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.
Income allows you to buy things. Profession and wealth are not the same.
We aren't talking about SOCIAL class.
250k is rich. A multi-million dollar sports star is rich.
It's not difficult. Your fixation on cops making nearly 500k not being rich because he's a cop is absurd. If a lawyer made the same amount as the cop would he rich? I mean you're adding profession to this mixing SOCIAL CLASS and ECONOMIC CLASS together. They are similar, but slightly different.
no
you are mixing up income and wealth
a person making 100k, 200k, 400k a cop, a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor...they have to WORK therefore they are not rich, not wealthy.... on the otherhand someone like paris hilton..they are rich..even though they do work
you confuse income level with wealth and richness...........I make 60k, but if I compared it to my highschool days at White Castle of 15k, then..., I must be rich......by YOUR standards
It seems that one of the things about which there's disagreement on in this thread is the definition of rich. Some think that those who earn more income than most are rich, others think that rich means that you maintain yourself without having to work, mostly or entirely off of capital investments.
It seems that one of the things about which there's disagreement on in this thread is the definition of rich. Some think that those who earn more income than most are rich, others think that rich means that you maintain yourself without having to work, mostly or entirely off of capital investments.
that's because the media, government, etc want to change classifications all the time
I was told I was rich because I owned a house...meanwhile I make 60k
btw..income is REGIONAL too... :
for example our minimum wage...currently at 7 and change..you can live pretty well in an area like mississippi or Sc where rents are 300 for a 3 bedroom....but here in newyork $20/hr wont afford you to live...a single bedroom apt is 1400/month
that's the problem with our government and media,,they think ONE SIZE FITS ALL
250k may very well be rich, in bumfreak iowa, or mississippi, but it is middleclass in the suburbs of NYC
It seems that one of the things about which there's disagreement on in this thread is the definition of rich. Some think that those who earn more income than most are rich, others think that rich means that you maintain yourself without having to work, mostly or entirely off of capital investments.
It is a little more than that. If you earn a high income say $500k or more a year for 10-20 years you will be very wealthy or rich (if you save money). Many people in the over $250k camp make that level of income for one maybe a few years. The classic example I chronicled in a prior post about the drop off from 2000-2002. California alone lost billions in revenue between 00-02 just due to fewer people doing a one time stock option exercise that produced income and capital gains. They went from $17 billion in revenue for just this one group to 5.2 billion 2 years later. The number of million dollar tax returns in CA were down about 70% over those years. Gov Davis got the blame for something he had zero control over.
Making even a million gross one year will not make you wealthy, trust me, I know some people in that boat.
If we tax the Millionaires and billionaires as I hear said all time, how much would it help? This is similar to a congressional study done about 20 years ago but I’ll update the numbers.
Let’s assume that once someone makes more than $1,000,000 in a year we tax them at 100% back to dollar one, meaning they take home zero for the year.
How much of our national debt and annual deficit would that eliminate in year one. (current deficit about 1.6 Trillion, Debt $14 trillion)
How much in year two?
Please give your best guess before reading the spoiler.
Year one savings.
Spoiler
About $700 billion more would be raised, so our deficit would still be $900 billion
Year two...
Spoiler
Do you really think anyone would earn more than $999,999 after just getting 100% of their income takin the year before?
It's really hard for me to fathom how consistently wrong you are on really simple to understand matters. And you claim to be a doctor? God I hope you're not practicing any longer for the sake of your patients.
I didn't touch the military, Medicare or Social Security, but the current deficit is three times the $418 billion in the 2015 model and even higher than what is projected for 2030. That is the number that has to tackled with today's revenue.
a person making 100k, 200k, 400k a cop, a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor...they have to WORK therefore they are not rich, not wealthy.... on the otherhand someone like paris hilton..they are rich..even though they do work
you confuse income level with wealth and richness...........I make 60k, but if I compared it to my highschool days at White Castle of 15k, then..., I must be rich......by YOUR standards
That is quite true. You need to have at least $10 million saved and in investments that bear income to be rich. Conservatively, with a 5% return, that yeilds $500k per year, which anyone can live off. You really do not have to work if you choose not to do so. There are those, however, who blow through infinite amounts of money, despite savings (see Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, ect).
However, if one makes $500K + per year and has little savings, one would be in a jam if not working.
OK, so let's say that when somebody says "tax the rich," that they mean to increase the tax on those who are living mostly or entirely off of capital investments.
Should the tax on realized capital investments be significantly increased for those earning, say, $500,000 or more on dividends or minimal sales of their investments each year? I suspect that the answer from several is going to be no, because many of you reject the idea of a progressive tax system in principle. But I'm wondering if we measured richness that way, whether it might change anybody's answer.
OK, so let's say that when somebody says "tax the rich," that they mean to increase the tax on those who are living mostly or entirely off of capital investments.
Should the tax on realized capital investments be significantly increased for those earning, say, $500,000 or more on dividends or minimal sales of their investments each year? I suspect that the answer from several is going to be no, because many of you reject the idea of a progressive tax system in principle. But I'm wondering if we measured richness that way, whether it might change anybody's answer.
I work and work hard but, I live off of my investments.
I do this by buying equipment and writing off my income against the investment.
I do both.
I could run huge amounts of money though my books and still file a "0" income.
We are never taxed on what we make, only on what we keep.
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.
