buy a loaf of bread to get through the next few days.

[RedRocco]

97. when you are living off of $350 take home pay every 2 weeks

saving is a luxury

[xxqqqzme]

107. Wow - that's amazing.

I'm guessing you were never a single parent raising two kids. Rent, utilities, food, clothes/shoes (kids grow). Then there is health insurance, auto insurance, gas, auto maintenance, after school childcare. Savings? I was lucky if I had enough toward the end of the month for gas.

[lunasun]

111. uugh

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. As I posted below, anyone who can save $2000 a month is saving more

than an awful lot of people even TAKE HOME per month.

I refuse to feel sorry for them. I'll save my pity for the 55-year-olds who used to have a professional job and can now find only part-time jobs at low wages, or for the 25-year-olds with student loans and no jobs except at Starbuck's.

[kestrel91316]

101. Must be nice not to need every fricking penny simply to survive with an incredibly

meager, pathetic lifestyle.

I used to have a savings plan. The Bush Recession ate it up.

[mathematic]

58. That post was ridiculous

I was tempted to break it down when I first saw it but I didn't bother.

The highlights:
-Not only was there $2k a month in acknowledged savings listed as an "expense", but $10k in annual income was ignored.
-The house is a million+ and an asset. The interest is expense, the principal is savings (1-2k more per month savings)
-Health insurance is double counted. People making $250k get health insurance at work.
-Living in the city in a "desirable" neighborhood (yes, that's code and that's the only scenario you'll pay these high prices) is a LUXURY. Regular people don't do that. They either move to the suburbs or find a cheap neighborhood in the city.

How absurd is it when you try to say $250k per year isn't much and your example includes $50-60k per year in savings? Mind-boggling. Also, the scenario happens to capture the most expensive time in this couple's life. Large mortgage, student loans, daycare, and just getting into their prime earning years. The future for this couple holds declining payments and increasing salaries until the kids go to college. It's all roses.

[taught_me_patience]

112. Hey why don't you respond to the post in that thread

instead of bagging on it on another thread?

To your points:
-The 2k/mo was listed ABOVE the expense line. It was NOT included as an expense. Of course it is an asset... however, if you pay into something monthly that you cannot touch for 30 years, doesn't it at least act like an "expense"? Doesn't it affect monthly cash flow?
-The house is the same way. Part of the payment is equity... but doesn't the entire payment act like an expense? Doesn't the entire mortgage payment act like an expense to cash flow?
-Health insurance is not double counted. You know that employees typically have to contribute to their health insurance right? In fact, in my company, the more you make, the more you have to contribute.
-You'd be suprised how expensive homes are in expensive cities in not great neighborhods.

Valid critiques would be:
The couple can expect a large refund check due to the mortgage interest deduction
Kids will grow out of day/care preschool within five years... freeing up a lot of cash flow

Then again, you completely missed the point of the post, which was to show how 250k can be whittled away without a luxury lifestyle as described by the OP... BMWs, Vacations, and Private schools.

[mathematic]

113. Why? Because I knew I'd get some BS response like this

$50-60K savings PER YEAR. That's not struggling. Or barely getting by. At all. That's more than enough to buy BMWs, vacations, or thousands of other luxury goods. Some people don't like BMWs or vacations. That doesn't mean they can't easily afford them.

Savings are not an expense. The fact that you're saving it for the future does not make it an expense. It does not decrease cash flow. In fact, it actually increases cash flow as savings have positive returns. If a person made a million dollars a year, lived off of 20k and saved the rest would that make him or her poor? Of course not. The argument is equally absurd for your case.

And, no, I would not be surprised at what houses cost in an expensive city. You can find thousands of homes for less than half of your hypothetical $1 million in NYC. You might have to move to queens or live near spanish speakers though... oh dear what will the in-laws think!

[gollygee]

122. They are able to save more than the median US family total income

They save more than most people make. The hypothetical people in that thread are very wealthy if they are able to do that, and can afford to pay more in taxes than the people whose total income is less than they are able to set aside for savings.

[taught_me_patience]

124. The 401k contribution is 2k...which adds up to 24k/yr

The amounts appear high, but only amount to 10% of income. Do you not believe that people should save 10% in a 401k/IRA/roth...etc?

Also, if the "savings" cannot be tapped for 20 years, doesn't the contribution amount act like an "expense" when you are looking at monthly cash flow?

[gollygee]

126. The issue is that if you can afford to save more money than most people make

you can afford to miss a tax break more than the people making less than you're able to set aside. If they're able to save a lot of money, that's great, but they can't claim they're struggling and need a tax cut.

[geckosfeet]

3. Agreed.

You can't tell me pretzel and hot dog vendors in NYC make $250k. They have been surviving for generations.

They might not live in highrise apartments, they don't drive bmw's (why own a car in NYC anyway) and they vacation on Coney Island but they have been and will be around for generations.

If you want to live a life of entitlement that is your choice. But do not try to tell anyone you are having a hard time making ends meet. It is nonsense, and does not engender trusting relationships with your fellow humans.

[trumad]

5. It's a terrific amount of money...

But the tax cut is for anyone under that.

This is a compromise and it's far better than giving it to the 1 percent.

[Bonobo]

6. I understand. But it is a bad compromise.

People with that kind of money don't need a tax break and struggling folks do.

Also, the US needs money.

AND, you are framing the issue as if they have us over the barrel when in fact it is the Bush Tax cuts that are automatically scheduled to end.

No compromise is needed when you already are winning.

Here is a much better political alternative. Ready?

Let the Bush tax cuts expire completely and then write a bill that gives tax breaks to people earning $100,000 and less. If the Republicans block it, they are fucking themselves before an election.

Wouldn't that be a wee bit smarter?

[handmade34]

8. "Let the Bush tax cuts expire completely"

amen... and then let's start a discussion about a fair tax system

I remember well when the tax cuts were going into effect years ago... then, I said that it would be a very bad thing and even though some middle income people would save a little (or get the infamous rebate check) they would pay big in other ways... and boy was I right!!

[badtoworse]

19. I agree. If we're going to raise taxes, it should be across the board.

[handmade34]

21. it is NOT raising taxes

it is eliminating a previous tax cut!! this is important

[badtoworse]

26. If my tax bill goes up, the government has raised my taxes.

What am I missing?

[handmade34]

36. let's say...

a store has a sale on milk (below cost) to help get rid of an excess supply of milk, or just to bring people into the store...

at some point the store must end the sale on milk and bring back the regular price...

We have been experiencing a "sale" (good marketing on the Republican's side) and it is long past time that we bring back the regular "price"

the government is not going to raise your taxes... that is a Republican talking point and not valuable for us to use!!!

[badtoworse]

52. Since you're looking at it from a marketing standpoint,...

...how long can something be on sale before people start looking at the sale price as the regular price? I might be OK with calling a 1 or 2 year tax cut a "sale", but after 12 years, I couldn't call it a sale and still keep a straight face.

[Meg_Griffin_1]

77. It is a tax increas any way you look at it...n/t

[grasswire]

92. propaganda of the right n't

[handmade34]

120. no

[LiberalFighter]

38. The tax is not on the whole amount of taxable income.

If someone has taxable income over $250,000 they only pay the new rate(s) on that portion of income over $250,000.

They would still have income that is taxed at the same rates before it gets changed.

Depending on their tax filing status a portion of their income is taxed at different rates:

Married filing jointly
10% -- 0 to $17,400
15% -- $17,400 to $70,700
25% -- $70,700 to $142,700
28% -- $142,700 to $217,450
33% -- $217,450 to $388,350
35% -- Over $388,350

For 2012 if someone has taxable income over $388,350 they pay tax at 6 different rates.

Also, on average itemized deductions for someone with income over $200k is $64k. That is $64k of income that is exempt from taxes.

[badtoworse]

45. That irrelevant in my book

As a practical matter, some would see a tax increase and some wouldn't. If the government needs more tax revenue, then everyone should contribute something. I believe in everyone having skin in the game.

[handmade34]

53. ok

call it what you will... but you do no favors to anyone (except the Republicans) by maintaining that your taxes are being raised...

...it has been a gift to the wealthy over the past 6-8 years and now it should not be call a tax increase!!

[Marr]

73. This isn't a philosophical argument-- it's a mathematical one.

We need more money in the hands of regular people. They drive the economy, not yacht-owners.

[kestrel91316]

102. Yeah, right. Make it even HARDER for the poor to even survive. Because, you know,

letting the poor merely survive is so unfair to the wealthy.

[trumad]

10. I'm cool with that...

But I also see Obama saying---hey--- they're even saying no to the 250 compromise.

In other words--- at least he's not backing down from the entire tax cut.

[RC]

20. Absolutely! $100,000 and less. I've been saying that all along.

Persons per household definition and source info Persons per household, 2006-2010 2.59
definition and source info Per capita money income in past 12 months (2010 dollars) 2006-2010 $27,334
definition and source info Median household income 2006-2010 $51,914
Persons below poverty level, percent definition and source info Persons below poverty level, percent, 2006-2010 13.8%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

And there is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Isn't $250,000 in the 5%'ters range? Besides, this is net income, not gross income. Who pays taxes on their gross income? And in this income range there are usually perks that do not enter into the income of the person in question, driving the actual net worth even higher.

More proof out government is out of touch with the reality of the majority of the people in this country. $100,000 is a lot of money for most people.

[handmade34]

23. very important...

"this is net income, not gross income" this is a VERY important point and the tax does not kick in until the larger amount of money is made...

all income under a certain amount is taxed at the lower rate

[jeff47]

35. Just to clarify.... >$250k also get a cut

Cutting taxes on <$250k means people who make more than that pay less taxes on their first $250k.

So the tax cuts we're talking about are for everyone. The ones Obama wants to expire only apply to >$250k.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. For many people in this country, isn't that about six yrs of income?

I know for my son it is. A little more than six yrs, actually.

So Yeah, it's a lot of money no matter where they live.


I agree, fuck them!

[caseymoz]

16. I could live eight years on it.

Provided, of course, I didn't have any catastrophic medical bills. Of course, if I did, it wouldn't be enough for one year.

And, of course, I'm one of those people who don't have student loans. I don't think we've completely thought through how paying those things off have changed the public debate about many things. People getting out of college with $30k of debt are going to calculate their tax interests differently. They really have distorted this economy.

[onehandle]

9. $250,000 barely covers my shoe upkeep.

You 99%ers just wouldn't understand.

Honey, throw another Monet on the fireplace...

[uponit7771]

62. +1

[frylock]

115. ftw

[Lucky Luciano]

11. A lot of people like that say that because they

know tons of people that are totally crushing it and making seven fugues and even 8 figures. Then they feel poor compared to that. I have seen A LOT of that.

$250K is comfortable in NYC, but it is not at all luxurious. You probably live in a 650 sq foot one bedroom in a nice high rise - probably still cannot afford a car and take a couple nice vacations a year and a few weekend getaways. Maybe saving $20k per year and also having date night every Saturday night. There are certainly no yachts!

They could save more on that salary moving elsewhere, but elsewhere does not likely have that salary - and much more importantly, the chance to make $5 bucks a year or more.

[daleanime]

46. Oh course we feel poor compared to that....

we can't go out every saturday night(I work weekends and have no money) and live on less then your saving!

[Lucky Luciano]

61. Not me. Hypothetical scenario above. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

138. And we're talking about a top marginal increase of less than 5%

If you make $250,000 your taxes won't go up at all. If you make $350,000 (after all deductions), which should afford you a lifestyle that's a step up from the one you just described, your taxes will go up less than $5000. That extra $5000 a year isn't going to be crushing anybody's dreams of a yacht or a private jet.

[Lucky Luciano]

142. I was talking about why some $250k people say

they don't feel rich - the topic if the OP. I wasn't referring to taxes even though the underlying theme of all the $250k chatter is taxes.

[NCTraveler]

13. Where does Schumer Fall?

Is he stupid, or does he think you are?

[ieoeja]

118. Given that he wants to enact a 30% Exit tax on people renouncing American citizenship, and

... a 30% Exit tax has existed for decades and was last modified in the mid 2000s ... I would say that he thinks we are stupid.

The odds seem a little high for him accidently proposing the exact same tax that already exists. He saw a chance to win supporters by promising something he figured we did not already know about and would be too lazy to lookup.

[badtoworse]

14. It's a nice salary and even in places like northern NJ, you'll be very comfortable.

It's still not a lot of money though. I think you need to be in 7 figures to say you make a lot of money.

[truebrit71]

79. Total and absolute bollocks...

$250k is a shit-ton of money...and if you make that much and your taxes go up a wee bit so you can only save $1500 instead of your usual $2k a month, then I would call that a quality fucking problem to have...

Seriously, 2k a month in savings? What fucking planet are some people on?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. As a self-employed person, I sometimes have months where my WHOLE INCOME

is less than $2000 a month. Anyone who can save that much is NOT HURTING.

[truebrit71]

95. No kidding....

It is clear that it's not only the republicans that don't have a firm grasp on reality either...

[kestrel91316]

106. STOP. SUPPORTING. THE. 1%.

STOP. SUPPORTING. REPUKE. POLICIES.

STOP. SPEWING. RW. TALKING. POINTS.

[Ikonoklast]

15. People that earn that much usually also live in high-priced cities.

A cop with seniority married to a nurse in a major metropolitan area of this country would be in or near that number.

I would not call them wealthy.

A truly Progressive income tax wouldn't even start until 50K; all earnings under that should be income tax exempt.

[1-Old-Man]

22. And most of the people who live in those high-priced cities make less than $250K

There is no city in the United States in which more people make more than 250K than make that much or less - and breaking the city down into neighborhoods, even if they are individually incorporated, does not count. For instance, you can not have Manhattan but not count Harlem, you can not count Miami Beach and ignore Naranga; the DC area includes both Bethesda and PG County.

Anyone who tries to convince you that a quarter million dollars a year is the norm is either very confused or had something else on their mind they want to convince you of and this false evidence is just part of the pathway to get you there.

[Ikonoklast]

40. I never stated that was the norm, I am not the confused one here.

I know people exactly as I described.

They are far from wealthy, in fact, they would describe themselves as 'middle-class'.

Both punch a time clock, both have worked in their respective fields their entire lives, neither have a fancy car or travel the world.

They live in a modest house that was built in the 1980's.

They raised their families as most other people do.

They might not have to worry about paying the light bill, but they are far, far from wealthy.

[uponit7771]

63. +1

[TrollBuster9090]

29. A truly Progressive income tax wouldn't even start until 50K.

I think you're right. Or something near 50K. I remember a Progressive group putting out an alternative tax code that proposed that, and showed pretty good numbers and economic growth forecasts. The beauty of TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS.

But no...we're stuck in a bizarro universe where billionaires pay an effective tax rate of 16%, the middle class pays nearly 50% when income, payroll, State and surtaxes are added, and we're still in deficit. Meanwhile, one political party is sworn to defend only the top income earners, and the other party is partly sworn to defend them, and to cover the budget shortfall they're proposing "BROADENING THE TAX BASE" (aka-taxing the POOR, MORE). Seriously, when did things get so ridiculous. These attitudes would have been comical in the time of DICKENS!

[Hippo_Tron]

139. Again, we're talking about raising their taxes very marginally (if at all)

At $250,000 (after deductions) you don't pay anything. At $350,000 (after all deductions) you pay less than $5000 more a year. I realize that somebody making $350,000 in New York City might not be wealthy. But they've certainly done well for themselves and can afford to pay a few thousand more in taxes a year.

[barbtries]

17. agreed.

i could live like a queen on that. hell, i could move back home to CA and live like a queen on that.

[TrollBuster9090]

24. $250 000 is, what, SIX TIMES the median U.S. salary? It's a lot of money. And furthermore...

the increased tax rate is taxed on a last dollar amount.


That means if you make $250 001, you will only pay the higher rate on the ONE DOLLAR you're over the line. So, somebody who earns $300 000 would pay the same rate as the rest of us on the first 250K, and the higher rate on only the 50K above it.

Ironically, however, opinion polls show that the people who earn in the $250K range (mainly adult professionals) overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and overwhelmingly support a progressive tax rate, where people in their range pay more.

No, it's the assholes who are raking in MILLIONS who are whining about this idea. Frankly, I think something happens to your sense of maturity once you start making RIDICULOUS amounts of money. If you make just GOOD money, you seem to retain a lot of your common sense and feelings of responsibility. But as soon as you become a multi-millionaire you revert to being a spoiled child who wants to keep ALL of your candy and ALL of your toys to yourself, and screw all the other kids.

[trof]

25. My peak earning was around $100,000/AN in the late 90s.

We were able to give our daughter a college education and the 'wedding of her dreams' without any kind of loans. We were also able to save a fair amount in a 401-K.

I've been retired since then, but thanks to a small pension (Thank you Airline Pilots Association AFL/CIO), Social Security, and Medicare we're able to live fairly comfortable lives.
No cruises or luxuries, but good food,a nice home, and a decent (older) car.

[Poll_Blind]

27. I think we're both in rare agreement here. I can only assume people who are...

...feeling pinched at 250K a year are living beyond their means. I have a bit of personal experience to base this on: I've known a lot of people (programmers) who went from making, say, $30K a year to $70k after landing a solid gig. I've known programmers making ~70K a year who jumped to over 100k when they got bumped up to project management or, for instance, take the helm as the CTO for a well-to-do startup.

Some of these people...would be basically broke. This is paraphrasing and condensing a hell of a lot of different anecdotes down, but we'd go out to lunch and they'd be basically ordering salads- or they'd be brown-bagging it to work couldn't afford to go out to lunch. For the longest time I could not get what the hell was up with these people because they were making such huge amounts of money (especially for where I live) and then as we had more interactions I came to realize that almost all of them had turned around after getting kicked into those higher-paying salaries and bought super expensive houses and new cars. One of them had a wife who hated him and over half his salary went up in smoke on overpriced crap from EBay. One of them decided he needed to have his own custom-built house and a stable for horses, then needed horses for his stable. He bought it all and that guy was on the hook for so much money every month it was unreal.

It was ridiculous.

But the basic story was they same: They'd all over-extended almost immediately after coming into more money. Almost all of them.

So there are people out there making $250k a year and feeling like paupers. I mean, I suppose, technically, I can see that be the case. But it's because they're so grossly, mightily overextended financially.

And that's not normal and it's not healthy, either psychologically or financially.

PB

[still_one]

28. and the media is the main culprit for trying to perpetuate that lie /nt

[Iggy]

30. It's All Relative

the problem with wealth for some of our people is they really are mentally ill;
they are _never_ satisified with the amount of wealth they have

[NNN0LHI]

32. And the ones I know would steal the penny's off their own deceased mothers eyes

[Iggy]

34. The Mentally Ill/Sociopaths Need

treatment and meds (like Drug Limpbaugh- addicted to roxies), instead they are running our
nation. small wonder we're going right down the toilet

[deaniac21]

119. The pennies too.

[DCKit]

31. I could retire on $250K, forever, and live well.

Not like they do, of course, but very well. No jets, no Bentleys, no servants, only one house, but comfortable.

I'm sick of their bullshit.

[elias7]

42. Whose bullshit?

No one making 250k/yr has a jet, a Bentley, a servant, more than one house. You are lumping together someone who is well off with someone who is wealthy.

[DCKit]

50. You went out of your way to attack what I said.

Read it again, or post at your peril. If you can't comprehend my post (and I re-read it four times to make sure)., then I don't think you belong on the DU.

I said I don't need the Bently, servants or more than one house to be happy with my lot in life. There was no link or comparison to anyone making $250K. It was a separate statement.

[elias7]

100. Post at my peril? So ominous...

If I can't understand you, I don't belong on DU? Really?

You posted in a thread where the OP says,"Anyone who say 250/yr isn't a lot of money is either stupid or thinks we are."

Then you say, "I could retire on 250k, forever, and live well." followed by, "Not like they do, of course.....I'm sick of Their bullshit." Do you mean those who make 250k but complain they're not making a lot? Or those who make millions yearly and can afford jets and Bentleys and servants--those who don't need to complain and who are not really what the OP is referring to.

Your comment is ambiguous. But because I can't read your mind, I don't belong on DU?

[Javaman]

33. That's 6.25 times more than what I make yearly.

I can't even imagine making that kind of money.

That reality doesn't exist to me.

[NNN0LHI]

37. 2 years in a row I made $100,000 a year before taxes

Had to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day and worked every single holiday to make that.

I felt like Howard Hughes. A very tired Howard Hughes.

Don

[elias7]

39. Well first, they're paying $67,000 in taxes. How much are you paying?

But fuck them anyway, right? Because they're all assholes. And they must be republicans, because i know everything and am justified in making oversimplified generalizations. In fact, anyone making more than me that thinks they're not making a lot of money is stupid. Oh wait, they can't be stupid because that would mean I'm stupider than them because I'm making less money, so they must think I'm stupid, because they can't have any rationale for their statement. Fuck em all!!!

[NNN0LHI]

41. They were paying the exact same amount into FICA as I was

And FICA was about half of my withheld taxes.

Fuck them all is right!

Don

[elias7]

98. FICA caps at 7.65% of earnings up to $106,800

Max contribution is $6,621/yr

If you reach that cap year in and year out, you will collect as much SS as anyone else when you retire.

Fuck who all?

Anyone who makes more money than you? What makes you so special that that you can judge so many people blanketly...

[NNN0LHI]

110. Retired in 2003 and made it to the cap twice during my entire working life before that

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2012, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

What was the maximum contribution in 1993 and 1994 during the only two years I made it?

How much do you make?

Don

[elias7]

140. I've made it to the cap the last 5 years

I'm 50 and I'm envious that you were able to retire. I don't see that happening....ever

The last 5 years, I've done better, but everything over what I had previously made has allowed me to put contribute to my children's 529, purchase life insurance , purchase disability insurance, purchase health insurance, start contributing to an individual-K retirement account, and pay higher taxes.

So, no, I don't feel any richer, and I understand that having these insurance plans, college savings plans, and retirement plans may be luxurious to some, but they're safety nets for me and my family. The point being, making a bit more, doesn't translate to second homes, rolls royces, private jets, and social hobnobbing. Those activities are for the truly wealthy.

In failing to understand these clear distinctions, you decide to lump everyone together from the marginally rich to the insanely wealthy by calling them stupid and saying, "fuck them".

Money does not create happiness or love. But in your case, the lack of it seems to have created a lot of hate and frustration.

[HiPointDem]

105. they're paying fica at a lower rate than i am, because they only pay it on the first $106K. why

should i bow down because they pay more than me? they *make* more than me, that's why they pay more. it's a flat tax to $106K and a regressive tax after that.

[ProSense]

43. Well, it's

nearly $70,000 more than some members of Congress make. They sure aren't hurting.

[bemildred]

48. It's pitiful, really, to make that much AND whine about it. nt

[Johonny]

49. when you know people and know they still have nothing thenyou change your mind

People making 150-250 K still are having trouble living like their parents did. To make that much usually means never seeing your kids which means day care, then private schools, then a new car every 4 years, a big McMAnsion... Now as everyone says they are living beyond their means, but it is the means that the average American is suppose to be dreaming about. At 100 K in many large cities you for sure can't make it. 250 K and I still know people when they lose their job or someone in their family gets sick they got nothing in reserve and bye bye their house etc... The dream of the middle class is dead. Yeah 100 K in the 1990s was nice. But no ones salaries have gone up since then. When you understand even you and your wife working full time to get 5 to 6 times the average American salary doesn't even make you close to the lifestyle of your dreams, you either become a delusional FOX watcher or you realize the robber baron era of the neocons is * and you start demanding change. You also hopefully figure out to stop buying crap you don't need. Then it freaks you out to know most Americans live on less!

[Yavin4]

60. I Have Lived in Manhattan, NYC for 16 Years

My base salary did not get above $100,000 until 2 years ago (Year 14). In that time, I worked full time, worked as a temp, and was unemployed a few times. Yet, I never missed a rent payment and paid off the balance of my student loan.

I did all of that because I kept my monthly expenses low by living with roommates and not over-extending myself financially.

Trust me, the majority of NYers survive every day making far, far less than $250,000 a year.

[Johonny]

80. but you're not trying to live the American dream

You sound like me, but I'm not trying to live the American dream. Trust me the American dream isn't living with roommates and not over-extending myself. The American dream is a new car every 4 years, sending your kids to the most expensive school you can. I'm sure you know people that tried this and when the music stopped in 2008 fell hard. Then they disappeared because they couldn't afford to live by you anymore. The people that survived were told by FOX news it's all the poor and the welfare's fault. It's them and your taxes holding you back from the American dream. It's a joke. At 250 K you make what what Mitt Romney makes in 5 days. Romney isn't even part of the super Rich that make another order of magnitude than him. That's how the game is played. Get the middle class, upper middle class and the poor fighting, angry over each other, telling each other their idiots and in the mean time they walk away with all the money. As I said when you know people struggling at 250 K a year and understand the vast majority of Americans make far less, that's when you freak out. Many freak out and get very angry at the poor, some figure out the whole game is * and stacked against you. Even you the upper middle class. That's how class warfare works.

[Romulox]

86. That's why it's called a "dream". You act like it's a right to live beyond "the means the average

American is suppose (sic) to be dreaming about."

It's really not.

[Johonny]

109. You really don't appreciate it

until you see people live it and crash. It scares the crap out me. You see people making 250 K and suddenly their 42 and have nothing but debt to show for it. It seems impossible and yet there is so much of it around. Sadly so many don't blame the impossible lifestyle sold to them, or the uber wealthy they blame the poor and the impoverished that they think are robbing them. If only they didn't support them the system would work. At least that's what FOX news sells them. It's sad when the 250 K a year thinks that, it is pathetic when the 15 K a year guy thinks that too. It is surreal when you out with your friends and the 250 K year guy and the 25 K a year guy are both complaining about the welfare queen stealing their paycheck.

[Romulox]

121. Sorry, nope. It's no more tragic for a former high earner to be poor than anyone else. nt

[Johonny]

125. I agree

didn't say it was more tragic. I said I've seen it. People think at 250 K all their dreams will come true. Well they don't. You think you're so much better off than the 25 K a year guy. But I see them together bitching about life all the time. Didn't try to rate tragedy, just pointing out people that are angry at the 250 K guys, well that 250 K guy is totally mad too. The whole system these days is mad. It is a very weird world these days. When I was young I thought 250 K a year guy must be loving life, and they do live a great life. Yet it is all an illusion and so many end up no better off than the poor. But we are told this isn't true. The American dream isn't suppose to work like that. Oh but it does.

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. People who are unable to think for themselves deserve a double helping of scorn.

If their choices are bringing only misery, then they should make other choices.

[Orrex]

54. Hell yeah! I could point you to arguments I've had on DU about that very subject

It's surprising how many among us think that $250K isn't all that much money.

Here's the ironclad, irrefutable response to that claim: No matter where someone lives in the US, if they think $250K isn't enough to live on, I can guarantee you that someone is getting by on 1/10 that much and living within one mile of them.

It's a shitload of money, and if you can't afford slightly higher taxes at that income level, then you simply don't deserve that income level.

[Cary]

55. Sigh--I think we need to be careful here

Like all good lies, the one you're alluding to here has some truth in it. Ironically it's all relative and "conservatives" can't stand relativity. They have to see things in black and white.

If you spend $100,000 a year and earn $250,000, paying about $75,000 in taxes, then yes it is "a lot of money." Under this scenario you save $75,000 a year and it won't take too long until you have financial independence.

However if instead of spending only $100,000 you piss away another $200,000, or if something happens that's out of your control, then it's not a lot of money. Now we might argue that the person who can't get by on $250,000 a year is an idiot and we might even be right. But then we're getting into "conservative" schadenfreude territory. Aren't we?

Of course if you look at what the average person earns then yes, $250,000 is definitely a lot of money.

But I think we need to be real careful here because we might play into the shred of truth in the "conservative" meme of "class warfare."

[uponit7771]

65. unnnn, conservatives understand 250k is a lot of dough yearly even in areas that are expensive...

....people can live on 100k if they WANTED to...

There are PLENTY of people living in LA, NYC, CHI Town, Seattle that live VERY nice on less than this.

I lived in LA...we lived under our means for the salary no matter how much a realtor said we can afford.

[Cary]

71. You miss the points about relativity and the deeper points with respect to their messaging

I am not saying that you're wrong but if you can't see the grains of truth that run through their lies then you're making a mistake.

If you have $1,000,000 in medical bills, a big debt to the IRS, big student loans, college tuitions to pay for your kids, ....

[TheKentuckian]

72. There is hand wringing about someone making over a quarter million a year

paying an extra 3% on income above that mark but we are a 1000% sure a person making 20k has 8.5% for the insurance cartel and that is just premiums?

I don't get this values statement or the logic. It seems the more someone has the more they need and the less they have the less they can get by on.

If you are worried about someone making 300k "struggling" then how is it we expect the vast majority under 50k to make it at all?
How are some of the same folks that come up with budgets too tight for an internet connection or a fucking $8 Netflix that poor people should be on to pay off the cartel and be "responsible" but point out private school tuition and savings greater than the other has to live on before taxes or a single expense of any kind as "mandatory"?

How does someone get the nerve to tell one person they need to eat more fucking beans and rice and see if you can find a cheap dial up and tell another that everything that can be done will be done to make sure they can pay $20,000 elementary school tuition with no additional strain or sock away that 20k or buy a boat.

Sounds like a lot of Democrats believe in pretty much the same "prosperity gospel" bullshit as the TeaPubliKlans to me, the wealthy are blessed and the poor are cursed. The key difference being a willingness to throw alms to the worst off of the accursed to salve a guilty conscience, as long as it doesn't the lake house to get scaled back (and yes, I know people with a lake house that make way less than 250k).

Food stamps are cut="we'll fix it later"

A small tax increase on the portion of income above a quarter a million=lots of concern about the struggles of the "middle class" ("middle" in the top 2-5% doesn't jibe with any math I was taught but anyway), suggestions of raising the level, and serious thought about the cost of living that is never forcefully pushed by the "concerned" when poor and working class folks are supposed to pony up.

From sea to shining sea, 250k is no worse than the top 5%. HOW DO THOSE IN THE BOTTOM 50% EVEN SURVIVE?

[Cary]

74. This is an interesting problem with respect to perception

So let's just say that you are 100% right on the merits. I actually believe you are.

Now what?

Obviously this isn't really winning the day for us. We need something more. I am not sure what else we need but I am detecting, from this conversation, that a lot of us aren't willing to understand what the other side is actually saying here. I think we ignore their argument at our peril.

I did some tax consulting during the Clinton years and I did see a fair number of small businesses getting pinched. I had and have zero sympathy for their plight, from a logical perspective, but I do see that their message has traction. I don't think that message can just be quashed by sheer logic.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

78. Bravo!

Well said.

[Cary]

83. I doubt any of us disagree with anything there

But I'm not going to celebrate because of any preaching to the choir. I am not happy at the moment because we agree. I am unhappy at the moment because so many people reject this and buy into the idea that we ought not to be "attacking" people who earn $250,000 per year.

And it's not the people earning $250,000 a year who are the problem here. $250,000 is a nice living but it's not gluttonous. The real gluttony is in the top .1%. The truly disgusting people are the Kochs and the people who are intent on buying power.

How do we reach people beyond the choir?

[Yavin4]

56. $250,000 Is MORE than Enough to Live in the Most Expensive Areas of The USA

I live on far less than that in NYC, and I am doing okay for now. The key is to cut your monthly expenses (read: get roommates). I hate having roommates, but I've been able to build a nice nest egg for myself because of them. When I was on unemployment for a year, I was still able to meet my monthly expenses because they were so inexpensive.

We live in a culture where some people live well beyond their means. Your monthly expenses should only be one-third or less than your total take home pay.

[steve2470]

59. No, it's middle class, totally !!!!

Hmm, let's see what my monthly expenses are:

Manhattan Upper West Side condo mortgage payments: 10,000
Chauffeur Service to work.......................................: 500
Eating out every night............................................: 3,000
New clothes..........................................................: 1,000
Heath insurance, company provided..........................: 1,000
Power bill..............................................................: 500
Cell phone bill........................................................: 500
Broadway tickets....................................................: 1200

Oh dear, I feel so..... pedestrian now... up to $17,700 per month already

in case you couldn't tell.....

[uponit7771]

66. +1! ...I lived in LA, My wife and I SWORE to live under our means and we were able to do it because

...we wouldn't buy all the house we could afford. We had a nice view but a VERY affordable mortgage (relative to LA) and monthly expenses that were in line with half of what we made....

[steve2470]

67. That's awesome, truly.

I know the numbers in my post were probably inaccurate but they were hastily done. Anyone that can't see that $250K a year is A FREAKING HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY, is just blind or willfully obtuse.

I'd love to live either in San Francisco or very close to it, but I just can't afford it on my income. Hopefully LA was a lot of fun for both of you

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Oh, come on people!!! Don't you know all that "bad economy" stuff is for "the little people"?

The total disconnect of the people making $250k is astonishing.

Besides. The higher rate doesn't effect them ANYWAY. It's for income OVER that amount. If they are making $350k the first $250k is taxed at what they are paying now and the next $100k is taxed at a higher rate.

I posted a video showing what the tax brackets used to be like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101739856

(It's only 2:42 long so it's not that painful to endure hearing Reagan speaking. Besides, everything he mocks his critics for actually happened as predicted and everything he promises fails to happen.)

There were 14 tiers or brackets to the tax structure:

Lowest to highest went like this:
11% 12% 14% 16% 18% 22% 25% 28% 33% 38% 42% 45% 49% 50%.

He changed it to:
15% 25% 35%

We've tweaked it with things like "earned income credit" and "head of household" and the mortgage deduction, etc. but you can see how much he shifted the tax burden away from top earners onto the poor and middle class at a glance.

In the United States of Amnesia we are supposed to believe the tax structure has always been set in stone and anyone touching it now is going to cause an uprising of people wearing tri-corner hats and misspelled signs.

BTW: Why doesn't the Tea Party dress as Indians? Wouldn't that fit the ACTUAL Boston Tea Party?

[EpsilonZer0]

69. $250,000+ as a salary and as 1099 private business income should be treated differently.

I have a friend who operates a siding and roofing business on a 1099. His business probably makes $500k a year. He itemizes what he can for his taxes, but at the end of the day his taxable income is over $250k. His actual takeaway is less than $100k though due to items that can't be written off and taxes.

It hardly seems fair to me. And will be less fair if he gets grouped into a higher tax bracket with those on a $250k+ salary.

Obama should find a way to target the $250k+ salarys. Then he can also appear on the side of small business that republicans are running with.

[PETRUS]

90. Your friend needs a better accountant.

His taxable income is over 250k and he nets less than 100k?

Also, we're talking marginal tax rates. If his income is, say, 300k, his tax increase will amount to about one half of one percent.

[laundry_queen]

135. I'm thinking it's somewhat difficult

for fictional people to hire accountants. YMMV.

[zipplewrath]

70. Salary vs. Income

Someone with a salary of $250K is doing quite well, no matter where they live. Because someone with that kind of salary has a TOTAL compensation of much more than that.

Someone who runs a business of 5 people who has net profits of that much, may be in a bit of a "tighter" position. There are self employment taxes and their health insurance costs may come out of that money. Plus, a plumber or other person trying to get a business going may often be trying to build capital to expand their business.

The truth is, if this is a concern for you, then you need to get with an accountant and some other business advice (banks will often advise their commercial clients) on how to structure your money to avoid dumb tax burdens. If you're exposed to these taxes, and are hovering right around the $250K mark, you need to start conducting your business as a business, not as a profitable hobby. I have had many friends who got to this point and it isn't a matter of the government adjusting their tax rate, it is a matter of them getting a brain and getting serious about cash flow and debt management.

[Romulox]

76. The DUer who once told me I was "a bigot against the rich" (sic!) will be along shortly...

[B2G]

81. Sounds like most here want an income cap

of well below 250K per year. Because if you make that much, you're just, well...greedy.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Cary]

88. We have excessive concentration of wealth

This excess is unjust and unhealthy.

[B2G]

89. So you are for income caps?

Tax income above a certain amount at 100%.

What is the cap so all can be fair and healthy for our society?

[Cary]

91. I find it odd that you would extrapolate this so aggressively

I am for progressive taxation. I would emulate our grandfathers and great grandfathers, who knew something about excessive concentrations of wealth.

What do you know about what our fathers and grandfathers knew about excessive concentrations of wealth?

[B2G]

93. I have no issue with progressive taxation

What I have an issue with is the total disdain for people who have worked their asses off for whatever income they have by so many in this thread. Do they need to pay higher taxes? Absolutely. Should we hate them for what they have? Absolutely not.

[Cary]

99. I think there is an extreme of the sort you describe

But I think you're making the same error you're complaining of when you accuse almost everyone of being at that extreme. The fact is that we have a big problem right now because of excessive wealth and concentration of wealth and we are basically at war with an ideology that worships excessive wealth.

[kestrel91316]

108. We don't want income caps. We just want income over a certain high amount to be taxed

at a noticeably higher rate. But you knew that.

[B2G]

116. I guess I misinterpreted the 'fuck them' in the OP

[frylock]

117. clearly..

i interpreted it to mean fuck them for their sorry whining bullshit.

[Orrex]

96. Thanks for chiming in, because it's so hard for the super-wealthy to make their voices heard.

What a boon for them to have you here to advocate on their behalf.

[LanternWaste]

104. More often than not, we hear only what we wish to hear...

"Sounds like most here want an income cap..."

More often than not, we hear only what we wish to hear, construct a premise out of it, and finally reach a biased conclusion which then better validates our own presumptive opinion...

[gollygee]

123. Is that how you read this thread? It only looks to me like people think that folks who make that muc

that much can afford to miss a tax cut more than the many many more making less than that.

[B Calm]

147. Thanks to Cheap Labor Conservatism

I never had to worry about being in the higher tax bracket. I often wish I was, but a lot of good it does to wish!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. Years ago the NY Times carried one of their typical out-of-touch articles about a Manhattan family

that was "poor" on $100,000 a year. (This was in the 1980s, long enough ago that $100,000 would be like $250,000 now)

It turned out that they sent both their kids to expensive private schools, even though there was an acceptable public school in their neighborhood, and they had bought a more luxurious apartment than they could afford.

I would have preferred to see a reality check article on how families where the parents clean offices at night or make beds in hotels are REALLY poor.

[DonCoquixote]

94. It is a crock of shit, but we should also

look at the truth hidden behind that, namely that a lot of rents in this country are WAAAAAYY to high, especially in the northeast. Places that are bonafide dumps have been jacked to the point where few middle class people could afford a small house. THAT is something worth looking at, despite the fake poverty cried by yuppies. This will be worth looking at because states like Florida and Arizona have been set up to absorb ex North easterners, and then said people are told "see, those lousy liberals priced you out of your home!"

[samsingh]

128. 250k actually is not that high

but i'm okay with paying the higher tax rate because it is the fair thing to do.

[NNN0LHI]

129. Do you think eliminating the FICA cap would be the fair thing to do?

[Hippo_Tron]

149. And again, we're talking about a pretty marginal increase

The President's tax proposal doesn't treat people who make low-mid six figures as though they're rolling in it. If you make $350k (after deductions) your taxes go up less than $5k a year. At that level, I don't see how people get the notion that the tax code is treating them as wealthy. It treats them as people who have done pretty well and can afford to pay just a bit more than they're paying now.

[MrSlayer]

131. We should all live on crusts and wear sackcloth.

The only problem I have with rich people is that they don't pay their fair share in taxes. Other than that I couldn't care less. I would love to have the freedom that wealth brings but I don't hate people for having it because I don't. Pay your fair share and I don't care if you make a zillion dollars a year.

250k is a lot of money to a person making 50k but is pittance to others. It's all relative. It's not that much.

[JoePhilly]

132. You are falling into the right wing trap of equating income with wealth.

Let me explain.

My wife and I each make over 100k. So clearly we are RICH. right?

But to reach this point, we both took huge college loans. And so much of that income has gone to pay off those loans, our parents had NOTHING. When they die, there will be no inheritance. In fact, it is much more likely that they will be moving in with us.

Currently, I can afford to pay for my son's college. I have two younger daughters, and I HOPE to be able to pay for them too. If my job goes to India, that won't happen.

I had an injury a few years ago and if I did not have great insurance through my work, $250k would have been NOTHING.

The real issue is the tax advantage given to WEALTH over WORK. Your salary is taxed at about 30%, investment dividends (non-work) are taxed much lower.

The "middle class" survives based on their "work income" ... the rich survive on their "wealth income".

That should be the discussion.

[David__77]

134. If it isn't a lot of money to someone, they made some interesting life decisions.

A business owner needn't take high personal income - they can reinvest in the firm. There's no need for excessive personal consumption. The neoliberals are horrified at such talk: excessive personal consumption?!? The horror, to even speak of such a concept! But it's a socially-oriented state's interest to ensure that economic growth is fostered and no new oligarchy emerges. Entrepreneurs have a role, but only with the framework of the social contract. It's not all about me me me.

[joshcryer]

136. 250k a year is more than my entire family for two generations makes...

...a year.

My entire family. 4 brothers, my mom, my aunt and uncle. 16 people (including children), roughly $100k amongst them. Welcome to the reality of the American family.

[Hippo_Tron]

137. Additionally, we're talking about a pretty marginal increase

We're talking less than 5% on all income over $250,000. That's less than $5,000 for every additional $100,000 you make in TAXABLE income (after deductions) over $250,000. If you make $300,000 in taxable income your taxes will go up less than $2500. If you make $350,000 in taxable income, your taxes will go up less than $5000.

That extra couple thousand a year isn't going to break anyone's upper middle class lifestyle. The fact that they live in New York or LA has already done that.

[midnight]

145. For the crowd that wants to drink a 300 dollar bottle of wine, aka Paul Ryan, it probably is chump

change....

[B Calm]

146. I have to work 4.5 years to make that much,

and I am one of the higher paid employees at my work place.

[arely staircase]

150. yeah

that's a hefty income anywhere I'm he country. one million bucks every four years is a lot of money and anyone struggling to get by on that has either been visited by really bad fortune or has made some terrible decisions .

[MADem]

151. Gee, I could "survive" on half that....and live like a freaking KING!!!!

I'd be flying around the world taking vacations willy-nilly if I had half that income!