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.
LOL @ trying to portray a $200K/yr income as 'middle class' anywhere in this country. More to the point, if the wealthy pay no taxes, the revenue garnered by taxing the middle and lower classes 'fairly' will not keep a First World Nuclear Superpower in the manner to which in the 21st Century. There are serious challenges to Americas profile in the world. The wealthy just want to crawl off and count their money. Too late for that. For decades America has held on to the top spot in the food chain through economic and military might. Both of those areas of dominance are on the wane. Can we finance a war with North Korea even while the Iraq and Afghan offensives continue? When the bottom falls out will the rich stay and put their treasure to the fight or will they flee with it to safe havens in Western Europe and leave the rest of us to fight off the invaders with handguns?
While it may not not be middle class in the sense that 25% of people make more than that... if you go by standard of living, I'd argue $200k is very middle class in Manhattan, the Bay Area, even Seattle, and a handful of other places. A family of 4 making $200k in those areas is not going to be what I would consider wealthy. Maybe upper middle class. Maybe. But go look and see how much a nice 3 bedroom home costs in these areas.
Also, who is arguing for the wealthy to pay no taxes? Don't the top 1% about as much as the bottom 50%? What exactly should their fair share be?
Also, who is arguing for the wealthy to pay no taxes? Don't the top 1% about as much as the bottom 50%? What exactly should their fair share be?
Well, the 1.4 million filers in the top 1% in 2013 had total income 66% larger than the total for the 69.2 million filers in the bottom 50%. How equitable was that? And of course, let's note in fairness that this is all with respect to federal income taxes only.
Also, who is arguing for the wealthy to pay no taxes? Don't the top 1% about as much as the bottom 50%? What exactly should their fair share be?
The majority of C-D posters that put forth an opinion about it argue that the wealthy should pay no taxes. And now quite a few of them won't. Even with the 'no loopholes' mandate of the overhaul, scads of them were written in at the last minute and every Tax Attorney in the country has had zero hours of sleep since the vote poring over the document and working the angles for their clients. The 1% might pay (used to pay) as much or more than the bottom 50%. The 1% earn many thousands of times more than the bottom 50%. The .01% many thousands of times more than that!!! Fair? You want fair? The bottom 50% should actually pay NO taxes. Even that wouldn't be fair. Fair would be a Basic Income Supplement paid for with the $2 Trillion windfall from the Amnesty. But adjusting the brackets so that incomes under ~$50K incurred no tax burden at all would be a start towards sanity. Continuing to widen an already unsustainable income and wealth inequality will destroy this country. In the country my family comes from if you have been working class in America and manage to accrue ~$1200/mo. in pension and retire to the homeland you'd better live in a gated community. You'd better have an armored panic room in your apartment or house. You'd better vet your friends very carefully. When nearly everyone has nothing and only a 1% has everything you have trouble.
While it may not not be middle class in the sense that 25% of people make more than that... if you go by standard of living, I'd argue $200k is very middle class in Manhattan, the Bay Area, even Seattle, and a handful of other places. A family of 4 making $200k in those areas is not going to be what I would consider wealthy. Maybe upper middle class. Maybe. But go look and see how much a nice 3 bedroom home costs in these areas.
Also, who is arguing for the wealthy to pay no taxes? Don't the top 1% about as much as the bottom 50%? What exactly should their fair share be?
You make $200K a year, and you are middle class anywhere in the USA for a longtime. In a few decades you might accumulate enough assets to move up if you make the right moves at the right time and stay healthy and lucky. By then your kids are out of the house, your mortgaged paid off, and you can live higher on the hog. If you stay healthy.
Well dayam... there goes one of the usual freemkt battle cries.
I hope they don't repeal the other ones related to it, including:
- the law that landlords always have renters filling their units
- the law that renters always pay their rent
- the law that home values always go up
- the law that there are never home repair items that cost more than income generated from rent
- the law that renting must be a forced decision since lacking the means to buy
- the law that owning property magically fixes all other personal finance and success issues
Write your congressman now, we need to keep these laws on the books!
I'd argue $200k is very middle class in Manhattan, the Bay Area,
even Seattle, and a handful of other places.
That's the wrong argument.
The argument is that because of the INSANE real estate related costs...
to have anything approaching what is called a middle class life...you'll need $200,000.
The deeper questions of course are in how this market distortion impacts those who earn less
and the dependency on having the second earner to cover all the bases.
The argument is that because of the INSANE real estate related costs...
to have anything approaching what is called a middle class life...you'll need $200,000.
The deeper questions of course are in how this market distortion impacts those who earn less
and the dependency on having the second earner to cover all the bases.
This means bedroom communities and progressively longer commutes for many.
IMO very sad that one is linked at the hip to ones job location.
And why I moved to small town AZ from Chicago in 1980. There are more things in life than making a buck. Of course being a young, healthy and mobile doc made it relatively easy for me.
The 1% might pay (used to pay) as much or more than the bottom 50%.
In 2013, the top 1% paid more than 13 times what the bottom 50% paid in federal income taxes -- $465.8 billion to $34.3 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
The 1% earn many thousands of times more than the bottom 50%.
In 2013, the top 1% had 67% more AGI than the bottom 50% -- $1,719.8 billion to $1,038.2 billion.
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.
