Media figures argue that $250,000 in income is "not wealthy"
Several media figures have asserted that annual income of more than $250,000 is -- in the words of Rush Limbaugh -- "not wealthy" in order to attack President Obama's 2011 budget proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts on families earning more than $250,000 per year to expire as scheduled. According to 2006 Census data, households that earn more than $250,000 per year make up approximately two percent of all U.S. households.
Media figures assert that income of $250,000 is not wealthy
Limbaugh: "$250,000 is not wealthy." On the February 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Limbaugh said, "Ladies and gentlemen, $250,000 is not wealthy. And I know that you families, $250,000 -- you're not wealthy. Wealthy -- but Obama calls, the Democrats have always called those kind of people wealthy." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/1/10]
Fox's MacCallum: "[P]eople who make $250,000 -- in some parts of this country, they may not consider themselves rich." During the February 2 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Martha MacCallum stated that the revenue provisions in Obama's budget would affect "the rich, that is people who make over $250,000," adding, "in some parts of this country, they might not consider themselves rich." [America's Newsroom, 2/2/10]
CNN's Chetry: "Some would argue that in some parts of the country that [$250,000] is middle class." On the February 1 edition of CNN's American Morning, anchor Kiran Chetry discussed "letting taxes expire for families that make over $250,000," and stated, "Some would argue that in some parts of the country that is middle class." [American Morning, 2/1/10]
Less than 2 percent of households earn more than $250,000 per year
Census data shows that only 2 percent of households earn more than $250,000 annually. According to the 2006 Current Population Survey by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.2 million out of 116 million households -- less than two percent of all U.S. households -- earn more than $250,000 annually.
Limbaugh reportedly makes $50 million per year
Limbaugh "will be paid about $400 million" through 2016. As Media Matters previously documented, Rush Limbaugh reportedly signed an eight-year, $400 million contract with Clear Channel Communications and its syndication subsidiary, Premiere Radio Networks, in July 2008. According to The New York Times, Limbaugh's "$50 million a year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009."
This is just class warfare nonsense from MMfA, especially putting up Limbaugh's earnings.
The tax cuts were one of the ways Bush was able to make silly claims about the long term consequences of his budgets which are the main reason for large deficits
The problem with your case is that the source of the argument wasn't MMFA, it was Limbaugh. MMFA simply pointed out how fallacious Limbaugh's argument is.
So, it would seem to me that Limbaugh et. al. are the ones who are engaging in class warfare, while those on the left are pointing out that fact.
In my opinion, you have a pretty low bar (at least on the liberal side) as to what you consider to be class warfare.
Bear in mind, using that label isn't condemnatory of those at that level. It's just an observation of a statistical reality.
The income level that only 2% of Americans can attain is, without a doubt, legitimately called wealthy.
The reason that Limbaugh and others are trying to claim that it's not wealthy? To put the idea in the public's mind that it's unfair to chose that income level to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.
Of course it's not unfair to choose that level of income. They're the people who can best afford to pay some more in taxes!
And that's the issue here.
So what do YOU consider wealthy? hmmm...?
pathetic
Would that have any bearing on the discussion in any way? {psst - the answer is no}
You can bet the MM execs will never disclose their incomes, nor how much of it they give to charity. They are only interested in giving away the money others EARN.
Don't give me this garbage about taking money from one group to pay another: The rich have been doing that all the time! Marketing and advertising have developed into a highly evolved skill for swaying public opinion and manufacturing desires where there were none before.
The rich control what is produced (industrial food, cheap, throw-away products) and they control the media that persuades the masses to buy the crap they make.
Fortunately, the top marginal rate scheduled to go into effect in 2011 is 39%. Our ficitonal $250K person would pay less than 1/3 of salary in taxes. I think that's just. No, I don't think a 90% marginal rate is a good idea. I don't think you have heard many people on the left say so.
The concept that they wealthy "earn" their money, so therefore they should keep all of it, is laughable. They get their money from investing existing wealth, mostly, and can accumulate it faster than it can be taxed away. They use the roads, the bridges, the air traffic control system, the internet, and other infrastructure the government provides and/or organizes. They use the labor of Americans. They pollute the environment. They are protected in their activities by the legal system. They build wealth, directly through business activities or indirectly through investment, in a thousand ways that all rely on this little thing we call "society" to function. They are NOT John Galt. America and the wealthy have a symbiotic, not parasitic, relationship. But sadly, the wealthy (or at least the morons who shill for them on Web sites) just can't be satisfied with a taxation system that is of universal benefit. They shortsightedly argue for tax policies that beggar their neighbors (AKA their consumers) and create a society where everyone suffers (see 1990s vs. 2000s for an illustration of this). And stupidly, it's an extremely small amount of difference in taxes.
By the way, could you provide an example of a leftist (I'll let you off the hook for "many" examples, though you claim you have heard them) who thinks the wealthy should be taxed at 90% of their income? Hint: even someone who advocates a top marginal tax rate of 90% doesn't think the very rich should pay 90% of their income. Let alone the merely wealthy.
You appear to be out of your league.
more realistically have you considered that one may have a handy cap... say macular degeneration or some other vision issue???
I'm sorry, when did a time machine get invented? And when did you get back from the year 2035? And did you take pictures?
About 40%, Which is less than half what they should be paying since they control 89% of the wealth.
So exactly how much, or what percentage of the income tax revenues are paid by the top 2% of the earners...
The one thing you brought up that has anything to do with my arguments supports them: If the top 2% of income earners pay 40% of federal income tax despite our low top marginal tax rate, then they are incredibly wealthy and can afford to pay a little more.
Got anything else? Perhaps you'd like to say something about my momma? Or maybe you'll write "Homosaywhat?" Or maybe you'll realize you've got nothing and just STFU. I can dream.
If we let Obama's agenda continue, you'll have to adjust your thinking to about $125K salary as being wealthy. Fewer and fewer people will be making $250K.
It was them being in the top 2% that made them "wealthy".
Wherever the top 2% falls in earnings, that's where wealthy is.
But you're totally wrong about how there's going to be fewer and fewer people making that kind of money - the pattern has been that the rich have been getting MUCH richer. That's why they are paying a larger share of the taxes paid - not because the tax rates have gone up recently, but because they are earning so much more, and the middle and lower classes aren't gaining much at all in income!
I hadn't noticed you asking that question. I just saw you pointing your finger in the wrong direction when asserting "class warfare" and trying to smear those who would point out the fallacious basis of the class warfare being conducted by Limbaugh and the others.
Still, now that you've asked, I'll be happy to say why it matters. Limbaugh and other conservative demagogues have been trying to claim for two years now that an Obama presidency would result in increased taxes for the middle class. So far that claim has been unfulfilled and there's no sign of it happening anywhere in the near future. The only proposed tax hikes are on fewer than the highest 2% of incomes, and even those hikes are very modest. Therefore, in order for them to pretend the middle class is under attack they need to redefine the parameters of who is middle class.
That is why it matters. We're combating a conservative effort to misrepresent reality for PR purposes.
Except that it was the conservatives who were so concerned with the label that they were willing to make an argument that couldn't be supported statistically. You're right in one way, though; that quibbling on their part does show how fragile are the merits of their case.
Did you have any comments on anything that I actually DID say?
Typical. Tommy the Fraud.
He wouldn't know real class warfare even if there was a riot at his local high school.
That is exactly what this is about
Project much?
Just because that is YOUR mindset, rightON, doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. This is not about sticking it to the wealthy. This is about recognizing that those who are benefiting most from the system should be paying the most to support the system.
This whole thing is about conservative commentators (like Limbaugh) trying to redefine what middle class is, so they can accuse Obama of lying about taxes on the middle class.
$250,000 is not, statistically, middle class. Period. If Limbaugh and co. want to attack Obama's proposed tax hikes on the wealthy then go right on ahead. That's completely acceptable. But when they are trying to portray $250,000 as middle class, so that they can attack Obama that way, it just, to me, indicates that they have nothing of value to actually contribute to the debate. So they deceive.
Except to those who need them.
And for someone who seems to have such little regard for the meanings of labels, you sure seem to delight in labeling everyone who posts here a "liberal" as a way to discredit their opinions. Seems to me you're a person who invests a lot in labels.
The Empire State Building will always be a tall building as long as it's in the top 2%. LeBron James will always be tall, even if he's standing next to a person who's taller than LeBron is!
Someone in the top 2% is wealthy. Period. End of story. Anyone saying anything else is doing so for dishonest reasons.
It's above your simple pay grade.
Way to go Tommy!!!
right on is correct that this is a common tool for the left.
This is one of the dumbest things I have read in a long time. I guarantee you have never heard anyone say that before. Nobody would advocate the closing of all non-public schools. Political issues such as vouchers are what people disagree with, not the existence of charter or private schools.
Um, you really don't have a clue about anything do you? Would you care to go check Obama's position on Charter schools?
It is not the liberals here who are quibbling over labels, it is the brain dead conservative parrots, who don't recognize the class warfare of the wealthy, perpetrated upon the lower classes, through media control, control of education, and control of jobs. And control of much more, I'm sure.
You talk of freedom, when most wage earners in the US can not afford to go out on a limb and change jobs for fear of losing the means of supporting their families. That is not freedom, that is economic slavery, no matter how many types of slaves there may be.
How do you expect his opponents to respond to it, just lay down?
It's 10 times what I earn as a substitute teacher with a Master's degree!
I'd be glad to pay taxes on $250,000. Let's see, at 35% rate for all (Fed, State, local) taxes, that would be: $87,500 in taxes, and I'd still have a comfortable $162,500. Of course, I wouldn't be able to live like Rush, but then I don't eat as much as he obviously does. And of course, what Rush does is so obviously useful to creating a better society for everybody (in the top 2%, that is)...
The rich have always been fighting class warfare against anyone poorer than they are (98% of the country). One wonders why they would be so afraid of those poor beggars! Oh, yeah, I remember now: They're afraid the slaves will slit their throats while they sleep.
Now why would some poor bugger want to do that, I wonder?
Now HERE'S an idea! If poor people had enough money to do more than bare survival, they could buy more stuff from the rich people! They might even start putting on airs, like those uppity middle class climbers!
If the slaves actually could get a good education, with enrichment (art, music, you know all that stuff they cut our of the education budgets every time the rich stop paying their taxes), and maybe get a real job that pays a living wage. Or maybe get a leg up to learn a good trade, or start a new business...
Nope can't do it: That would be (gasp!) socialism, which we all know is the slippery slope to hell!
No, it's best that we just let the corporate nannies take care of everything. Pretty soon, our sugar & corn diet will have us all dying off before we're old enough for social security, so we won't even need that any more. It's perfection. Why fix it?
Putting up his earning PUTS HIS RANTINGS IN PERSPECTIVE. Someone who makes $50 Million a year cannot possibly have ANY IDEA what the "Avergae American" can or cannot afford, or what is a reasonable economic burden to put of them. He CAN NOT speak for the common man, because he has NPO IDEA what that even MEANS! He has NO PERSPECTIVE that is at all releavnt to 98% (99.99%, really) of America.
This is not class warfare on MMFA's part, it's blindness and willfull ignorance on yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Absurd. Absolutely absurd.
If you are so opposed to class warfare, then why don't you denounce Limbaugh, who is the one engaging in it? Is it any surprise to anyone that an incredibly rich, conservative bloviator is trying to move the goalposts on the struggle between classes? We are just trying to move them back.
=class warfare.
Maybe the problem is he's too sensitive?
What's your point? I'm sure they're are many liberals who make more that $250,000, and even upwards of $50,0000,000 and will pay their taxes and STFU about it, or even do it proudly and happily since it will mean starting to FIX everything that Reagan, Bush'41 and Bush'43 screwed up!
"Class warfare" is far more descriptive of the Right's agenda to bankrupt the gov't in a Palpatine-like attempt to artificially create a fiscal crisis that will finally give them the political weight they need to get rid of otherwise popular and sustainable programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc... The only reason we "can't afford" these programs is that the right has gone so far out of their way to jack-up the federal budget.
"Class warfare" is the fact that the only problem the Right seems to think we have in America that rich people don't have enough money.
-----------------------------------------------------
I hope you are very rich, RightOn, because little other than self-interest could justify what can otherwise only be taken as stupidity.
The only reason it is not for ME is that I don't put my own self interests above that of the rest of the country. Do I think I'm underpaid? Hell yeah, but I defy you to find me a single engineer anywhere who doesn't share that sentiement! But the idea that I'm sitting here envying people who live comfortably? That's absurd, because I live quite comfortably, thank you very much, and stand to be quite a bit more comfortable at some point in the distant future.
But I also realize that my life is, in fact, a lot easier than most of America's because of the fortunate upbringing I've had. And if I have to live on 5% less over the course of my lifetime so that people can have their medical needs met, no one starves to death, all people get equal treatement under the law, and my hypothetical great grand children will not be cheated of THIER opportunities to have a decent life due to either paying off the debt that my generation (and the baby-boomers, when they were still working) ran up, or becasue they're paying for the consequences of climate change and foriegn dependence on oil, problems that my generation has thus far ignored.... then FINE. I'll replace my car every 8 years instead of 7, and I'll have to settle for a Caribean Cruise instead of a Paris Vacation.
Boo-Frickin'-Hoo. Let me get out the world's smallest violin.
As I've said before, I hope you're pretty wealthy. Wreckless self-interest may not be something I appreciate, but it's at least rational. If you DON'T make, WELL over $250K per year, and/or stand to pay a sizeable inheritance tax?
You're just a fool who's been voting to let himself get screwed by the Right.
------------------------------------------------
So let's stop the class-warfare nonsense, huh? Try arguing something of SUBSTANCE or POLICY for a change.
Stop trying to misinform people who didn't three semesters of graduate level accoutning, as I did.
--------------------------------------------
Try again.
As for the rest? Wow. You got me. I've never owned my own business. OTOH... everything I've said is still right. And if you could have debated me on facts, knowlegde, principles, or with anything other than smart-alec remarks, I assume you would have done so by now.
So don't waste my time unless you've got something of substance to discuss.
------------------------------------------
Try again, but do your homework next time.
I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I am not very cognizant of the skills it takes to manage a business. Not everyone has those skills, nor does everyone want to learn them. That's why we live in a society which utilizes a division of effort.
We have a hierarchy of rewards in our society. Sometimes it gets skewed (i.e.: the Limbaughs are highly overpaid, while teachers are underpaid, based on the good they do for society). But our society only counts MONEY, not social good, so we get the ultra rich who do talk shows or play silly games for money and become very rich, while many more struggle just to earn a very simple existence.
It could be better, but then, that's what class warfare is all about: keeping the scales tilted to the rich and the well off.
So yeah, we can debate that, and despit emy center-left leaning I'm sure I'll find lib's here that I disagree with (I've already had some in fact) and I'm sure there will be con's that I can see eye to eye with occasionally on certain fiscal issues as well.
But as far as ABBA's argument goes, and what Seahawk's weak-@$$ jab implies, it's exactly like you said (below): it's an obvious non-factor presented by someone who is either an idealogue and or is genuinely ignorant of how the private sector operates.
Well said.
We'll never get ANYWHERE if people don't even comprehend the basics. The NON political stuff.
------------------------------------------
Tax Policy is a highly charged political issue. Basic Accoutning rules and definitions are not. It's like arguing over gravity or the conservation of mass.
lets say on the 31st of December 2009, AFTER everything is paid, including the taxes, salaries etc.. everything, I'm left with $100,000.00. That money is used to develop product for NEXT year. My product is livestock, you know beef cattle...
With the $100,000.00 dollars I can have 1000 calfs on the ground... It takes 10 cowboys to manage the 1000 calfs.. (pre-school terms, just for you)...
Now lets SUPPOSE that at the end of 2010 my taxes have increased and left only $90,000.00 to invest. That is all the bills are paid expenses accounted for but an increase in taxes siphons off an additional $10,000.00 (got it so far eddie?). With my $90,000.00 I can only put 900 calfs on the ground... hmmm... 9/10th the product only requires 9/10s the labor.... SO there goes one cowboy out of a job...
This is overly simplified (for eddie the graduate level accountant with no practical experience, HE never had a business, hmmm...) But that's the general idea. Could be acres of wheat (soybeans for the left-wing nutters). But the basic idea remains, taxes reduce the available investment cash impacting raw materials and product...
BTW - Good luck with that graduate level accounting thing.. How's that hopey changey thing working for you?
Just THINK. If I had $11,000.00 I could ADD another cowboy... you are pathetic always pretending to know so much
You're leaving out the reduction in tax liability that comes with capital purchases, cost of meterials, etc... If you aren't beholden to a board of directors or shareholders, that REQUIRE that you meet a certain profit margin, buying all that extra [cows/machines/etc...] reduces that 100,000 you're reportign as "profit." If you insist on investing every penny of it your business, most of it (all of it?) can be deducted before your taxed on it. Not to mention that businesses usually get LOANS to at least partially finance capital investments as well. (In fact most business DO this as a matter of course to help with cash flow.) At the end of the day, if you can make money off another 100 head, and you have the capacity? Taxes still ain't stoppin' you. You want to exapnd? You go right ahead.
So, as usual when conservatives try to "dumb it down for you," you end up with a b*llsh!t case. Now, I'll admit that I don't know every miniscule accoutning rule that applies to cattle-farmers, so why don't you try giving a little more information than the "pre-school" level? I'm sure I can handle it (I did ace three semesters of gradulate-level accounting after all) but I'm nowhere near convinced you can actually provide it.
------------------------------------------
Feel free to come back anytime.
See, we can tell you aren't a businessman because you don't even understand this simple concept.
No company I have ever worked for has had me do layoffs or hiring based on the tax rate. That is an obvious non-factor presented by someone who is either an idealogue and or is genuinely ignorant of how the private sector operates.
Having said that, I do give me more of money than is required by my taxes. And, I give them to organizations that get alot of their funding from government grants. However, I do not make so much money that I can make up for all the money the government would take in on a marginal tax increase. You do understand that, don't you?
So go ahead raise the rates and cut even MORE out of a job... pathetic...
You ignoring ALL the accounting rules that let you DEDUCT the cost of capital investment, matrerials, labor, etc... from the final "profit" number that you're actually taxed on.
Not to mention that you're making the absurd assumption that CASH ON HAND AFTER TAXES is the only option you have to expand your business with. That's patently absurd. Most business get loans. And if your business case for expansion can't justify the loan, you're probably not all that wise to invest EVERY LAST PEMNNY of your CASH ON HAND into it anyway. Not that you really EVER are: You might just run into a bit of a cash-flow issue doing that.
------------------------------------------
If this is how you run your business, you're just not gonig to survive very long.
the class warefare nonsense you are referring to is rush and the right wing echo chamber trying to claim that 250 k for a family isn't rich. especially when that group is 2 percent of the population......hmmmm sounds rich to me.
The reason that Limbaugh and others are trying to claim that it's not wealthy? To put the idea in the public's mind that it's unfair to chose that income level to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.
Of course it's not unfair to choose that level of income. We can't approach any national debt resolutions with spending cuts alone - in fact, it's hard to cut much from the budget, since most of it isn't discretionary. The best way to reduce the gap between spending and revenue is with increased taxes, and so the line has to be drawn somewhere. People earning more than $250,000 can easily afford a couple of percentage points increase on the marginal tax rates on whatever income is over $250,000. It will only mean a few thousands of dollars extra in tax for someone making $350,000, for example. They'll pay $36,000 in taxes this year, and $39,600 next year. WhoopDeDoo. They'll still have $60,000 more than someone making $250,000, so they aren't hurting by helping narrow that gap between spending and revenue. They're the people who can best afford to pay some more in taxes, and losing that $3600 won't even be noticed by their budgets!
And that's the issue here.
And government, ripe with fraud waste and abuse, can easily afford to cut the fat and reduce spending so they don't have to keep coming to people for more and more.
He's largely been unsuccessful in his attempts to derail threads recently. Let's keep up that good record.
Oops Sue, as of this moment, just shortly after your useless directive there have been well over 50 derailing response threads to the "troll" that you ordered against. You're losing your grip sweetheart.
And I think that they DID have an impact on several posters.
But thanks for acknowledging that your sole purpose here is to derail threads and that you appreciate all those posts that replied to your original and follow-up posts.
Every time you foolishly admit to your nefarious plans, more people will realize that they shouldn't follow you down that path.
DellDolly: don't feed the troll
RightON: No one cares what you say. Nobody likes you.
again and again ad nauseum.
I, personally, am getting tired of seeing you and delldolly say the exact same things to each other over and over and over and over again. It's getting really old. Both of you, get over yourselves.
I don't SAY the same things at all to him. His replies, however, DO follow the same pattern, and his initial comments are almost always troll posts intent on derailing threads.
You're very wrong when you say that both of us do the same things on each thread. I'd think you'd know better than to make a false equivalency argument.
Look here at THIS string. I didn't reply to his post. I made a post all on my own, and he pulled one comment out of context from my post in an effort to derail the thread. He followed his standard pattern when replying to my post. I wasn't replying to him at all. So, I refuted his post, pointed out that he was trying to derail the thread by bringing up something that wasn't the subject at all, and suggested that others not follow him down that derailment pathway.
I don't need to get over myself. And when I need advice from you, I'll make sure you're the first one I let know.
--------------------------------
LOL
For the longest time, they've been doing that by "borrowing" money from Social Security's trust fund, and conveniently "forgetting" to pay it back. (Oh, how short the public's memory is!)
So now that their golden goose is cooked, they still can't bring themselves to say those words we all love to hear "We'll have to raise taxes on..."
The shrieks of "bloody murder" that erupt from the conservative elements, startle the career liberals out of their stupor long enough for them to realize that using the "taxes" word will most certainly get them un-elected, and they do SO love their retirement package and health benefits!
But the reality is that those who have benefited the most from our society (the miserably well off and the obscenely wealthy) SHOULD be the ones to have the privilege and the honor to repay society for its largess.
They did under Clinton and got richer, faster under Clinton than under Bush. The Bush tax was directly responsible for creating record deficits. Letting it expire would be a good first step towards balancing the budget. We had a surplus with that tax rate under Clinton.
"And government, ripe with fraud waste and abuse, can easily afford to cut the fat and reduce spending so they don't have to keep coming to people for more and more."
Again, were you shouting this loud when Bush was spending us to oblivion?
Let's see, Slaves work real hard, They never even got basic rights.
Migrant workers are the hardest workers out there, NONE will be rich doing that necessary work.
im guessing not. you probably either inherited it or bought it from someone.
Well, thank god that no additional taxes will be levied on anyone who makes $250,000 per year! So by the time that "extra tax" applied only to those dollars ABOVE $250,000 actually amounts to anything significant, whomever we're talking about really will be pretty rich.
Idiots. Well, LIARS, actually, who deliberately misinform people about how a progressive taxation system actually works.
------------------------------------------------------
God, I hate these people.
Gee, no class warfare or hatred there. Lol. Damn that income!
Because if the that's the best you can do to either refute my point or make one of your own, it's pretty pathetic.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm not wasting any more time with you. Your "cheap chots" aren't nearly clever enough to not be beneath me.
Ahh, ok, whatever that means.
----------------------------------------------------
Whatever
------------------------------------------------------------
I usually say, "Never ascribe to malice that which is explained by stupidity," but he can't really be THAT stupid, can he?
It's was a damnation of the people who lie and distort and said nothing about the amount of wealth they may or may not have.
Something like how you distorted what NGE wrote.
Please don't feed this troll any more - he's still trying to derail the thread. It's not about class warfare at all. It's about the American public deserving a fair debate on this topic, and claims that the top 2% of Americans shouldn't be classified as wealthy aren't respecting the need for a fair debate.
I think it's a matter of perspective. Someone that makes a tiny fraction of that amount would see such folks as rich; however, I have encountered more than one millionaire who honestly did not consider such a title appropriate.
It's not an injustice that it happens that way, moron.
Wait, did you just say that the top 2% of income earners are SO WEALTHY that they pay 40% of income taxes? Now I feel even less concerned for them than I did before. Thanks! That's a weight off my shoulders.
I think a lot of people would say that the latter questions determine how rich you are and the first defines your wealth.
I think we are debating semantics because by no means am I implying that people that earn $250k/yr. are not well off.
Most people these days live well beyond their means. The use of credit cards makes it possible for even those with a mean income of $45K able to do things that once were available to only the "wealthy". I.e.: take a cruise, buy a second home, put their kids thru an Ivy League school.
Being considered "wealthy" all boils down to how much over the cost of living does a person make? If the cost of living, or the poverty line, is identified as, say, $20K per year for a family of 4, then 10+ times that just MIGHT be considered wealthy, would it not?
And we're not even talking income here, we're talking TAXABLE income, which allows quite a bit of leeway in terms of tax deductions and income sheltering that isn't available for those who earn close to the cost of living. I.e.: how many people earning $20K can afford to buy a house, and take a credit off their taxable income for THAT!
The point is, by the time people are earning a taxable income above $250K, they can absorb a few percentage points more in taxes without destroying their lifestyle. Based on TAXABLE income, the break point could be even lower, without causing too much pain, but that would not be politically feasible.
The main point is how laughable it is to have someone making $50 MILLION decrying that people making a mere $250K aren't wealthy. Well, compared to $50 million, $250K is a drop in the bucket, and couldn't POSSIBLY be considered truly wealthy. So Limbaugh is right: people making a mere $250K per year in taxable income are paupers, poor things!
Looked at from the POV of someone making a mere $20K, however, its the difference of being wealthy, and being obscenely wealthy.
The issue is that $250,000 is in the top 2%.
If you can't declare that that income makes one "wealthy", then there's no income that is. It IS all relative, but it's relative, for THIS discussion, to what all Americans make. Being in the top 2% makes one wealthy.
And the reason that Rush makes this point is to mislead people into believing that having those people who make more than $250,000 a slight bit more in taxes is wrong, since he has declared them not wealthy. But they can easily afford those extra taxes! It's not wrong. It's necessary and appropriate and entirely fair to make them pay more in taxes in order to try to bridge the gap between our spending and our revenue.
To me, a fairer statement would be less of a blanket one, which is why we disagree. It's not they "they can easily afford those extra taxes." It's that, "chances are, they are more able and certainly better equipped to absorb those extra taxes without being forced to choose between any of life's necessities."
I'm afraid I'm just not really on board with your perspective argument. Someone whose income is 500% of the US median income and is better than that of more than 98% of US households could certainly be termed wealthy, whether they wish to think so or not. If they've put themselves in circumstances where they don't see that wealth in their lifestyle, that's a matter of choices made, not income limitations.
As to your first point, what about someone whose (taxable) income is 450% of the U.S. median income? My whole point is that $250k is not a line-in-the-sand magic number/point of demarcation. For instance (here goes my credibility and admittedly a source of my bias :D ), I earn well above the median income, am single, no kids (I'm young - not Rushesque) and, thus, am probably more "wealthy" than a lot of people who earn considerably more than I. Yet, since my taxable income does not rise to that particular number...
As to your second point, great point, but I would say that, typically in most people, with increased earnings comes an increased lifestyle. I wholly agree that there are some who take it to excess.
Also, I understand and appreciate your point of view about it being difficult to see it from a statistical standpoint.
That's the massive, undeniable flaw in your argument here.
I've pointed it out twice - hopefully you won't prove that you were insincere in your initial post, and you'll get it this time.
I know you are using hyperbole, but to attack my argument as possessing a massive and undeniable flaw while arguing that "[t]he relevant perspective here is from the view of 'ALL' Americans..." is a little ironic and a little condescending in tone, which is really quite unnecessary!
If you're making more than 98% of the population, you're among the WEALTHIEST 2% of the population, whether you "feel like it" or not.
And no, I wasn't using hyperbole at all. The viewpoint of a person making and spending $250,000 is wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
If you weren't using hyperbole, then your argument is logically flawed. The existence of but one American who did not hold the same viewpoint would render it false. In any event, in your opinion the viewpoint of a person making and spending $250k is wholly irrelevant to the discussion; however, that's your opinion. There's a post below from a poster who wrote that he makes right at that amount and he feels as if he has a duty to kick in more. I very much appreciated his viewpoint and his contribution to the discussion and found it completely relevant. Further, since the topic is about people who have an income of $250k, I don't see how such an opinion could *not* be relevant.
Careful or you'll prove right ON right.
Your points are well thought out, thank for you trying to elevate the discourse.
And no, I am not on ANYONE's side on this site. So we can't be on the same side - and I said that pretty explicitly - not sure why you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't understand that. I am SOLELY on the side of the truth. I'm not on Democrat's side or Republican's side or anyone's SIDE! I am on the side of the truth. That's it.
And no, the disagreement by one person or many people doesn't change a fact. Someone who has an income in the top 2% is wealthy.
How someone might spend their income, recklessly or carefully, is 100% irrelevant to this discussion. Someone who grew up in a family that was at the poverty level would think that $100,000 was a lot. Someone who grew up in a very well-to-do family would think that $100,000 wasn't sufficient at all. THEIR opinions are irrelevant, since the discussion is about how the top 2% in income in our nation should be classified, not how people who are IN that 2% feel! Their opinions are irrelevant.
And if you don't like me, I don't care. I'm not here to be your pal. I am here to defend the truth, not you or your 'side'.
Since the word "wealthy" is subject to a considerable amount of subjectivity, commentators are perfectly justified in expressing their opinion that being wealthy calls for substantially more income. I understand precisely where they are coming from; they are multimillionaires! Of course, $250k seems like a small pittance in comparison to their incomes and it is probably, quite honestly to them, hard to imagine living on such "meager" earnings. The problem is that they are making such arguments in a deliberate attempt to mislead people who probably do not (and cannot) easily grasp that reality.
I write again, I do not disagree that the top 2% certainly have it a lot better than the bottom 98%. My singular point is that there is no magic number which automatically defines wealth. Well off, yes. Fortunate, certainly. Capable of living a life that most others can only dream of, absolutely. Merriam-Webster's defines wealth as the, "abundance of valuable material possessions or resources." To someone with a lot of financial obligations, $250k may not meet that test. Their opinion certainly matters because there is no objective test to determine whether what they have is an "abundance."
Being a young person with a six figure income and no wife or kids, I should be considered "wealthy" but I wouldn't be under your test because I don't make $250k...even though I may have more disposable income than someone who does, yet has more financial obligations.
With that, I'll leave you to defend the truth as you see it.
But that means that those 2% ARE wealthy. This isn't rocket science. It's not MY test, you doofus. It was Limbaugh's.
And again, YOUR perception has nothing to do with whether or not you are wealthy. No one's perception of their own wealth or their perception of someone else's wealth relative to their own personal income matters. It's the overall percentage in America that we're talking about.
If you're in the top 2%, you're wealthy.
If you weren't using hyperbole, then your argument is logically flawed. The existence of but one American who did not hold the same viewpoint would render it false. In any event, in your opinion the viewpoint of a person making and spending $250k is wholly irrelevant to the discussion; however, that's your opinion. There's a post below from a poster who wrote that he makes right at that amount and he feels as if he has a duty to kick in more. I very much appreciated his viewpoint and his contribution to the discussion and found it completely relevant. Further, since the topic is about people who have an income of $250k, I don't see how such an opinion could *not* be relevant.
Careful or you'll prove right ON right.
I love that, on the side of truth. Ha! Oh DollySue, if you're out to purge the national discourse of poison, then I'd start with flagging every one of your posts here for removal.
That'd be a helluva good start.
The second-highest median income in the country is a place called Jupiter Island, Florida. The median income there is about $250,000. Some notable people that live or have lived on Jupiter Island include: Tiger Woods, Celine Dion, Burt Reynolds, and former President George Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Island,_Florida
"Jupiter Island is a town on the barrier island of Jupiter Island in Martin County, Florida, United States. The population was 620 at the 2000 census. It is part of the Port St. Lucie Metropolitan Statistical Area. In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that its population had reached 653.[3] Some of the wealthiest people in the United States live in Jupiter Island; it has the highest per capita income of any inhabited place in the country.
I appreciate the discussion and the civility Pete.
Huh? You can't be this stupid? Read the headline! That is exactly the discussion.
The discussion is about how the top 2%, whatever that dollar amount is, is wealthy. Not what an individual who makes $250,000 but spends most of it thinks where his income places him, or what poorer kids think about richer kids, which was the point I was replying to.
You not only CAN be that stupid, but you can ALSO be so motivated by your personal animus that you can't resist yet another personal attack.
Thanks for continuing to expose that you don't deserve any credibility.
And, still, I have no idea what your post meant. The wealthy should have no right to their money after they pay taxes? What in the heck does that even mean?
97% of tax revenue comes from the top 50% income earners. The bottom 50% contribute the other 3%. The top 50% earn over $32k per year, while the bottom 50% earn $32k or less per year. Yes, that's correct, 50% of filers earn $32,000 or less per year. The top 5% includes those who earn $160k per year or more, and contributes around 60% of the annual tax revenue. That's also correct, the top 5% bracket includes those who earn $160k per year, $90,000 less than the $250k threshold that constitutes the top 2%. That $90k difference is almost three times the amount the bottom 50% earn in a year.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
That is why to argue that those making 250k be labeled as "wealthy", a subjective term for sure, is ridiculous. Or those that argue the other way, like Limbaugh. Fact is both have their partisan agendas for doing so which makes them as I said, no better.
Idiots like Victor Colorado above can't understand the distinction between arguing over it, and pointing out the silliness of either one.
You're absolutely correct that the truths that we cling to depends entirely on our own POV. (And kudos to Master Kenobi.) And you're also spot on that NO ONE will consider themselves rich if doing so means they may pay even a penny more in taxes, or in anything else. But it comes down to appreciating what you have, and recognizing that if your income exceeds that of 98% of the richest country in the world, then if you're not rich (or wealthy) yet, it's either inevitable that you will be in a just a few years, or it's painfully apparent that you are being exceedingly reckless with your money, and living an absurdly beyond-your-means lifestyle. (You know... kind of like a Republican Congress!)
Nothing is wrong with wanting more. Conservtaives and liberals alike all do, and thank god for it becuase that's what keeps the economy going and keeps us all employed. But if these millionaires (or >$250K/year people) don't think they're "rich," then either they have no appreciation of what they really have, and what everyone else does (and doesn't), or they are being absurdly loose with their money. (Or they're just not being honest with themselves.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
To see where you truly are in the race, you need to look behind you as well as ahead.
(shameless, self-promotion warning...)
--------------------------------------------------
You should check out my blog! LOL
What was your previous screen name? And why did you change it?
Making life decisions on how to get more is not part of who we are.
Pity for those who have extraordinary amounts is common among us.
We are non-materialists. We work hard until we retire, live sparingly, love nature, surround ourselves with good books (from the sale table), splurge on a movie now and then. Peaceful, satisfactory, simple life. I love it.
I consider part of my good fortune is being born into the country that I have been. And I consider paying my fair share in a progressive income tax a very small price to pay. If anyone makes as much as I do they are certainly in a position to pay a higher tax rate.
Is there waste in government? Of course, there always will be. But government is not the enemy. We get the government we deserve in this country. And, we should strive for a better government not the destruction of government. It is time we get back to paying our bills as we did under Clinton. For the last 8 years I have heard so-called conservatives harp about cutting taxes while they raised spending. That is not cutting anything, it is simply putting it on the credit card and passing it onto the next guy. I have many complaints with Obama, but in this instance he should be glorified. It takes a leader to tell us we cannot cut all taxes across the board and continue to spend money. (I always admired the first Bush and Mondale when they did the same.) We need to pay for it. And if that means those making a good sum of money, such as myself, have to pay a larger chunk, I am glad to do it. In fact, I would argue that it is the patriotic thing to do.
Their health care premiums went up 3 times faster than wages. The list goes on and on.
Most people who make $250,000 + will do better under Democrats. That's just a fact. Their revenue goes up faster and their expenses are held in check. The net effect is a greater gain in wealth despite the small tax increase.
Let's be basic... an executive working for a company (so no small business deductions), makes $415,000/yr
Owns a $2 Million Home, with a $1.25 million dollar mortgage, would have a taxable income of $250,000
Mortgage payments ($100,000/yr)
Property taxes ($22,500)
They max out their retirement contributions... ($16,500)
Paid state income tax from the previous year... ($25,000)
These are just the standard stuff, without even getting creative...I'm sure with the proper financial planning and tax breaks that really are unavailable to the middle class, he could get his taxable income below $200,000.
Are you prepared to call someone making $415,000 - $500,000 not wealthy? Because that is what we are really talking about.
seems unbalanced to me, but probably not in the way that you think.
If you looked at Sales Tax Revenues, the top 2% would most likely pay a higher percentage of total sales tax revenue (probably in the 40% range) but would you consider that to be unfair?
actually, the top 1% own 38% of the wealth in this country, so I would guess the top 2% own somewhere in the 50% range if not higher... but they account for 40% of the tax revenue.
This of course means that the middle class carries a disproportionate amount of the tax load, since the bottom 1/3 of this country pays almost no tax at all.
they refuse to recognize that the larger share of the pie you earn, the larger share of the public well you need to pay.
The idea of higher taxes stunts growth or opportunity or incentive is a falsehood that has never been proven but is the mantra of the right
I belive drumbum has it right. "They are not lableing it just to call people names, they are determining a point to base a progressive tax scale on. "class warfare" is just a talking point coming from acid media and a clown that is clearly out of touch with reality."
Anyone in the top 2% of ANY category is in the extreme.
If you're in the top 2% of intelligence, then people are going to be within reason calling you very smart, even if you don't recognize it!
If you're in the top 2% of all pro baseball players in terms of home runs hit, then you're a home run king, even if you think you could have done much better.
If you make over $250,000 a year, you're wealthy.
And no, we don't believe that you have ANY difficulty agreeing with Rush. Get a clue. You don't get any credibility by qualifying a statement like that - in fact, when you DO qualify it like that, you probably LOSE credibility.
2) The end of being able to claim charitable giving as a tax deduction
3) Capital gains tax 15% to 20%
4) End of teacher tax credit
want more?
2) That's an urban legend, a rightwing talking point. It will ONLY affect couples making over $250,000, you dum-dum.
3) Lower income people are also protected from any increase in the capital gains tax increases too! Do you EVER know what you're talking about?
4) Are you talking about the $250 credit teachers have gotten for a few years to buy books? Seriously? The Reuters article got that stuff WRONG - why are you repeating it after it's already been debunked? http://www.newser.com/story/79956/reuters-kills-budget-story-on-wh-complaints.html
The article listed changes the author considered tax hikes, such as letting a $250 credit for teachers buying school supplies expire—a claim the White House proved wrong.
As far as #1, again, if you're going to say that anything that might lead to a person paying more taxes is a tax increase, then a pay raise is a tax increase. By that logic, Bush raised my taxes multiple times.
BTW, I took a deduction for charitable contributions this year, so your #2 is complete bullcrap.
Capital gains don't typically affect people in the MIDDLE CLASS, hello?
Raising taxes on cigarettes is grasping at straws, too. Don't want to pay the extra tax? Quit smoking! Pretty freaking easy to avoid that one. Just FYI, the price of cigarettes hasn't gone up one cent where I shop. Just sayin'.
I agree about factoring in cost of living, by the way.
Secondly, I was trying to point out that using a fixed value for a statement of "rich/wealthy" and "poor/poverty" does not account for the differences in the cost of living between the various parts of our vast nation.
For reference, the estimated median income for a family of 4 in 2009 for the US was $70,354. In Colorado, where I live, it was $75,775. Curiously, in California, it was $74,801, and Ohio (where I used to live) was $68,579. These figures are from:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/SMI75FY09.pdf
The point is ... I don't "feel" wealthy, but anyone who makes less than I do would probably claim that I am wealthy based on their view point.
Come one.
If the top 2% isn't wealthy, then no one is.
But the top 2% IS wealthy. And any attempt to deny that reality is an attempt to cloud the issue, to confuse people about what groups of people are subject to higher taxes under Obama. To cloud the issue, to make people doubt that it's fair to raise taxes on that 2%.
250,000k a year is upper middle class in many places... CA especially
Limbaugh is in the upper echelon wealth levels so $250k is probably the change he finds in the seats of his car when he cleans it. Of course, baby rich doesn't feel that wealthy to someone like him, but by societal standards you are still rich.
Does it surprise anyone that Rush Limbaugh is a shill for GM?
Why isn't Rush Limbaugh outraged by corporate welfare?
Aren't the "rich" using the government in class warfare against the poor?
Remember robbing hood?
Clifford Spencer
So $250,000 sounds about right.
Randy
But this topic is NOT about how much tax revenue is wasted, in any case. It's about what level of income makes one wealthy. The top 2% in the wealthiest nation in the world are all wealthy. The top 2%, paying lower marginal income tax rates than ever, with only slight increases (remember, for someone making $350,000 next year, they will only pay about $3600 more on that income than they would have this year, so it's a very slight increase) come next year, don't get to complain about the taxes they pay based upon paying a little bit more next year.
Now, if they want to complain about waste, they'll need to show us that they are crabbed even more during the Bush Administration, when all kinds of things weren't paid for. Otherwise, they're politically partisan hypocrites.
Like Rush Limbaugh.
If you're in the top 2% in ANY category, you are in the extreme.
If you have a BMI that's in the top 2%, you're morbidly obese. If you're in the top 2% in height, then it doesn't matter if you're standing next to a guy who's taller than you are - you're still really tall!
And if you're in the top 2% in the wealthiest nation in the world, you're wealthy. No one said that everyone in the top 2% is EQUIVALENT to every other person in the top 2%.
Get a clue. I swear, some people....