Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Earlier I found something that seems like a quasi-official economic definition of the ultra rich and the lower end was 30M net worth. They didn't really speak to income. Worrying about vague terms like rich are just semantics anyway.
Earlier I found something that seems like a quasi-official economic definition of the ultra rich and the lower end was 30M net worth. They didn't really speak to income. Worrying about vague terms like rich are just semantics anyway.
Exactly, they didn't speak of income. So in other words, you're not willing to admit that $200k isn't rich because it doesn't fit you agenda that we the people should give the government more money.
Words matter especially when you're playing to unknowledgeable people.
There are a boatload of people that would disagree that making over $200k a year does not qualify you to be considered rich. And over $400k..???? Seriously??
And that is why the boatload of people are either poor or struggling.
My definition of wealth is when my investments pays enough cash flow for a comfortable lifestyle without having to exchange my time for money. And that takes a lot of money and/or leverage.
If you exchange your time to earn $60k, $80k, $100K, $120k, $200k a year you are not rich.
If your investments pay you $60k, $80k, $100K, $120k a year etc, (a comfortable lifestyle without exchanging your time for money, you're rich.
See how a rich person can earn the same "income" but according to the gov use of income to determine tell you someone is rich, because people don't understand the difference between wealth and income people can be played? The rich already have their money and can manipulate their income. Everyday Americans count on excess income to build their wealth.
Exactly, they didn't speak of income. So in other words, you're not willing to admit that $200k isn't rich because it doesn't fit you agenda that we the people should give the government more money.
Words matter especially when you're playing to unknowledgeable people.
What I mean is that my definition of "rich" versus what others think isn't all that relevant. I don't think a 200k income for a household in the US makes people rich, especially if it is a family. However, I do think that income is high enough that I should begin to pay more on the upper part of my income. It's a sliding scale - a progressive tax. I really do wish you would quit telling me what I think and then arguing with it. If you want to make a straw man argument, just use a straw man and please quit pretending to know what I think.
What I mean is that my definition of "rich" versus what others think isn't all that relevant. I don't think a 200k income for a household in the US makes people rich, especially if it is a family.
However, I do think that income is high enough that I should begin to pay more on the upper part of my income. It's a sliding scale - a progressive tax. I really do wish you would quit telling me what I think and then arguing with it. If you want to make a straw man argument, just use a straw man and please quit pretending to know what I think.
ReachTheBeach said: I do think that income is high enough
I'll say it again.
And who are you to think you know how much is enough?
Do you "know" everyone's circumstance"
ReachTheBeach said: If you want to make a straw man argument
The typical response from someone trying to redirect away from an opinion they don't like.
You keep pulling part of what I said out of context. It would be like me quoting you like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
I think if you make $50k you make enough and should pay higher taxes.
That is totally inaccurate; you were being sarcastic and there was a qualifier on the front end. When you quoted me, you left out the part about it being enough (IMO) to begin taking more on the upper end of it using a progressive tax, not taking more of all of it.
EDIT - On your other question - "Who am I to think I know how much is enough?" - I am a citizen who votes. I have an opinion and it may or may not have any effect on what the government actually does. This is supposed to be a democracy, so if most people think that's about right then that's what they should do. If most people don't think so, then they should do something else. Lately, they don't seem to care what most of us think, so both of us are probably wasting time debating it.
Last edited by ReachTheBeach; 05-23-2016 at 10:35 AM..
You keep pulling part of what I said out of context. It would be like me quoting you like this:
That is totally inaccurate; you were being sarcastic and there was a qualifier on the front end. When you quoted me, you left out the part about it being enough (IMO) to begin taking more on the upper end of it using a progressive tax, not taking more of all of it.
Since you think you can dictate how much is enough...
Base it what?
- How much other people can live on?
- Because you make less?
- The amount that raises your jealousy richter scale?
- Because you're parroting rhetoric?
I'll counter:
We all know elderly people who live on less than $25k, Based on that,
I think if you make $50k you make enough and should pay a lot higher taxes because.....
- People making $50k are "richer" than people making $25k a year,
- They can afford it,
- They're richer than other people in the world,
- they're not starving,
Since you think you can dictate how much is enough...
Base it what?
- How much people can live on?
- Because you make less?
- The amount that raises your jealousy richter scale?
- Because you're parroting rhetoric?
I'll counter:
We all know elderly people who live on less than $25k, they're not starving, they're richer than other people in the world,
so based on that, I think if you make $50k you make enough and should pay higher taxes.
<sarcasm>
I edited my previous post as you were entering this one. I don't think I can dictate anything; I think it is a democracy (but lately it is hard to find much evidence to prove that).
I edited my previous post as you were entering this one. I don't think I can dictate anything; I think it is a democracy (but lately it is hard to find much evidence to prove that).
And yet here you are, "thinking".... you know how much is enough. I'll say it for the umpteenth time....
Who are you to think you know how much is enough?
Do you know everyone's circumstance?
Did you earn the money to think you have a right to give your opinion on what they should do with their money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach
I don't think a 200k income for a household in the US makes people rich, especially if it is a family.
However, I do think that income is high enough that I should begin to pay more on the upper part of my income.
I'm tired of the ignorance of people thinking the other guy should just give more of HIS / HER money away. Some of those people are hoping to be on the receiving end of a windfall, some actually feel good trying to steal from the other guy to give to someone else.
Which one are you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
