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.
The easy way to differentiate between being wealthy and being rich is to ask question "do you have to go to work?". If the answer is "yes" then they're not rich.
At least to me, rich means you have so much wealth you don't need to work in order to maintain an upper-class lifestyle until death (and then some).
I'm not rich because I have to work, but disagree that people making 200k + aren't taxed enough. And people making that much still need to work every day, so they're also the "working class" whether or not people like to admit the fact. Even worse, you don't get much in exchange for the taxes that you do pay here. So if taxes go up, so do my expectations- sadly those expectations are always far from met. But we have a crummy education system and bloated union contracts. YAY!
I would say this is not an accurate definition. It may be the way you'd like to change it to suit you. For the record, the definition of "rich" is:
rich [rich]
adjective, -er, -est, noun
1. having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation.
2. abounding in natural resources: a rich territory.
3. having wealth or valuable resources (usually followed by in ): a country rich in traditions.
4. abounding (usually followed by in or with ): a countryside rich in beauty; a design rich with colors.
5. of great value or worth; valuable: a rich harvest.
There is nothing here about needing to work or not. Also, phrases like "upper class" are subjective and is based upon the perspective of the observer. You can be the CEO of a major bank, maintain an "upper class" lifestyle, but still need to work because you mismanaged your finances or are going through an expensive divorce. Should this person be taxed less because he has to work?
I would say this is not an accurate definition. It may be the way you'd like to change it to suit you. For the record, the definition of "rich" is:
rich [rich]
adjective, -er, -est, noun
1. having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation.
2. abounding in natural resources: a rich territory.
3. having wealth or valuable resources (usually followed by in ): a country rich in traditions.
4. abounding (usually followed by in or with ): a countryside rich in beauty; a design rich with colors.
5. of great value or worth; valuable: a rich harvest.
There is nothing here about needing to work or not. Also, phrases like "upper class" are subjective and is based upon the perspective of the observer. You can be the CEO of a major bank, maintain an "upper class" lifestyle, but still need to work because you mismanaged your finances or are going through an expensive divorce. Should this person be taxed less because he has to work?
You're jumping the gun, I made it clear that I was expressing my opinion on what "rich" was, and not trying to define the dictionary definition (just a re-cap I said "at least to me, rich means..."). If that was not apparent enough before before, let it be known now.
The "need to work" is not something that has to do with taxes, just my opinion on what separates a rich person from a wealthy one in the working class.
Even the "upper class" have financial crisis like everyone else- whether it's divorce or a stock portfolio tanking- and I think its clear that someone who loses their wealth through no longer qualifies as "rich". No one is immune to disaster or financial ruin. If a person earns less than what they did previously, should they be taxed more because they were considered wealthier in the past? Should people be punished in such a way for having (or had) wealth that was legally earned? Should a working mom be taxed more because she divorced and now has half the income she once did with her spouse's contributions? Should a formerly wealthy retiree be taxed more because his portfolio tanked and he has to return to work? What are you asking exactly? It seems like you are framing your question in such a way to laud taxation as a way to punish people for their financial success whether it is past or present.
Last edited by Alkonost; 12-07-2011 at 02:37 PM..
Reason: typos and grammar
Ok . My concern is , if the taxes might afect the rich as well, due to they own business buildings , markets , apartments , will push to the middle and low income to pay more, that's what I'm asking about?
Ok . My concern is , if the taxes might afect the rich as well, due to they own business buildings , markets , apartments , will push to the middle and low income to pay more, that's what I'm asking about?
When it comes to raising rents, that is usually determined by demand (vacancy rates for the neighborhood) or an increase in operating expenses (oil going up, doorman union contract negotiations, etc...). The rich owner having to pay more in income taxes usually won't result in a giant rent hike if the rents are already at market rate. Also, most of the apartment buildings are owned by companies, not so much individuals unless you go to the outer boroughs. Even though the vacancy rate is tight, landlords who overcharge relative to the going rates tend to have a tougher time filling their apartments, so they would loose more money doing that. I'd imagine that services may be reduced if they are in a position where they couldn't raise rents without shooting themselves in the foot.
For businesses that produce goods, yes prices will go up if their taxes do because they have investors to please.
Well considering that being a millionaire doesn't make you rich in a place like NYC, I still find it laughable with people assuming anyone who has more then they do are justifiably a bottomless pit of money to loot as they see fit. But I digress.
If someone is pulling in a million a year (or in this case $2 million) in taxable income, they are rich no matter where they are.....
If someone is pulling in a million a year (or in this case $2 million) in taxable income, they are rich no matter where they are.....
That's your opinion, but we all know money doesn't go very far in NYC, not even millions. If you earn 2 mill a year it's not enough to stop working, maintain your lifestyle and wallow in your money until you die. Do you know how much money one needs in order to do that? It's a LOT more than you think. When I was little I thought 100k was a lot of money- since my allowance was a few bucks a week 100k seemed like a lot, now that I'm an adult I know better then that. Working in real estate will also open one's eyes as to how much wealth one needs to live the "rich" lifestyle here. Millionaires get rejected by coops too. Talk about picky, sheesh... It's downright sick.
That's your opinion, but we all know money doesn't go very far in NYC, not even millions. If you earn 2 mill a year it's not enough to stop working, maintain your lifestyle and wallow in your money until you die. Do you know how much money one needs in order to do that? It's a LOT more than you think. When I was little I thought 100k was a lot of money- since my allowance was a few bucks a week 100k seemed like a lot, now that I'm an adult I know better then that. Working in real estate will also open one's eyes as to how much wealth one needs to live the "rich" lifestyle here. Millionaires get rejected by coops too. Talk about picky, sheesh... It's downright sick.
Someone making $2 million per year is still downright rich period. Just because someone might have to settle and get that 12,000 square foot penthouse instead of that 16,000 sq foot one doesn't make them not rich. 2 million + a year in taxable income is beyond rich even in uber high cost of living NYC
Someone making $2 million per year is still downright rich period. Just because someone might have to settle and get that 12,000 square foot penthouse instead of that 16,000 sq foot one doesn't make them not rich. 2 million + a year in taxable income is beyond rich even in uber high cost of living NYC
2 mil is not beyond rich in NYC. Somewhere else, sure, but definately not here. It's pretty clear you're not in touch with how much things cost, or what is available for what price. First of all, 12,000 square foot penthouses do not exist in Manhattan. A mere 5000sq foot 5br/5ba on park ave costs 21 million, someone earning a measly 2 mil a year couldn't afford that. You simply do not know the cost scales of the filthy rich, someone earning 2 million a year is waaaay under the financial league to be able to afford anything close to what you're suggesting.
But sure, if that person earning 2 mil a year were to leave and relocate somewhere OTHER than San Fran, LA,Chicago or Miami they'd be able to afford something more along the lines of what you describe as being "uber rich"... But they'd still have to work...
2 mil is not beyond rich in NYC. Somewhere else, sure, but definately not here. It's pretty clear you're not in touch with how much things cost, or what is available for what price. First of all, 12,000 square foot penthouses do not exist in Manhattan. A mere 5000sq foot 5br/5ba on park ave costs 21 million, someone earning a measly 2 mil a year couldn't afford that. You simply do not know the cost scales of the filthy rich, someone earning 2 million a year is waaaay under the financial league to be able to afford anything close to what you're suggesting.
But sure, if that person earning 2 mil a year were to leave and relocate somewhere OTHER than San Fran, LA,Chicago or Miami they'd be able to afford something more along the lines of what you describe as being "uber rich"... But they'd still have to work...
I was exaggerating with the size, but you should have gotten the point. Fact is, even for the very high cost of living in NYC $2 million per year in taxable income is rich, period. Its not middle class, its not upper middle class, its rich.
I was exaggerating with the size, but you should have gotten the point. Fact is, even for the very high cost of living in NYC $2 million per year in taxable income is rich, period. Its not middle class, its not upper middle class, its rich.
Even if you tone your exaggerations down, you're still fairly off the numbers with how much 2 mill a year will get you in NYC, one would be in the upper working class but not filthy stinking rich. For that you'd need 5-10mil and up. People who make under 5 mil regularly get turned down by coop boards for apartments on account of not having enough wealth to comfortably carry the apartment. That may not be what you expect to hear, but in our weird little microcosm of NYC it happens all the time.
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.
