0
kallend

What annual income puts you among "The Rich"?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

>Humm, where did I say that?

Come on! One more post!



2 to 2

( there ya go big boy)

but not one post as you prophesized

Now I await you going for the win:)


Just can't help yourself, can you?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>Humm, where did I say that?

Come on! One more post!



2 to 2

( there ya go big boy)

but not one post as you prophesized

Now I await you going for the win:)


Just can't help yourself, can you?


I can't?????:D

You two try and shut up someone with stupid eletists type tactics and you say I cant help myself??


:D:D:D

kallend 3 billvon 2

You win!!!:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Blah blah blah

If you listen to a Democrat with fuzzy math they will claim that because of inflation or baseline spending that somehow Clinton lowered the deficit. What a joke that is!



The only fuzziness here is in your confusing of "debt" with "deficit".

Not that I'd expect mere FACTS to influence a Bush fan.


I already acknowledged my error calling the debt the deficit. However, with a little common sense and seeing as I was talking in cummilitive terms, one could clearly infer that my focus was on that which is long term and doesn't reset itself every year.

wow internet is down at work but I was able to send this from my blackbery, how cool!
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered your post and you were just a smart ass.

Being rich is relative and subjective to whom ever you ask. It is dependant on where the person you are asking the question stands relative to the numbers you post.

I suspect however, you were heading toward who YOU think should get taxed what.

But, since you got called on this stupid ass thread you get all insulting and pissy.

What a hoot.

You won even bigger with style points added in:D:D:D

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I guess that could come down to opinion. But my opinion is that a difference with leaving the National DEBT at 1.7 times where you got it verses 1.5, when you take the price of the conflicts that Bush has had to deal with, makes it such that Bush is getting more for OUR money.



We can't afford geometric growth of the deficit from Administration to Administration. (BTW, it would be highly interesting to include Reagan and Bush - I think you'll find that the last name of Bush corresponds to horrendous growth in the debt).

If Obama or McCain adds 70% to the debt, we'll be at 17T, or ~5 times our annual spending, rather than ~3. Doesn't that idea scare the crap out of you?

The deficit needs to drop to 100B or less for us RIGHT NOW for us to have a shot of growing our way to a healthier position, and given the impending inbalance for SS/MC, it should be zero or surplus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


My first questions were "what is the distribution on annual income across the US"? And how does that correlate to purchasing power? E.g., $100k/y in northern Michigan would likely be "rich"; in northern California (SF Bay area) that would correlate to a substantially lower purchasing power (unless one owned a home before Proposition 13 went into law.)



100k in the Bay Area now means you're a renter, or your commute is now a really expensive proposition. 72k is by one measure the minimum household income for a family of 4, one that doesn't save.

In many regions, you could get the same living on 50-60% of the salaries here.

I do not, however, know how to fairly normalize the tax systems to take this into account. Investment income in particular shouldn't get different treatment based on the local cost of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give u credit in sticking 2 the facts on this one.

The reason tax cuts don't imediately increase revenue is because companies need 2 see the tax cuts b4 they could act on them.

We can agree on the numbers being compared (1.4 verses 1.7). However, I don't agree that it was an optional war.
I do believe it could have been kept it on the backburner. But, then I also believe it would only make it worse when we were finally forced 2 deal with it.

Finally, I don't give Clinton or Gore credit for the internet. My reference 2 the .com's was only to point to what very positively adding to the economy @ the time.

Now although I have impressed myself with my blackberry, I am done typing in this tiny keyboard.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I answered your post and you were just a smart ass.

Being rich is relative and subjective to whom ever you ask. It is dependant on where the person you are asking the question stands relative to the numbers you post.

I suspect however, you were heading toward who YOU think should get taxed what.

But, since you got called on this stupid ass thread you get all insulting and pissy.

What a hoot.

You won even bigger with style points added in:D:D:D



BINGO - Bill won!
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It really depends on where you live. In areas where the cost of living is higher, people's salaries don't go as far. For what I'm paying in a mortgage on a two bedroom condo here in Cali, I could buy a really nice house in another part of the country.



Well, you have the OPTION of moving to that cheaper part of the country and taking your assets with you, so those Cali assets certainly count towards your richness. If it weren't desirable to live in Cali, there wouldn't be the demand to drive prices up. One of the benefits of being rich is not having to live by toxic waste dumps or sewage treatment plants, or sleep on park benches.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, I don't agree that it was an optional war.
I do believe it could have been kept it on the backburner. But, then I also believe it would only make it worse when we were finally forced 2 deal with it.



Why would mythical WMDs force anyone to deal with them. Since Bush had to fabricate reasons to go to war, it most certainly WAS optional.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It really depends on where you live. In areas where the cost of living is higher, people's salaries don't go as far. For what I'm paying in a mortgage on a two bedroom condo here in Cali, I could buy a really nice house in another part of the country.



Well, you have the OPTION of moving to that cheaper part of the country and taking your assets with you, so those Cali assets certainly count towards your richness. If it weren't desirable to live in Cali, there wouldn't be the demand to drive prices up.



No. If I moved elsewhere, I wouldn't be making as much money either, if I stayed in a position similar to the one I'm in now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

It really depends on where you live. In areas where the cost of living is higher, people's salaries don't go as far. For what I'm paying in a mortgage on a two bedroom condo here in Cali, I could buy a really nice house in another part of the country.



Well, you have the OPTION of moving to that cheaper part of the country and taking your assets with you, so those Cali assets certainly count towards your richness. If it weren't desirable to live in Cali, there wouldn't be the demand to drive prices up.



No. If I moved elsewhere, I wouldn't be making as much money either, if I stayed in a position similar to the one I'm in now.



No, you don't have an option, or no, your Cali assets don't count, or no, Cali is not desirable?

I suspect you don't move to a cheaper place because Cali IS more desirable than Nebraska or Mississippi, which is why Cali prices are higher. So your income allows you to live in a nicer place.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


No, you don't have an option, or no, your Cali assets don't count, or no, Cali is not desirable?

I suspect you don't move to a cheaper place because Cali IS more desirable than Nebraska or Mississippi, which is why Cali prices are higher. So your income allows you to live in a nicer place.



1. No, I don't have that option. I'm admitted to the bar in California and no other state.
2. No, my Cali assets don't count because they're owned by the bank, not me.
3. No, I wouldn't be taking my income with me, because if I moved elsewhere, I'd make less money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


No, you don't have an option, or no, your Cali assets don't count, or no, Cali is not desirable?

I suspect you don't move to a cheaper place because Cali IS more desirable than Nebraska or Mississippi, which is why Cali prices are higher. So your income allows you to live in a nicer place.



1. No, I don't have that option. I'm admitted to the bar in California and no other state.
2. No, my Cali assets don't count because they're owned by the bank, not me.
3. No, I wouldn't be taking my income with me, because if I moved elsewhere, I'd make less money.



Were you forced to choose CA?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

McCain: $5 million a year. Got to be less than .1%; can't find any stats on that.



Must correct you on this statement. If you are basing the 5 mil comment on what was said during the Warren interview, then you're spinning. If you heard his answer, he clearly threw that in as a joke and clearly did not mean that to be his number.

Right after viewing the Warren interviews on CNN, I heard the CNN commentator do the exact same thing you just did. Instead of airing McCain's complete answer to the question, they only mentioned that one remark that was clearly meant in humor by McCain. And people here call Fox News 'Faux News'.:S

We hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.



_________________________________________
Chris






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


No, you don't have an option, or no, your Cali assets don't count, or no, Cali is not desirable?

I suspect you don't move to a cheaper place because Cali IS more desirable than Nebraska or Mississippi, which is why Cali prices are higher. So your income allows you to live in a nicer place.



1. No, I don't have that option. I'm admitted to the bar in California and no other state.
2. No, my Cali assets don't count because they're owned by the bank, not me.
3. No, I wouldn't be taking my income with me, because if I moved elsewhere, I'd make less money.



Were you forced to choose CA?



Even if I didn't choose California (and it was pretty much the default, since I was born here, my family is here, and my dad paid my bar exam fees for California and would not have done so for another state), and I went and paid the ridiculous fees to take another bar exam, I wouldn't be taking my income or assets to another state, because I'd be making less money and the bank owns my home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


No, you don't have an option, or no, your Cali assets don't count, or no, Cali is not desirable?

I suspect you don't move to a cheaper place because Cali IS more desirable than Nebraska or Mississippi, which is why Cali prices are higher. So your income allows you to live in a nicer place.



1. No, I don't have that option. I'm admitted to the bar in California and no other state.
2. No, my Cali assets don't count because they're owned by the bank, not me.
3. No, I wouldn't be taking my income with me, because if I moved elsewhere, I'd make less money.



Were you forced to choose CA?



Even if I didn't choose California (and it was pretty much the default, since I was born here, my family is here, and my dad paid my bar exam fees for California and would not have done so for another state), and I went and paid the ridiculous fees to take another bar exam, I wouldn't be taking my income or assets to another state, because I'd be making less money and the bank owns my home.



But if the CoL is less elsewhere, it would cancel out. So your higher income allows you to live in the Golden State and not have to live in Illinois like me. The rich have more options than the poor.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Anybody who thinks 100K/yearly is rich, is probably a looser with low asperations. I am sure there are plenty of them to go around



Quote

Thats hilarious considering that I have a Bachelours in Mathematics and have taken math classes that you probably could never dream of understanding.



Quote

Now although I have impressed myself with my blackberry, I am done typing in this tiny keyboard.



Holy crap. Your ego is absolutely staggering. So far, it's the only thing that's even remotely impressive about you.

Sheesh.
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

McCain: $5 million a year. Got to be less than .1%; can't find any stats on that.



Must correct you on this statement. If you are basing the 5 mil comment on what was said during the Warren interview, then you're spinning. If you heard his answer, he clearly threw that in as a joke and clearly did not mean that to be his number.

Right after viewing the Warren interviews on CNN, I heard the CNN commentator do the exact same thing you just did. Instead of airing McCain's complete answer to the question, they only mentioned that one remark that was clearly meant in humor by McCain. And people here call Fox News 'Faux News'.:S

We hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.


Didn't sound like a joke until he realized he'd put his foot in it and laughed.

I guess if you make $6M a year like he does, it's all good. I'd be laughing too if I made $6M a year and had my taxes reduced by $370,000.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So your higher income allows you to live in the Golden State and not have to live in Illinois like me.



It is also peace of mind. Where are you comfortable? For me I like living in Texas. I also live in a town that I have no family or traditional ties to. I just liked the community and moved here. I have a professional certification that would enable me to literally live anywhere in Texas, but I choose to live here. Moving to other towns could give me a significant pay increase ($10k) with a very similar cost of living, but I don't want to live there.

I'm also looking long term in regards to where I would like to raise a family. With an appropriate amount of family orientated things to do and a good school district.

Its not always about money.

It also helps that I'm pretty danged close to at least 5 dropzones, three of which are turbines.B|
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Didn't sound like a joke until he realized he'd put his foot in it and laughed.



It was clearly said as a joke. Just because he is not your candidate of choice, it won't kill you to be honest.



_________________________________________
Chris






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

People who gross $20K a year should not have to pay taxes.



According to CBO data, they're not.

In 2000, households making 37700 (pretax, 2005 dollars) had an Federal income tax rate of 1.5%

Year - Pretax - Tax Rate
2001 - 38000 - 0.3%
2002 - 26800 - 0.2%
2003 - 36400 - 1.1%
2004 - 37200 - 0.9%
2005 - 37400 - 1.0%
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0