What annual income puts you among "The Rich"?

[rushmc 23]

It's easy when you take off your blinders.

Oh shit man


Coming from you???

Stop it

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

[jumpwally 0]

last thing i want is to is start a pissing contest... I just want to know if you know what percentage of americans make less than 100k per year, as individuals, not households. That i think shows a different bar to base a discussion on,,thats all.

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

last thing i want is to is start a pissing contest

Why are you here, then?

...

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

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does.

I wonder what % of Joe's income is from investments, as compared to the average billionaire.

translation - the good professor thinks that getting identical tax rates on identical investments = 'preferential treatment" for the one with more wealth or income or even just if they look different or live somewhere or say things other than what the libs want them to

Mike - once you realize this, it's easier to recognize the exchange will go nowhere

Some people have money, some don't. The people with money can invest it for income. The people without it must work for income. Income taxes are lower for investment earnings than they are on labor earnings. Therefore, the people with money have the opportunity to have their income taxed at a lower rate than those without money.

The question isn't really whether different sources of income are taxed equally, it's whether they should be. In my opinion, offering a tax incentive for investing rather than spending is likely a good thing, as it encourages desirable behavior.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Steel 0]

Quote

last thing i want is to is start a pissing contest... I just want to know if you know what percentage of americans make less than 100k per year, as individuals, not households. That i think shows a different bar to base a discussion on,,thats all.

Your statement was based on your claim that I said someone making 100K was a loser. I never said that. I never even said that someone making less than that was a loser. What I said was that somebody who thinks that 100K is "rich" is a loser, and I stand by that.

"Rich", I don't believe means above average and I don't believe it means double or triple what the average is either. I think Ron's definition made the most sense, when comparing it to all the others posted here. (I did not post my definition of "rich" for the record, I just posted what I thought was foolish to refer as "rich").

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

Somebody making 100K or even 250K, who likes to indulge in the finer things in life, will most likely be living from paycheck to paycheck. These people usually have to worry about keeping their jobs to avoid struggling just like all the others making less.

Whereas people who have accumulated wealth for which they don't need to work, have less to worry about in terms of financial security.

People at the bottom of the todompole, may tend to think that 100K or even 200K is so much money, that it would solve all their financial struggles but they are extremely shortcited in thinking so. This kind of thinking also indicates a great deal of helplessness, and for that reason I referred to people who think this way as losers.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Somebody making 100K or even 250K, who likes to indulge in the finer things in life, will most likely be living from paycheck to paycheck. These people usually have to worry about keeping their jobs to avoid struggling just like all the others making less.

...

People at the bottom of the todompole, may tend to think that 100K or even 200K is so much money, that it would solve all their financial struggles but they are extremely shortcited in thinking so. This kind of thinking also indicates a great deal of helplessness, and for that reason I referred to people who think this way as losers.

Someone earning 250k/year, but living paycheck to paycheck, is in a fact a loser. An individual (as opposed to a family) earning 100k even in regions like the Bay Area, that is living paycheck to paycheck, is also showing loserish tendencies.

Our cost of living isn't that high. At those incomes, you can and should be saving substantially. Adding in retirement accounts, these people should be saving the equilivient of the average American's salary each year.

People's inability to save as their income grows does explain some insane notions of minimum income to feel wealthy. And it explains why general happiness does not increase after salary meets the primary needs.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The question isn't really whether different sources of income are taxed equally, it's whether they should be. In my opinion, offering a tax incentive for investing rather than spending is likely a good thing, as it encourages desirable behavior.

Actually, I think all sources of income are 'income' and it's the dollars that matter, not where they come from. I'd except money transfers between family members (gifts, inheritance, etc) only.

I don't think "incentives", "penalties", oddball interpretations of "fairness" - should be the business of the government - nor the income baseline that the taxpayer comes from either. I'd rather see just a straight percentage based off of all income after some kind of COL deduction.

It's like buying a shirt - I go in the store, I buy the shirt for X dollars. Next guy goes in, buys the same shirt for the same price. It doesn't matter the relative income of the two guys, it doesn't matter that the 1st shirt was bought with hourly income and 2nd shirt was bought with money found on the sidewalk, it doesn't matter where each guy lives, or what politics each is indoctrinated in.

Too many caviats, too much impotent self congratulatory attempts at social engineering.

Just because Kallend is a rich guy - I don't think he should pay double for his Couch Freaks lift tickets than me. Only half again as much.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Somebody making 100K or even 250K, who likes to indulge in the finer things in life, will most likely be living from paycheck to paycheck. These people usually have to worry about keeping their jobs to avoid struggling just like all the others making less.

...

People at the bottom of the todompole, may tend to think that 100K or even 200K is so much money, that it would solve all their financial struggles but they are extremely shortcited in thinking so. This kind of thinking also indicates a great deal of helplessness, and for that reason I referred to people who think this way as losers.

Someone earning 250k/year, but living paycheck to paycheck, is in a fact a loser. An individual (as opposed to a family) earning 100k even in regions like the Bay Area, that is living paycheck to paycheck, is also showing loserish tendencies.

Our cost of living isn't that high. At those incomes, you can and should be saving substantially. Adding in retirement accounts, these people should be saving the equilivient of the average American's salary each year.

People's inability to save as their income grows does explain some insane notions of minimum income to feel wealthy. And it explains why general happiness does not increase after salary meets the primary needs.

I think this is coming down to opinion. I don't belive that people should be referred to as losers based on their spending habits. If that were the case, whuffos would consider all of us losers.

I agree that nobody making over 30K should be living pay check to pay check. But this is the way most people live. I can think of many instances when I have heard a coe worker suggest we go out to eat as a group and then have heard another say, he didn't have any money until payday. I do think this is pathetic and it shows a lack of planning and self control. That is, most people get paid and spend what they have without any planning.

I wouldn't go so far as to specify how somebody should save for retirement. I think that is a personal choice. For instance, I have a 10 year mortage for which I have less than 6 years left. Some would argue that having a 30 year mortgage and deducting more interest off their federal income tax is better. Many would also argue that saving more of the excess money in a 401K might be better. But I could come back and cite all the Nortel workers that had their 401K turn to shit over a couple of years. Or I could explain that if you pay an extra 1000 dollars in interest and deduct it, you might save 330 dollars but you are still down $670. And that with my house paid off with the property increase I could increase my net worth more than with a 401K.

In the end, I may think I am making the best decision just as somebody making a completely different decision may think they are correct. But its no longer black and white. There are too many factors to consider.

Also editted to add, I did not specify if the person making these amounts had a family to support or not. But anyway even somebody single making 200K a year could easily be left with $2,500. weekly after taxes. Suppose this person wanted to own a 44' yacht to use for sport fishing. They could easily be financing over 500K for just that alone. Add in a car payment and their house mortagage and you could easily see that money start to dwindle away.
Is it fair to call this person a loser because they chose to prioritize their spending differently than you would? I don't think so.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, I think all sources of income are 'income' and it's the dollars that matter, not where they come from. I'd except money transfers between family members (gifts, inheritance, etc) only.

I don't think "incentives", "penalties", oddball interpretations of "fairness" - should be the business of the government - nor the income baseline that the taxpayer comes from either. I'd rather see just a straight percentage based off of all income after some kind of COL deduction.

But that's not our reality right now. The government favors marriage (with caveats), homeownership to a huge degree, and investing long term and in dividend producing equities.

The favorable treatment on homes is partly to blame for the bubble, the bursting, and the large number of families who have no wealth outside their home, and now thanks to their cash out refi's, no cash within the homes as well.

It's much more beneficial to our society to encourage long term holding of dividend paying stocks.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think this is coming down to opinion. I don't belive that people should be referred to as losers based on their spending habits. If that were the case, whuffos would consider all of us losers.

if you're going to call some people losers, so will I. But the jumpers mostly don't fit. By your definition, most of the skydivers I know wouldn't qualify. And even those that do live the skydiver/trailer life, it's no different than surfer/ski bums who live their 20s in recreational pursuit. Few of them are buying lexus sedans to drive to the DZ.

Quote

I wouldn't go so far as to specify how somebody should save for retirement. I think that is a personal choice. For instance, I have a 10 year mortage for which I have less than 6 years left. Some would argue that having a 30 year mortgage and deducting more interest off their federal income tax is better. Many would also argue that saving more of the excess money in a 401K might be better. But I could come back and cite all the Nortel workers that had their 401K turn to shit over a couple of years. Or I could explain that if you pay an extra 1000 dollars in interest and deduct it, you might save 330 dollars but you are still down $670. And that with my house paid off with the property increase I could increase my net worth more than with a 401K.

Historically, housing prices go up slightly better than inflation, maybe 5%. Equities tend close to 10%, and don't have insurance and upkeep requirements. Your house is your home, not a super investment. It is a tax shelter, but someone that puts 80% of their wealth in their home is badly diversified. And your deduction of 1000$ in interest is no better than the deduction of 1000$ in the 401k account. And in the latter, that money still belongs to you.

401ks that went to shit are ones where the accounts were concentrated in company stock. The foolishness of doing this has been long known; it should represent less than 20% of your portfolio.

Quote

Also editted to add, I did not specify if the person making these amounts had a family to support or not. But anyway even somebody single making 200K a year could easily be left with $2,500. weekly after taxes. Suppose this person wanted to own a 44' yacht to use for sport fishing. They could easily be financing over 500K for just that alone. Add in a car payment and their house mortagage and you could easily see that money start to dwindle away.
Is it fair to call this person a loser because they chose to prioritize their spending differently than you would? I don't think so.

If owning a 44' yacht means living paycheck to paycheck, then that person is a fucking idiot. It's not a question of spending priorities. That person can rent, share, or buy used, or buy smaller for much less than 500k.

[Channman 2]

> I'd say half a mil. $100k is comfortable and $250k is pretty well-off, but not "rich".

Jumping into this way late. Comfortable is relitive to where one lives say in Texas yes, $100,000 would make one comfortable, however in San Francisco I would hardly say you could afford a home, much less the taxes.

I think the term John is using "RICH" would be a figure that would allow someone to live a life style that gave them freedom of time and freedom to pursue their dreams. So I would agree that $500,000 would be the lowest end of being RICH, unless of course we begin using the word Wealthy which I believe from a WSJ article now begins at 5 million.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's much more beneficial to our society to encourage long term holding of dividend paying stocks.

That's clearly a "compared to what" kind of statement, but I know what you are saying.

Mostly, I'm on a different assumption. I think ANYTHING that's artificailly encouraged or discouraged by the government is either harmful NOW, or long term.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Steel 0]

If owning a 44' yacht means living paycheck to paycheck, then that person is a fucking idiot.

----------------------------------------------

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I am not saying I would do that, but I wouldn't be so judgemental. Also there are many other ways that someone could spend that money without saving any of it. They could finance 350K on their house and 200K on a used boat and 85K on a car, pay the phone bill, internet bill, utilities, go out to restaurants a couple of times a week, etc...

Also I am not sure who you were referring to when saying someone putting 80% of their income toward their house. I won't post any specific numbers but I will say that my principal and interest payments on my house account to less than 20% of my salary.

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.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

but living paycheck to paycheck, is in a fact a loser. An individual (as opposed to a family) earning 100k even in regions like the Bay Area, that is living paycheck to paycheck, is also showing loserish tendencies.

I am not going to disclose what I make, but in an of itself it would be plenty for one person.

However, between paying back law school loans and high credit card bills incurred while putting myself through law school, right now I am living paycheck to paycheck to pay that back. I don't think that makes me 'loserish' - nor is it an inability to save my income.

A friend of mine is in even worse shape than I am - went through med school (now is a resident) and put himself in horrible credit card and loan debt to do so. Until he gets a 'real doctor' job he'll probably just be squeaking by. I don't think that's 'loserish' either.

[kelpdiver 2]

Yes, I think you raise a valid counterexample.

I think you'll agree that school loans are different from a half million dollar boat loan. Spending 100-200k on law school, or nearly 500k on med school is an investment in money and knowledge, one that pays back afterwards. A boat is a rapidly depreciating asset into which you dump money for recreational wishes.

We're really talking more about people who are spending their entire takehome on non essentials.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If owning a 44' yacht means living paycheck to paycheck, then that person is a fucking idiot.

----------------------------------------------

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I am not saying I would do that, but I wouldn't be so judgemental. Also there are many other ways that someone could spend that money without saving any of it. They could finance 350K on their house and 200K on a used boat and 85K on a car, pay the phone bill, internet bill, utilities, go out to restaurants a couple of times a week, etc...

Your new scenario is still just as stupid. One doesn't need a boat or a 85k car. Or even a new 30k car. Housing is the only expensive essential (my rent is 1695). Those are luxuries, to be paid for out of that part of your budget. Some level of savings - the 10% classic is a absolute minimum I'd say before splurging on depreciating vehicles, and personally I'd want it to be higher.

You lose your income, and now you have to sell that 500k (or 200k) boat in a hurry. How good a price will you get? On the new boat, you'll take a bath. On the used one, you'll still likely be underwater.

Quote

Also I am not sure who you were referring to when saying someone putting 80% of their income toward their house. I won't post any specific numbers but I will say that my principal and interest payments on my house account to less than 20% of my salary.

I said 80% of wealth, not income. Lots of people are house rich (on paper), but have little other wealth. Many of those people treated their homes like ATM machines and with the current depression in home values, have no assets at all. Even those who don't have a notion that they can take out this money in their retirement years, though it's not clear where they think they will live then. If 80% of your wealth is in the illiquid equity of your home, you're not in great shape.

As a renter in SF, I'm completely house poor, but could be unemployed for 5 years without dramatically changing my lifestyle. Perhaps thanks to the crazy people in the bubble, prices will depress to the point where a home committment becomes attractive.

[livendive 8]

Quote

You lose your income, and now you have to sell that 500k (or 200k) boat in a hurry. How good a price will you get? On the new boat, you'll take a bath. On the used one, you'll still likely be underwater.

Ha ha, very punny.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PLFXpert 0]

I like you.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does.

I wonder what % of Joe's income is from investments, as compared to the average billionaire.

translation - the good professor thinks that getting identical tax rates on identical investments = 'preferential treatment" for the one with more wealth or income or even just if they look different or live somewhere or say things other than what the libs want them to

Mike - once you realize this, it's easier to recognize the exchange will go nowhere

Some people have money, some don't. The people with money can invest it for income. The people without it must work for income. Income taxes are lower for investment earnings than they are on labor earnings. Therefore, the people with money have the opportunity to have their income taxed at a lower rate than those without money.

The question isn't really whether different sources of income are taxed equally, it's whether they should be. In my opinion, offering a tax incentive for investing rather than spending is likely a good thing, as it encourages desirable behavior.

Blues,
Dave

Working for a living is desirable behavior too.

...

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

[bjjman 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is paying the cost of running the country a penalty?

I never said that; paying taxes is a good thing in that regard. I'm just referring to the portion of taxes that go to help (and therefore encourage) lazy/irresponsible people.

" ...responsible people should be penalized "

I think you'll find penalized and penalty share the same root.

How about the $12BILLION a month in direct costs of a war started under false pretenses and that helps no Americans at all. I'm sure we could do without that.

You're putting words in my mouth. Go back to your original post that I replied to and you'll see that I was referring to your comment that people with too many houses to count are fair game for taxes, while homeless are not. Never was there discussion between us of "running a country" until you interjected it.

Likewise, your war example is irrelevant to our specific dialogue. Though I agree, we could do without a war like that.

As far as penalized and penalty sharing a root, I don't see it; the words don't look similar at all! On a serious note, and off-topic, sharing a root does not necessarily mean two words have similar meanings.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein

[bjjman 0]

Quote

...nobody making over 30K should be living pay check to pay check.

WTF??!!!! Where do you live? That's $2500/month before taxes.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

...nobody making over 30K should be living pay check to pay check.

WTF??!!!! Where do you live? That's $2500/month before taxes.

I think you are missing the point and I really don't care to spend the day re-explaining it. The point is that cashing your paycheck and spending it without any planning, such that you find yourself with nothing until you get your next check is not the wisest thing to do. 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.

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.

[mirage62 0]

Rich is SIMPLE - it's having enough left over to do what you want to reasonable do AFTER you have paid all your bills. That can be on 30K - 5 Billion. The catch is the first part. With easy credit and human nature we all want our "toys". We want to skydive a LOT, we want a NEW car......ect, ect. Someone who is happy in say a small house, but jumping there ass off (because thats what they really want to do) who "ONLY" makes $75,000 can be much richer than someone who makes $500,000 but can't do what they really want because they owe for things that really haven't made them "rich"

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[bjjman 0]

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.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein

[Ron 10]

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.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the poor invest less than the rich.

I would like to think you would agree that people who create jobs are good for the economy as a whole. So why you may think that the wealthy are getting some favor...In reality, they are getting taxed *completely* fairly...The exact SAME from the same source.

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