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.
Broad brush that takes NO consideration for cost of living and lack of living off of others.
Once again, specific expenses aren't relevant, and the existence of billionaires doesn't preclude a $250k earner from being wealthy.
There's lots of conversation in this thread about how everything is relative, but I think the difference between those on the poles of this conversation is that some apparently weight those above you on the scale more heavily than those below you. In contrast, I strongly believe that it matters more how many are below you on the ladder.
If you're a millionaire living in Jupiter Island, FL, (home of billionaires) you're at the low end of the scale within that community certainly, and you'll probably struggle with your expenses compared to your neighbors, but that doesn't make you middle class. It simply means that you're living in very expensive housing. The fact that you can even afford to live in Jupiter implies that you are wealthy. Likewise, $250k in annual income is extremely well-off, wealthy even, compared to the rest of the nation.
The person who pointed out that her executive spouse friend must live in an executive-style house in order to succeed in his chosen career is distracted by details. Regardless of where the friend buys her detergent, that woman is wealthy.
Years ago, Jay Leno interviewed an up-an-coming star (whose name escapes me), and the conversation turned to cars. The star asked Jay his opinion about Ferarris, but then he expressed doubt about buying one, saying, "Everybody owns one." Jay, ever the pragmatist, gasped, then laughed, and then gently chided the star. He said something along the lines of "What are you talking about? The parking lots in Muncie, Indiana, aren't filled with Ferraris." I think some of the people here need a similar reality check.
Anyway, all of this is a good reason to make sure you choose your pond carefully.
As for taxes, I'll happily pay my extra $1300/yr. Seriously. Then, I'll go to the polls and vote for the people I think are most able to spend it wisely.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 09-15-2010 at 08:29 AM..
Put up or SHUT UP. Republicans are in bed with big business. They screw the little guy the hardest AND longest. Show me the examples of specific corporations being caught funding offshore operations and explain to me how this matter when we are talking about PERSONAL TAXES and making $250,000.00 or more. And then show me WHO gave them a tax break.
How bout I put up, and you SHUT UP?
First, it's entirely relevant to call out idiots who advocate raising taxes on individual Americans making $250K, while pointing out how Corporations are paying NO TAXES but are in fact receiving Welfare (Bailouts) using those tax dollars. Furthermore, these Billionaire Bankers, and Corporations have been spending this money on overseas operations, and all you need to do is research the topic ...
GM Bailout Funds going to Brazil:
GM to Invest $1B of US Taxpayer Bailout Funds in *Brazil* | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82210 - broken link)
Baier later added: "Last week, we told you about a similar study in Argentina, where American taxpayers are funding research to find the relationship between alcohol and risky behavior among homosexuals there." As Media Matters for America noted, a headline on The Fox Nation -- Fox News' purportedly bias-free website -- falsely claimed of that study: "Obama Spending $400K to Studying Drinking and Sex Habits of Gays in Argentina." In fact, the article to which The Fox Nation headline linked stated that the Argentina study began in September 2008, and according to NIH, much of the project's funding was allocated before Obama took office. Baier did not note the Bush administration's role in funding the Argentina study.
Even though we have BUSH to thank for this, you do realize that people TRAVEL to America from Africa? And that people IN AFRICA may have sex with Americans? Africa is NOTORIOUS for telling their people that AIDS is not from having SEX. IF those countries were not doing such harm to their own people by lying to them about how AIDS is contracted, there would be no need for America to fund this kind of education.
I happen to know people from China who came here for a better life, so I don't really have a problem studying the effects of alcohol while being forced to sell your body for money by some LOSER MAN who can't get a real job. Whether they study it here, or there (where the Yen goes MUCH farther then the dollar) it doesn't matter. Because it is a HUMAN STUDY case, not an AMERICAN ONLY STUDY.
First ... I'm not DELUDED by the Bush - Obama argument. They're both crooks and NEITHER are MY BUDDIES.
Secondly ... by attempting to justify these ludicrous spending programs for things like African pecker cleaning and teaching Chinese Hookers how to drink responsibly, you have IDENTIFIED YOURSELF. And NOTHING I could add about your liberal insanity could come as close to what you have already made clear.
If only the founding fathers had had the additional foresight to require minimum IQ levels as a qualifier for the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech, deathly silence would fall upon America, and you'd be the first forced to SHUT UP.
News flash - tax cuts need to be paid for. When something is paid for, money is spent. Everyone wants tax cuts, but no one wants to pay for them. If the conservative approach to deficits is to reduce spending, that must be an approach that totally ignores the impact on the deficit of more or extended tax cuts.
Change a few words around, and the same can be said for conservatives and tax cuts.
Good advice - but I prefer advice from people who practice what they preach ... which is why I tend not to believe our elected Republican officials.
Either extend the tax cuts for 97% of Americans, or let them expire as the tax-cut-fraud Republicans wrote into law. I'm like everyone else - I like paying less in taxes. But when I look at the cost (spending) of the tax cuts, and the increasing burden that places on all of us as well as future generations, I say (get ready for it - here comes my own opinion) let them all expire as the Republicans planned to have happen. Let them go back to pre-2001 levels ... when there was a budget surplus rather than deficit, when we had actually made a dent in the national debt, and when the economy was in much better shape.
Then call for it .... quit the childishness ... "Mommy Why Does He get that and I don't" nonsense.
I'm all for tax cuts for everyone ... and massive spending cuts. So long as they keep stealing our money, they'll keep on spending it on crap that doesn't do any of us an iota of good.
LISTEN ... it's not a REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT THING .... THEY ARE BOTH STEALING OUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you haven't figured that out by now ... YOU KNOW NOTHING !!!!!!
So upper middle class extends to the top 2% of wage earners?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swigchow
I used to think I was middle class, but according to your definition I'm not even close. Oh poor me!
so you want to CLASSIFY people just by what a HOUSEHOLD brings in??????........is that what we are going to use to CLASSIFY in a society now????
hmmm a HOUSEHOLD, has a teacher making 115k....a city GARBAGEman making 125k, and a student making 20k...for a total of 260k...are we going to call that teacher, that garbageman, and that student RICH, and not middleclass or workingclass, because of a number that classified rich 50 years ago
when there was a budget surplus rather than deficit, when we had actually made a dent in the national debt, and when the economy was in much better shape.
uhmm...there never was a true surplus
there was a PROJECTED BUDGET surplus, but since things were OFF BUDGET (just like under bush and his wars) the DEBT continued to climb
just because SALARIES havent kept up with INFLATION doesnt mean we should still CLASSIFY based on 1955/1965 numbers.......average salary in 1966..6900...median house price 14k....about 50% right...use those numbers compared to the meadin house....the median salary SHOULD be 130k...not 50k
sorry but this is not 1955 , when 250k was rich...please get with the times...its 2010
so what does that make ...heck the MINIIMUM salery for the WORST player in the NFL is 310k...are you SERIOUSLY going to call a benchwarmer rich????
Yes; however, I doubt he'll feel that way if the only people to whom he compares himself are those with multi-million dollar salaries.
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.
