Manhattan, the outer boroughs, or the tri-state area? It matters. And Northern New York...Albany and above...they are lower class to middle class.
As long as you understand Obama places the EXACT SAME cut off for middle class. I assume you've been railing against that the past several years. I think he even came up with that $250k number before he was elected if I recall.
It isn't all relative when the Democrats have framed the debate by saying that millionaires should pay more. Somebody making $148,000 generally is not a millionaire. You should also look at the average teacher salaries. In Texas, the average is almost 25% over $40,000. In places like CT and IL, it is almost $70,000. Are they worth it? YES! I mention that to make note that the hypothetical teacher you referenced is probably very young or lives somewhere that the cost of living is well below the national average.
2011 median household income in New York City $75,809. Percent in poverty 18.5% much lower about two hours outside of the city
Where I live the medium household income is higher than that and 250k would definitely be considered rich here. Or maybe we should say upper middle class or lower upper class (something between the rich and middle class)
I would like to see what both candidates think the lower boundary to the "middle income" range is. I think it's a fact that this country now has more poor people than it did a decade ago.
I would still say the range for middle class is 20th to 80th percentile and 80 to 90th or 95th percentile being called lower upper class and the top 5 to 10 percent called the upper class.
This is probably true but I wonder... Did he say that $250,000 was middle class or did he just say he was giving the middle class tax cuts and that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than 250K? There's a pretty big difference.
No there's not. The only reason for the president to define the middle class is for tax purposes. He wants to raise taxes on the upper class, so he raises taxes on people making $250k and above. The implication is clear unless you're being purposefully dense.
sadly this is true.. ..but if you look at average millionaires and drop the top 13% (which skews average wages waaaayy up), their average salary is less than 150K a year. The lesson? If you make 148K a year..you SHOULD be a millionaire before you retire. (the average age of a millionaire is 57) http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2011/05/millionaire-next-door.html
A millionaire with 1 million in wealth is not all that rich if he saved that over his lifetime. That is very different than someone making a million a year.
Actually I completely agree. But wealth is relative to some people. A person who makes 100K a year and doesn't save will tell you that Any Millionaire is rich, while someone who makes 40K a year will tell you that the 100K a year person is rich. The problem with this country is that most people BELIEVE that they can't make it on their income. But if you look at their lives, they have one or two car payments, a $300+ game system, flat screen HDTV, go out to eat all the time and wear expensive name brand clothes. The average millionaire drives a Honda or Chrysler they bought used. The average "middle class" person drives a car they bought (wasted money) for over 35K - 50K. My wife and I make a good salary (around 110K a year before taxes..around 80K take home) but we don't have any of those things. Instead, we're putting $1250+ a month on to her student loans to pay them off quickly,we've saved $1000 cash for this Christmas, and we're currently about to save around $350 a month to replace my '98 Saturn next fall. I'll pay about 6K for a used car, but at that point, We'll have her student loans paid off And I'll put that $1250+ in the bank for about a year. By the time my daughter is 8, we'll be able to establish a 529 for her and her sister to save for college, we'll have 15K-18K in the bank for emergencies, no debt except the house (which we'll have more than halfway paid off). Financial planning is a long-term plan..unfortunately for most it means little more than a 401K. We meet people that live ok on 40K a year and let the wife stay home with the kids. They don't feel poor, they feel blessed to be able to have the wife raise the kids. Its a lifestyle choice. As long as Americans want nice things more than they want a secure future...they'll never ever be wealthy..and they'll constantly complain about the wealthy in this country.
I have often advocated new tax brackets. I personally believe that small business owners who make between 200 to 300k are the most likely to hire people. That is what happened at the last place I worked. I do not believe that we should give a tax disincentive to them. There should be a slightly higher tax bracket from 300k to 500k....higher for 500 k to 1M....higher for 1M to 5M....and higher for 5M and up. We need to better differentiate between the successful small business owner and the real fat cats. Our tax bracket system is antiquated due to the changes in earning structure over the years.
Aint going to happen with this BS two party system. The rhetoric of both sides labels 250k+ as high earners which protects the corporate jerkoffs in the banking/finance sector making 5mil+ [w 15% cap gains TR] who are the ones truly effecting legislation. But to your point, I agree 100%.
Agree with that.people who make 20 million a year have nothing in common with people who make 250k a year.
There's a manipulative discourse that places small business owners and super-wealthy bankers on the same scale of value, as if laws that apply to super-wealthy people somehow also impact small business owners. This is, of course, dishonest. Really though, tax should take into account wealth more than income.
Not going to happen, as our tax code has as one of its goals to promote saving. Taxing wealth (or net worth) would be a disincentive to saving.
I would suggest limits - you don't want to tax grandma's savings, but for huge amounts of wealth, a tax would provide incentives to put that wealth back into the general economy.
