What annual income puts you among "The Rich"?

[Steel 0]

Quote

Okay, $2500/month, let's say roughly $1675 after taxes (just ballpark). After rent there's not much left to live on for the rest of the month. How the hell do you plan for that? Not eat? Skip rent? Live by candlelight? Move in with Mom and Dad? That sounds like bad planning to me.

I have no idea how you mixed up those numbers. I think you were confusing approximately 2600 a week after taxes for somebody earning 200K/yearly, and then mixing that with somebody saying that they paid $1675. a month after taxes, or I just don't know where that came from.

Maybe you meant to respond to somebody else, if so no worries.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Okay, $2500/month, let's say roughly $1675 after taxes (just ballpark). After rent there's not much left to live on for the rest of the month. How the hell do you plan for that? Not eat? Skip rent? Live by candlelight? Move in with Mom and Dad? That sounds like bad planning to me.

Oh ok, looking closer, I see your confusion. You are thinking that somebody who makes 30K/yearly, needs to live with their parents. Therefore you think its impossible to survive on that.

I am not sure where you live or who you associate with but I know plenty of people who are living on that, and less. Many of these people's parents are actually dead, so mooching of their parents is not an option for them. I really don't care enough about this to break the bills for you. I'll let you do that yourself. But to give you a head start, I know plenty of people renting apartments for less than 5-6 hundred a month even inside the Dallas metroplex. Out in the boonies, I am sure they can get little crappy apartments for less than $400, or for that matter they could even live in a trailer.

One way or the other I really don't care, how they survive, I just know they do.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Let's try that again.

Warren Buffett tells us that overall his secretary pays tax at a higher rate than he does, based presumably on the different sources of their income.

In general the poor don't have a whole lot of investment income, and the middle class still primarily depend on earned income. The rich in general depend less on earned income and derive more from investments.

Hence the tax code favors the rich, just as Buffett said. I think we should give him the benefit of knowing his own and his employee's affairs better than you do.

It's easy when you take off your blinders.

Or, its easy if you had written your stance better the first time without the not so hidden slams.

I don't think anyone denies that he paid a lower RATE than his secretary...But it seems the article you posted seems to try to spin it like he paid LESS in taxes. That's just flat wrong.

.

INCORRECT. My post VERY CLEARLY stated "tax rate". Not my fault if you skipped it in your anxiety to respond.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

INCORRECT. My post VERY CLEARLY stated "tax rate". Not my fault if you skipped it in your anxiety to respond.

Actually it did not

Quote

So the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise.Shocked

(Not really)

I don't see anything but you making a comment and then linking to an article that attempts to make the claim that he paid LESS IN TAXES. I defiantly do not see anything about RATE anywhere in there.

Sorry, you are just not correct.

As for my "anxiety to respond". Notice it was a good 24+ hours later that I bothered to reply to you.

You: Aug 26, 2008, 10:50 AM
Me: Aug 27, 2008, 11:09 PM

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

INCORRECT. My post VERY CLEARLY stated "tax rate". Not my fault if you skipped it in your anxiety to respond.

Actually it did not

Actually, it DID.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3309374#3309374

And from the very first sentence in the article (the one you must have skipped):

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Actually, it DID.
http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3309374#3309374

Nope, check post 175 of this thread. That is post 182.

In fact, you replied to MY post where *I* mention rate. Then you make the post with the article an NO mention of rate.

Sorry Sir, the evidence does not support your position here.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

he cited the posting - replying with a hyperlink to another one isn't much of a refute.

probably a sign that this horse is done.

[kallend 2,150]

Ron: "I defiantly (sic) do not see anything about RATE anywhere in there".


The cited article, sentence 1"

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

No ambiguity there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No ambiguity there.

nope - you have no response to Ron - and engaging in your usual gambit of substituting in a different posting. It's not like it's the first time you've done it.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

No ambiguity there.

nope - you have no response to Ron - and engaging in your usual gambit of substituting in a different posting. It's not like it's the first time you've done it.

Try reading the post Ron cited, (#175) instead of pontificating.


Cited Article: "Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner."


Ron: "I defiantly do not see anything about RATE anywhere in there."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The cited article, sentence 1"

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

No ambiguity there.

Yeah, except the TITLE says otherwise: "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary"

And as I claimed YOU made no reference to RATE till much later.

You can attempt to change or modify your answer, but the data is laid out for all to see... The data shows you to be incorrect.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The cited article, sentence 1"

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

No ambiguity there.

Yeah, except the TITLE says otherwise: "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary"

And as I claimed YOU made no reference to RATE till much later.

You can attempt to change or modify your answer, but the data is laid out for all to see... The data shows you to be incorrect.

Ron:
"I defiantly do not see anything about RATE anywhere in there."

Sentence 1:
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner."

"Anywhere in there"? What does "anywhere" mean? Excluding places that disagree with your position?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Actually, it DID.
http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3309374#3309374

Nope, check post 175 of this thread. That is post 182.

In fact, you replied to MY post where *I* mention rate. Then you make the post with the article an NO mention of rate.

Sorry Sir, the evidence does not support your position here.

No mention of rate? What does this say, in sentence 1 of the article cited in post 175?
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No mention of rate? What does this say, in sentence 1 of the article cited in post 175?

sorry, bubba, if the article's points were that important to you, quote it in the posting.

man, this horse is a rotten nag.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Whether you make 30, 50, or 500, you should be able to plan out what you are going to buy, such that you are not going to be eating rice and beans for the last 3 days before getting your check because you were too stupid to plan ahead.

What have you got against rice & beans?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Whether you make 30, 50, or 500, you should be able to plan out what you are going to buy, such that you are not going to be eating rice and beans for the last 3 days before getting your check because you were too stupid to plan ahead.

What have you got against rice & beans?

Nothing, I try to make them part of most of my meals. But there is a difference between being part of and being all of. I also include beef, poultry, pork, fish or some kind of meat with that.

However, it is common when people are close to runing out of money to have rice and beans alone.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[pirana 0]

Quote

. . . offering a tax incentive for investing rather than spending is likely a good thing, as it encourages desirable behavior.

Blues,
Dave

That is a solid, bottom line, end-of-the-day statement.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

He said, "{rich is when you make enough off of the income from your accumulated wealth that you don't have to work. }".

That seems twisted to me. It implies that work is bad, or that the goal is to not work, or something like that.

Work is good. It's good for the body and mind. Though on the other side of the coin, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

I suppose it depends on a person's principles. If a person does see work as a bad thing, then I guess having the resources to never work is a good goal. My observation however is that people who see work as a bad thing live in shitholes, whine about having squat, bitch about "rich" people, and eat dogfood after the unemployment runs out and the welfare chack is a few days late.

And it is a good thing everybody doesn't feel work is a bad thing.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

. . . offering a tax incentive for investing rather than spending is likely a good thing, as it encourages desirable behavior.

Blues,
Dave

That is a solid, bottom line, end-of-the-day statement.

Working is desirable behavior too. How about an incentive for earned income?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Do we have a bottom line for this thread then?

Work is good, so is saving, and "rich" does not equal evil.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Working is desirable behavior too. How about an incentive for earned income?

Like the standard deduction and progressive brackets?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Working is desirable behavior too. How about an incentive for earned income?

Like the standard deduction and progressive brackets?

Does that bring Buffett's secretary's RATE down to Buffett's RATE? He says not, and he's not known to be untruthful.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Do we have a bottom line for this thread then?

Work is good, so is saving, and "rich" does not equal evil.

From the thread title, and the poll at the top of the page, it looks like a log-normal distribution peaking around $250,000 annual income.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

He said, "{rich is when you make enough off of the income from your accumulated wealth that you don't have to work. }".

That seems twisted to me. It implies that work is bad, or that the goal is to not work, or something like that.

I've met plenty of people who've accumulated enough that they don't need to work and am trying for the same thing myself. After I pull it off I'll do the same thing they did - work full-time on interesting things without regard for the paycheck (or lack thereof) which goes with it.

I'll probably mix small self-funded technology startups with a high-end audio business.

Other people have different definitions of "interesting" things - one guy I worked with became a high-school math teacher after he retired not much past forty.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Working is desirable behavior too. How about an incentive for earned income?

Like the standard deduction and progressive brackets?

Does that bring Buffett's secretary's RATE down to Buffett's RATE? He says not, and he's not known to be untruthful.

Her income tax rate is lower than his. No question about it. If someone was only going to earn 40k/year, they'd be better off with it being in the form of salary than dividends or other investment income. If instead it was a million, the other way around.

SS taxes skew the effective taxation rate up, but do generate income in retirement. Can't really ignore the other end. If you make twice the 2008 FICA limit of 102,000, your SS rate is effectively half, but you also don't get any additional benefits over that limit. At least on paper, SS benefits are driven by how much is paid in. If you raise the limit to 1M, those people will get paid more later in retirement.