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.
El Drugo Rushbo recently stated that $250,000 income is not wealthy. He doesn't realize that only 2% of the population make $250,000. Fair enough, however on his website he claims that only the "rich" pay taxes, citing as evidence that the top 50% pay 96% of taxes.
So let me get this straight, being in the top 50% makes you rich, but being in the top 2% does not. That is what you call Republican logic, or rampant drug abuse
El Drugo Rushbo recently stated that $250,000 income is not wealthy. He doesn't realize that only 5% of the population make $250,000. Fair enough, however on his website he claims that only the "rich" pay taxes, citing as evidence that the top 50% pay 96% of taxes.
So let me get this straight, being in the top 50% makes you rich, but being in the top 5% does not. That is what you call Republican logic, or rampant drug abuse
Not a very good catch at all considering you have to ignor the other charts that show how large the amount is the higher up the ladder you go. Over half the tax burden is paid by the top 5%.
The bottom 50% pay less than 5%. The top 5% pay over half the tax burden.
Not a very good catch at all considering you have to ignor the other charts that show how large the amount is the higher up the ladder you go. Over half the tax burden is paid by the top 5%.
The bottom 50% pay less than 5%. The top 5% pay over half the tax burden.
What part of the post did you not understand??? I'm not going to bother to explain it to you, since it would be a waste of time.
Not a very good catch at all considering you have to ignor the other charts that show how large the amount is the higher up the ladder you go. Over half the tax burden is paid by the top 5%.
The bottom 50% pay less than 5%. The top 5% pay over half the tax burden.
you should really re-read the post. its pretty back and white and somehow you are making it grey.....You see the 250k puts you in the top 5% you are referring to
The left constantly talks about wanting tax hikes for the wealthy which they define as the 250K and up crowd. It appears that is what is being referred to in the article. Rush doesn't agree that 250k is wealthy, but since the left has pounded that number relentlessly as representing the wealthy, it seems pretty obvious that is what the article is referring to since it is talking about. No contradiction. A comment made completely seperate from the article has to be thrown in to create a false contradiction.
TX...I'm not a Rush fan so excuse me if I am misplaced.
250K is in fact the Obama speach. He set that limit and has broken it by pushing down with his tax policies.
250K is wealthy, if you can keep it up for several years its darn good.
The Alternate Minimum Tax is the issue. The AMT places burden at about the 150K level. Neither party has seen fit to fix the AMT, it is patched each year based on re-election aspirations.
Obama and Reagan are the pivotal aspects of this discussion.
Reagan did what was necessary for the prospective of the economy and Obama will do the same.
Let's all grow up and appreciate the fact the true uber-rich are well beyond the pitance of a 250K annual income.
El Drugo Rushbo recently stated that $250,000 income is not wealthy. He doesn't realize that only 5% of the population make $250,000. Fair enough, however on his website he claims that only the "rich" pay taxes, citing as evidence that the top 50% pay 96% of taxes.
So let me get this straight, being in the top 50% makes you rich, but being in the top 5% does not. That is what you call Republican logic, or rampant drug abuse
Yes, $250,000 can be rich, but it indeed is not even close to wealthy.. If you bring in $250,000 a year and spending $245,000 are you rich because the net result is very very poor. Thats not the same as wealthy who can spend $245,000 and not even think about it...
you should really re-read the post. its pretty back and white and somehow you are making it grey.....You see the 250k puts you in the top 5% you are referring to
Its not black and white
Can someone considered rich who brings in $250,000 a year afford a $5,000,000 yaucht? Someone who is wealthy can.. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME...
Yes, $250,000 can be rich, but it indeed is not even close to wealthy.. If you bring in $250,000 a year and spending $245,000 are you rich because the net result is very very poor. Thats not the same as wealthy who can spend $245,000 and not even think about it...
Exactly.
And 250K brings a hefty tax bill no matter where you live.
Heck, 50K barely pays taxes at all. So shut it.
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.
