Democrat definition of "Millionaire"

[Skull Pilot]

Opinion: Tax Plans Redefine 'Rich' - WSJ.com

Has your 401(k) lost half its value? Have you kissed goodbye to the bonus you were hoping to use to pay junior's college tuition? Do you lie awake at night, worrying there's a pink slip with your name on it?

Cheer up. Even in these hard economic times, Democrats across the nation are working on plans that will turn some of you into instant millionaires.

There's only one catch. You're not actually going to be bringing in a million-dollar income. But the tax man is going to treat you just as though you did.

That's the message coming out of Albany, N.Y., where a newly ascendant Democratic majority led by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver forced a deal with the Democratic governor to impose a new "millionaires' tax." The beauty is that to pay this tax, you won't have to make anywhere near a million dollars. If you make even $300,000 a year, the cash-strapped Empire State will consider you a millionaire.

See millionaires are made under democratic administrations too.

The only difference is that to make this happen, Dimocrats simply change the definition of "millionaire"

But how low will the line between "rich" and poor go?

Obama promises the line will be drawn at 250K but now that 300K is considered millionaire income, where does the "rich" line settle for its new low?

read this and tell me you still believe the 250K mark is the cutoff for tax increases.

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama's Trillion-Dollar Deficit Budget Will Impede Economic Growth - WSJ.com

 

[Indiana Oracle]

There is no question in my mind that if The Prophet's "stimulus" plan goes through with its current four components, the timing, and the adventurous GDP forecast, there is going to be a lot more taxation. Posted an article on an alternative approach yesterday: Indiana Oracle.

Trump is on the news rattling about moving out of the city. He said that before. I hope he does this time. Bloomberg is on the wrong road. It will come home to roost one way or another.

 

[editec]

Opinion: Tax Plans Redefine 'Rich' - WSJ.com

Has your 401(k) lost half its value? Have you kissed goodbye to the bonus you were hoping to use to pay junior's college tuition? Do you lie awake at night, worrying there's a pink slip with your name on it?

Cheer up. Even in these hard economic times, Democrats across the nation are working on plans that will turn some of you into instant millionaires.

There's only one catch. You're not actually going to be bringing in a million-dollar income.

A millionaire is somebody with a NET WORTH of at least one million dollars.

Income has nothing to do with the term: "millionaire"

One might think that the Wall Street Journal would understand the difference between income and net worth.

But the tax man is going to treat you just as though you did.

No, the taxman is going to treat your income as income.

The tax man doesn't tax your net worth, it taxes your income.

Is this Wall Street jounalist retarded or something?

Skull, when you read crap like this, one with these linguistic mistakes, with obvious designed distortion of word meanings which serve to inflame the passions while obfucating the truth, this doesn't trouble you at all?

 

[Annie]

...

Skull, when you read crap like this, these linguistic mistakes, this distortion of word meanings this perversion of facts...this doesn't trouble you at all?

Editec, if you haven't noticed, the WSJ is usually one of the few papers that even appears somewhat edited nowadays. What used to be a 'standard' has been down the tubes for years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Opinion: Tax Plans Redefine 'Rich' - WSJ.com

Has your 401(k) lost half its value? Have you kissed goodbye to the bonus you were hoping to use to pay junior's college tuition? Do you lie awake at night, worrying there's a pink slip with your name on it?

Cheer up. Even in these hard economic times, Democrats across the nation are working on plans that will turn some of you into instant millionaires.

There's only one catch. You're not actually going to be bringing in a million-dollar income.

A millionaire is somebody with a NET WORTH of at least one million dollars.

Income has nothing to do with the term: "millionaire"

One might think that the Wall Street Journal would understand the difference between income and net worth.

But the tax man is going to treat you just as though you did.

No, the taxman is going to treat your income as income.

The tax man doesn't tax your net worth, it taxes your income.

Is this Wall Street jounalist retarded or something?

Skull, when you read crap like this, one with these linguistic mistakes, with obvious designed distortion of word meanings which serve to inflame the passions while obfucating the truth, this doesn't trouble you at all?

You can pick all the nits you want, and I'd be happy to oblige Ed, you after all are not without nits to pick.

Instead of responding to the fact that people earning 300k will be taxed as if they were earning a million you would rather point out a small semantic flaw.

Since this article is talking about income tax and since the government does not tax you on your net worth (not yet anyway) the term millionaire tax can reasonably be applied to million dollar incomes. That the higher tax is being applied to incomes of 300K is the point which you obviously missed in your effort to discredit the argument.

 

[Ravi]

It's interesting how this guy is spinning this. What they are doing is taxing people with high incomes at a higher tax bracket than anyone else. I sure hope, to be consistent, this WSJ oped writer used to pretend that NY defined those making above $40,000 as millionaires.

March 29 (Bloomberg) -- New York Governor David Paterson and legislative leaders agreed to temporarily boost the state’s tax rate on people earning more than $300,000 a year to help close the budget deficit, the New York Times reported, citing unidentified officials involved in the discussions.
The plan would raise $4 billion a year, if approved by the state Senate and Assembly, the newspaper said. Those with incomes above $300,000 would be taxed at a 7.85 percent rate, while the highest bracket, for those earning more than $500,000, would be taxed at an 8.97 percent rate, the newspaper said. That rate is equal to the highest rate in neighboring New Jersey, the Times said.
The newspaper didn’t specify whether the tax thresholds were for gross or net income.
State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, has agreed to let the new taxes expire after three years instead of five as he originally wanted, in a concession to Senate Democrats, the newspaper said.
Currently, New York’s highest tax rate is 6.85 percent and is levied on people making more than $40,000, the Times said.

New York to Raise Tax Rate on Incomes Above $300,000, NYT Says - Bloomberg.com

 

[editec]

Opinion: Tax Plans Redefine 'Rich' - WSJ.com


A millionaire is somebody with a NET WORTH of at least one million dollars.

Income has nothing to do with the term: "millionaire"

One might think that the Wall Street Journal would understand the difference between income and net worth.



No, the taxman is going to treat your income as income.

The tax man doesn't tax your net worth, it taxes your income.

Is this Wall Street jounalist retarded or something?

Skull, when you read crap like this, one with these linguistic mistakes, with obvious designed distortion of word meanings which serve to inflame the passions while obfucating the truth, this doesn't trouble you at all?

You can pick all the nits you want, ans i'd be happy to oblige Ed, you after all are not without nits to pick.

Instead of responding to the fact that people earning 300k will be taxed as if they were earning a million you would rather point out a small semantic flaw.

But this isn't an unimportant sematic issue, Skull.

It is confusing NET WORTH with income.

Since this article is talking about income tax and since the government does not tax you on your net worth (not yet anyway) the term millionaire tax can reasonably be applied to million dollar incomes.

Yeah! exactly.

They're not talking about million dollars incomes, they're talking about millionaires.

That the higher tax is being applied to incomes of 300K is the point which you obviously missed in your effort to discredit the argument.

What ARGUMENT?

That article is so flawed by its hazy use of language I can't even firgure out what they're TRYING TO SAY!

Millionaires have no TAX RATE.

I could be a millionarie with NO TAXABLE INCOME.

This impresciion of language is NOT an accident.

It is using inflammatory language without any real meaning.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

$300,000 and above?? You do realize that we're talking about the top richest 1% of Americans, right? How much RICHER and more MILLIONAIRE can one get, Skull Pilot?

Income: $250,000 and above
Thousands of Households: 1,699
Percentage of Population: 1.50%
Percent below: 98.50%
[US Census Bureau, 2005]

[...]

Academic Class Models
Dennis Gilbert, 2002

Capitalist class (1%) Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs. Ivy League education common.

William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005

Upper class 1% Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common. Ivy league education common.

Leonard Beeghley, 2004
The super-rich (0.9%) Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians. Ivy League education common.

The Rich (5%) Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees.

I'm sorry, I know that people are concerned by the oppressive yoke in which these ultra-rich must live... but frankly they're the last we have to be worried about. They're doing ok, trust me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can pick all the nits you want, ans i'd be happy to oblige Ed, you after all are not without nits to pick.

Instead of responding to the fact that people earning 300k will be taxed as if they were earning a million you would rather point out a small semantic flaw.

But this isn't an unimportant sematic issue, Skull.

It is confusing NET WORTH with income.



Yeah! exactly.

They're not talking about million dollars incomes, they're talking about millionaires.

That the higher tax is being applied to incomes of 300K is the point which you obviously missed in your effort to discredit the argument.

What ARGUMENT?

That article is so flawed by its hazy use of language I can't even firgure out what they're TRYING TO SAY!

Millionaires have no TAX RATE.

I could be a millionarie with NO TAXABLE INCOME.

This impresciion of language is NOT an accident.

It is using inflammatory language without any real meaning.

The meaning is the democrats are continually lowering the bar on what is considered "rich"

It ain't too hard to figure out.

 

[editec]

The meaning is the democrats are continually lowering the bar on what is considered "rich"

It ain't too hard to figure out.

They are?

Then why did the authors bother talking about millionaires?

Plenty of people with million dollars net worths are not rich as most of us understand the term.

If the authors of WSJ wanted to complain about the changes in tax codes, they really ought to have just siad that, instead of couching their meaning behind all this talk about the rich.


Statistically speaking when it comes to INCOMES, what income does one have to make to be called rich?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0673.pdf

The median income for FAMILIES in the USA in 2006 was $58,407.

If your family is making TWICE the median income ($118,814) does that make them rich?

How about three times median family income? ($175,221)

How about FOUR times median family income? ( $223, 628)

How about FIVE times median family income? ( $292,035)

How about SIX times median family income? ( $350,042)

How about SEVEN times median family income? ( $408,849)

Ten time? ( $584,070)

Where, exactly does one draw that line to say that those workers are rich?

It depends, I suppose, on how much you make, doesn't it?

Now perhaps my blue collar roots are showing, but I defintiely think that somebody making $250,000 a year is rich.

Not superrich, but rich enough.

What's YOUR definition of that term?

 

[Ravi]

I think the only ones calling this a millionaire's tax are partisan oped writers at the WSJ and those that believe everything they are told to believe by partisan oped writers at the WSJ.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I think the only ones calling this a millionaire's tax are partisan oped writers at the WSJ and those that believe everything they are told to believe by partisan oped writers at the WSJ.

Hahaha, indeed, it is pretty curious: the Wall Street Journals' main readership is probably included in this and they probably don't like it too much.

"If you make even $300,000 a year, the cash-strapped Empire State will consider you a millionaire."

EVEN 300,000!!! Whoooaaaaa.... "If you make AS LITTLE AS 300,000 the cash strapped..."

So sad = (

 

[Iriemon]

But this isn't an unimportant sematic issue, Skull.

It is confusing NET WORTH with income.



Yeah! exactly.

They're not talking about million dollars incomes, they're talking about millionaires.



What ARGUMENT?

That article is so flawed by its hazy use of language I can't even firgure out what they're TRYING TO SAY!

Millionaires have no TAX RATE.

I could be a millionarie with NO TAXABLE INCOME.

This impresciion of language is NOT an accident.

It is using inflammatory language without any real meaning.

The meaning is the democrats are continually lowering the bar on what is considered "rich"

It ain't too hard to figure out.

I agree with you. A guy making $300,000 is not the same as a guy making a million. The guy making a million should pay a higher rate of tax.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The meaning is the democrats are continually lowering the bar on what is considered "rich"

It ain't too hard to figure out.

I agree with you. A guy making $300,000 is not the same as a guy making a million. The guy making a million should pay a higher rate of tax.

Hahahahahahaha.... a lucid post.

 

[editec]

So...somebody making $300,000 a year is what?

Middle class?

Then how about somebody making $30,000?

Also middle class?

There are subjective terms, there is no right answer folks.

 

[American Horse]

The meaning is the democrats are continually lowering the bar on what is considered "rich"

It ain't too hard to figure out.

They are?

Then why did the authors bother talking about millionaires?

Plenty of people with million dollars net worths are not rich as most of us understand the term.

If the authors of WSJ wanted to complain about the changes in tax codes, they really ought to have just siad that, instead of couching their meaning behind all this talk about the rich.

It seems to me the WSJ is rightfully bewailing the recent penchant to classify people as "rich" and worse still as "millionaires" and so to villify them. If they can be vilified, then it is easier to confiscate their excess wealth.

Now perhaps my blue collar roots are showing, but I defintiely think that somebody making $250,000 a year is rich.

Not superrich, but rich enough.

What's YOUR definition of that term?

Earnings and income are ephemeral. A person earning $250,000 per year is very possibly spending every dollar. That may continue for a while but it can end at any time too. I would never call them rich, but they do have the potential of becoming rich over time, if they are frugal and save.

I remember a few years back that Al Gore said that someone earning $200,00 p.a. could be called rich because in 5 years time (everything was calculated in five year increments back then) they would've earned a million dollars, the level of income which fits the average persons concept of being rich; a millionaire.

As for me, being rich would be having enough assets that the growth of those assets (invested in some way) can provide a good standard of living without drawing down the principle asset.

all this talk about the rich....is another way of creating a group to villify, them by us. It's nothing less than class warfare; something too many are vulnerable to, and the threshold is being ever lowered. I admire and respect the rich. They make my life easier because they ask (contract with) me to do stuff, and they give me money for doing it. I am not seperated from these people. I'm happy that they are so busy making money that they don't inform themselves any better than they do about things they need to have done.

If you are a person who can find ways to fill their needs by some means of providing services for them, it's hard to hate them. If you are a person, once removed from that situtation, they are easy to hate for no better reason than because they don't choose to share their welath. Bus tours through wealthy neighborhoods is a way of terrorizing the wealthy, certainly for less than noble reasons and that is what comes from villainizing tbe rich.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Opinion: Tax Plans Redefine 'Rich' - WSJ.com

Has your 401(k) lost half its value? Have you kissed goodbye to the bonus you were hoping to use to pay junior's college tuition? Do you lie awake at night, worrying there's a pink slip with your name on it?

Cheer up. Even in these hard economic times, Democrats across the nation are working on plans that will turn some of you into instant millionaires.

There's only one catch. You're not actually going to be bringing in a million-dollar income.

A millionaire is somebody with a NET WORTH of at least one million dollars.

Income has nothing to do with the term: "millionaire"

One might think that the Wall Street Journal would understand the difference between income and net worth.

But the tax man is going to treat you just as though you did.

No, the taxman is going to treat your income as income.

The tax man doesn't tax your net worth, it taxes your income.

Is this Wall Street jounalist retarded or something?

Skull, when you read crap like this, one with these linguistic mistakes, with obvious designed distortion of word meanings which serve to inflame the passions while obfucating the truth, this doesn't trouble you at all?

Only little over half your taxes are income based.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The meaning is the democrats are continually lowering the bar on what is considered "rich"

It ain't too hard to figure out.

They are?

Then why did the authors bother talking about millionaires?

Plenty of people with million dollars net worths are not rich as most of us understand the term.

If the authors of WSJ wanted to complain about the changes in tax codes, they really ought to have just siad that, instead of couching their meaning behind all this talk about the rich.

It seems to me the WSJ is rightfully bewailing the recent penchant to classify people as "rich" and worse still as "millionaires" and so to villify them. If they can be vilified, then it is easier to confiscate their excess wealth.

Now perhaps my blue collar roots are showing, but I defintiely think that somebody making $250,000 a year is rich.

Not superrich, but rich enough.

What's YOUR definition of that term?

Earnings and income are ephemeral. A person earning $250,000 per year is very possibly spending every dollar. That may continue for a while but it can end at any time too. I would never call them rich, but they do have the potential of becoming rich over time, if they are frugal and save.

I remember a few years back that Al Gore said that someone earning $200,00 p.a. could be called rich because in 5 years time (everything was calculated in five year increments back then) they would've earned a million dollars, the level of income which fits the average persons concept of being rich; a millionaire.

As for me, being rich would be having enough assets that the growth of those assets (invested in some way) can provide a good standard of living without drawing down the principle asset.

all this talk about the rich....is another way of creating a group to villify, them by us. It's nothing less than class warfare; something too many are vulnerable to, and the threshold is being ever lowered. I admire and respect the rich. They make my life easier because they ask (contract with) me to do stuff, and they give me money for doing it. I am not seperated from these people. I'm happy that they are so busy making money that they don't inform themselves any better than they do about things they need to have done.

If you are a person who can find ways to fill their needs by some means of providing services for them, it's hard to hate them. If you are a person, once removed from that situtation, they are easy to hate for no better reason than because they don't choose to share their welath. Bus tours through wealthy neighborhoods is a way of terrorizing the wealthy, certainly for less than noble reasons and that is what comes from villainizing tbe rich.

Basically, you are "rich", if you can sustain your lifestyle, whatever it is, off of your own income earning assets, not having to do work for someone else.....

So if your chosen lifestyle is living under a bridge in a cardboard box and eating at soup kitchens, and you do that without working for someone else....you are "rich".