Discussion in 'Economy' started by KMAN, Nov 11, 2008.
And who makes that decision?
Is this a serious question?
I think he's said people making over 250K a year, hasn't he?
and I guess it's a matter of opinion.
Personally I think anyone who makes more than 100K a year is wealthy.
No way Silence,
It may be relative to where you live but in no way someone who makes 100k wealthy.
Live in Miami, or even worse NYC and see how far 100k does for you if you ahvea family to support
Judging from the Obama rhetoric about having the rich pay their fair share and the changes to the tax code that are being proposed, it looks like the Rich start at about $250K but thats marginal.
The group Obamas potential tax revisions will hit the hardest, thus what could be considered the Most Rich, are individuals who receive the majority of their income through passive sources, pay the Alternate Minimum Tax and have estates in excess of $7 million. That boils down to the top 0.3% of Americans.
$100,000 for a family is nicely middle class here in Seattle. Personally I dont consider anyone Rich unless the majority of their income does not appear on a W-2. To me its a class distinction based on Workers & Owners If you are a doctor making $250,000 per year, even if you own your practice, I would put you in the upper middle class bracket.
A high net worth individual would also probably fit in the category of Rich and according to the Big 4 accounting firms, that kicks in at $40M in net assets or $15M in gross income.
The rich guy is the guy behind the tree:
Don't tax you, and don't tax me,
Tax the guy behind the tree!
Since only a few people really consider themselves "rich", taxing the rich is a popular idea among politicians running for office. Only a very few will vote against a candidate using the "tax the rich" mantra, so only a few votes will be lost.
Once in office, the pol has to confront some unpleasant realities, such as that ten trillion dollar deficit, along with the most severe recession in recent memory.
And the fact that the truly wealthy have tax shelters available to them.
In the case of the president, of course, another unpleasant reality is the fact that he can't just come up with a new tax plan and have it implemented as is. It has to be debated and voted on in the Congress.
Probably the only way to actually bring our fiscal house in order is to simultaneously grow the economy, cut back on government spending, and raise taxes on someone. Whether the current government will be able to do so remains to be seen.
Rich in Obamaland
anyone with a job and enough money in their wallet to buy lunch
It really does depend on where you live. 100k here is just braking even on cost of living. But if I move to the Midwest it's living high on the hog.
Here's a thought.
How about defining the truly rich familes as those which enjoy an income 2.5 standard deviations above the median family income? (or course we have to define income as income from ALL sources, not just labor incomes)
And while we're at it we could define the truly poor as those 2.5 standard deviations below that national median family income.
Bell curve works damned well for everything else, why not incomes?
I have no idea what the standard deviation of incomes is in this nation, though so I cannot give you that data.
FYI, while the median household income in the USA is supposed to be around $51,000 or so, the median income for a worker in the USA is about $21,000.
Now those two numbers seems very odd to me, but I can only report what I read.
That's the most accurate measure of "wealth". You "wealthy" if you do not have to work a regular job to maintain your standard of living, regardless of what that standard may be. If you happy living in a 2 Bedroom, 1000sq ft apartment at $750/mo and driving a 10 year old car, and you can do that without ever having to work, then you are "wealthy".
Basically, yes, the majority of your income does NOT come from a W-2 AND you can maintain your lifestyle on that non W-2 income....
Separate names with a comma.