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.
No, it's still wealthy since you are WAY above the norm...even for Seattle. You are missing the point that VERY few families make above 200k a year.
Okay...And my wife and I could do just as well (maybe better) making half of what I make in the south. It's all relative. Sure I'm WAY above the norm overall...just not for here. I know what you are trying to say, but it's not REAL. It's a false statistic to just classify that as wealthy. I know plenty of people making 200k. They aren't "livin' large" (AKA Wealthy) at all. You can get a house that costs a million here for 250k in the south (maybe less in some places).
200k may be rich in Mississippi, but on long island,,,its middleclass
the average STARTER (small 1500sf, on a TINY propery 50x100) house on long island is 450k, with the average property taxes (2 taxes, county and town(school)),,,based on the 30% rule you would HAVE to have an income of 150k to be able to buy it......meaning 150k is WORKINGCLASS
that's the PROBLEM when politicians put out a BLANKET number and say ' this number is rich'......fact is what is rick in boondocks arkansas, is definatly not rich in other areas
It's like a brick wall. How many families ACTUALLY make 200k? Well, they are in the top 3% of American families. Meaning they make more than 97% of families. 200k ANYWHERE in the US is in the HIGHEST segment of the population.
450k for a starter home in an area with a median income of around 60k or so. The average is roughly the same. Meaning that the middle 50% make 60,000k. The mode is DEF nowhere NEAR 200k.
I live in California. My parent's home (1600 sq. feet.) at the height was roughly the same amount. That's because of the housing bubble. Housing costs, did not make 200k the new middle class. The fact of the matter is that housing costs outpaced income. So that's not REALLY a valid argument (since you are not basing your figures on what the income IS, but rather what it SHOULD be. Huge difference. In many areas, the median income was about 45k, yet the average home value was 500k +.)
Okay...And my wife and I could do just as well (maybe better) making half of what I make in the south. It's all relative. Sure I'm WAY above the norm overall...just not for here. I know what you are trying to say, but it's not REAL. It's a false statistic to just classify that as wealthy. I know plenty of people making 200k. They aren't "livin' large" (AKA Wealthy) at all. You can get a house that costs a million here for 250k in the south (maybe less in some places).
Even for Seattle. Put it this way, in Anaheim Hills, where my brother lives...still less than 20% of the population makes 200k a year or more. This in a city where the median and average incomes are above 150k. This is consistently ranked as one of the nation's most affluent areas.
Again, what the income IS and what it SHOULD be (in a bubble market) are two different things.
you are missing the point ....as YOU posted..."""The median family income in 2007 was roughly $63,000""""
that means 50% of the people make MORE than 63k....63K is the 50% mark
median means 50%...half make less,,half make more....median is NOT the AVERAGE
Typically speaking the median is near the average. In most cases the average is not SO far off the median. Esp. with large sample populations, like that of the US.
Gee, I'm afraid you would have to compare the situation as it was WITH the tax cuts to the situation as it would have been WITHOUT the tax cuts. That's what these guys did. All of them are former Bush administration officials...
Whoa now! All of a sudden doing a comparison with/without is valid, whereas when you are confronted with the failed stimulus and the comparison of the UE with/without the stimulus, completely bogus you say.
Credibility=toilet...again.
It doesn't matter what they say, the numbers (facts) speak for themselves. The deficit was reduced due to increased revenue, due to those bush tax cuts. That is an inescapable fact. You are just spinning speculation of what the situation would have been without the tax cuts.
It's like a brick wall. How many families ACTUALLY make 200k? Well, they are in the top 3% of American families. Meaning they make more than 97% of families. 200k ANYWHERE in the US is in the HIGHEST segment of the population.
450k for a starter home in an area with a median income of around 60k or so. The average is roughly the same. Meaning that the middle 50% make 60,000k. The mode is DEF nowhere NEAR 200k.
I live in California. My parent's home (1600 sq. feet.) at the height was roughly the same amount. That's because of the housing bubble. Housing costs, did not make 200k the new middle class. The fact of the matter is that housing costs outpaced income. So that's not REALLY a valid argument (since you are not basing your figures on what the income IS, but rather what it SHOULD be. Huge difference. In many areas, the median income was about 45k, yet the average home value was 500k +.)
People making 45k buying 500k houses? With NO taxes or anything taken out, that wouldn't even cover the payment.
People making 45k buying 500k houses? With NO taxes or anything taken out, that wouldn't even cover the payment.
...Hello?
Did I say they were buying houses? I don't think I did. Simply was making a statement on how one should look at the actual income stats, and not what the income SHOULD be. The income in Santa Barbara, for example, should be closer to 300k, it's NOWHERE near that...Few are making that amount.
Did I say they were buying houses? I don't think I did. Simply was making a statement on how one should look at the actual income stats, and not what the income SHOULD be. The income in Santa Barbara, for example, should be closer to 300k, it's NOWHERE near that...Few are making that amount.
OMG. You didn't insinuate that at all? I don't think you did the math before you pressed submit is what I think. I really think the only person you are making sense to is you at this point. I could essentially throw any number out there and call it what I want (poor, wealthy, etc.). The REALITY is far different. That's why there are things like cost of living indexes, etc. You can't just say X='s wealthy and do whatever accordingly. It's like saying the average shoe size is 10 and expecting everyone to wear that shoe size.
OMG. You didn't insinuate that at all? I don't think you did the math before you pressed submit is what I think. I really think the only person you are making sense to is you at this point. I could essentially throw any number out there and call it what I want (poor, wealthy, etc.). The REALITY is far different. That's why there are things like cost of living indexes, etc. You can't just say X='s wealthy and do whatever accordingly. It's like saying the average shoe size is 10 and expecting everyone to wear that shoe size.
I'll TRY to put this another way. I'll Santa Barbara as an example. The cost of living is VERY high. The median family income is about $72,000 a year. The average income is slightly less. However, the average housing price is about 900k-1 million. Thus, using the traditional 3:1 (home price to income) you need more than 300k to buy the average Santa Barbara home. This obviously not the case. FEW people make this amount. FEW people make 200k. VERY few make over 200k. You need to look at the ACTUAL income stats (what percentage of people are making what amount). You aren't doing that. You are simply looking at what people SHOULD making (according to the cost of living index) and not what people ARE making (according to the census).
The housing bubble shouldn't act as a protection to repeal the tax cuts. Most people making these WEALTHY incomes bought their homes prior to the bubble. So said family in Santa Barbara making 200k that owns a 1 million dollar home, probably bought it for 300-500k. Easily within the realm of a person earning 200k. Let's not forget people making this much have much in terms of unearned income.
It's more like saying that most people wear a size 10 and aknowledge that a size 15 is out above the norm.
Actually the median family income in CA is 69k, not too far above the national median family income. For NY it's 67k. So yeah even in NY and CA, 200k is wealthy. Still in the upper echelon of earners...
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.
