You have benefited a lot more than most from that infrastructure, therefore it is on you to pay for it. That is what a progressive income tax is all about.
I can tell you that the guy that was the store director (ie top manager of the store) at the Randall's I bagged groceries at when I was in high school made over $100,000 a year BEFORE his bonus. I know this because when I was 19, they offered me a spot in management training. They told us what all the store managers made.
Oh another anti-tax talking point developed by billionaire funded think tanks and picked up by the working class believers bites the dust.
Mortgage PITI - $4200 Cars x 2 - $1600 Living expenses (gas, food) - $1700 Medical insurance - $700 Savings - $1300 Vacations - $400 Daycare - $700 College tuition x 2 - $1000 Anything else you want - negative $1600 Now, I'm not saying that if you make this much money you can't live comfortably. But people forget all the things these 'rich' folk have to pay for beyond basic necessities. If you're not 'rich' then maybe you aren't saving much for your kid's education. Well, when you make this much you are. If you're not 'rich' then maybe you leave your kid with the neighborhood lady who's watching 3 other kids. Well, when you make this much you have them in Montessori school. And then at the end of the month, you're living comfortably but you're still worrying about money constantly.
Not so. Interesting to see you arguing that we should listen to the rest of the world. Will you join me in urging an end to the private health insurance industry since it has proven to not be as efficeint as the single payer in the rest of the world?
What a myth. Are there lower income people that got a subprime loan? Sure. I will tell you that in my previous work representing debtors and my current work representing mortgage servicers, you would be very surprised to see the types of homes that are covered by subprime loans and the income of the borrowers.
Only if we can join the rest of the world in not giving billions a year in foreign aid. If we do that, then we could provide universal healthcare and monetarily it wouldn't be much more than we spend overall now.
Refman, please research. We give less foreign aid per person than most of the rest of the wealthy world. I remember debunking this false view conclusively a few years ago on this board with the detailed statistics.
Do you have an actual percentage breakdown? Maybe you tended to represent more well off people, that doesnt mean a significant portion of subrime borrowers werent poor.
Worrying constantly about money can't be the standard for being 'not rich.' Even the megarich worry about money because they have huge assets in play. As for your budget - that's for someone making 200k+ a year. Even then, do you need 2 eight hundred dollar a month cars? Even at 200k, the monthly housing payment you have is more than the recommended 25% max of your budget. Living expenses at 1700? Even if you spend 200 each on gas, that's still 650 each for food and intangibles? That's a lot of paper towels. And at the end of it you're still putting away almost five grand for a vacation, 15k in savings, and 12k in college tuition fund. Then we go back to defining rich. You can't say the rich don't have worries - I'm not saying that. But look at the things on your list - they are more in line with someone rich than middleclass. A 4k+ house payment. A 100k house cost 800 a month. A vacation fund. A savings account with money in it. A college fund. 2 very nice cars. Caviar and champagne style food budget. Glynch is right on this one. We spend something less than 1% of the budget on foreign aid.
I think the biggest problem with the article is in how it frames the issue, “the need to tax the wealthy.” This sets up an us vs. them perspective and it will strongly suggest to many people an unfair approach. I think the author should have nixed all the “tax the wealthy” talk and concentrated on whether the tax is a fair tax period. I think one of the things Obama does so well is that he has an all encompassing vision for society, and I think he’s very aware of language that suggest the contrary. Note that the “tax the wealthy” language this author used has dictated how the discussion in this thread has gone. Most of it has been about what constitutes being wealthy, are we picking on the wealthy, etc., rather than about the fairness of the tax proposal itself.
Hey, you're the one that said 'buy anything else they want'. You're the one that chose the $500k house... that is the mortgage for that house. And it's two $600 cars with insurance and maintenance. And what is your food budget? $10/day lunch alone is $250 a month for just one working person. Groceries for a family of 4 will easily make up the rest. And if you note... at the end of the month that above budget is $11600. So you can take out $1600 from tuition or vacation. Either way, to me seems like you think anyone who doesn't have to live paycheck to paycheck, week to week, and can have some savings in the bank is 'rich' then so be it... that's your definition. I can't help that.
I can save us time, concede your budget, and you can still cover it. You can make some adjustments with that budget and still accumulate wealth and maintain a rich lifestyle. Even 'rich' have to make choices. So you could have the 500k house and all the other stuff you listed but maybe you take a cheaper vacation (like in the backyard of your 500k house ), or you save elsewhere. As with the helicopter example, 'buy anything else they want' is not literal. Where do you think the brightline is for defining 'rich?' Anyone can pack their budget no matter what it's size, and that you can fill up 10k doesn't shed light on whether or not it meets a threshold for being rich. Comparatively even at that level you are in the top 5% of incomes.
Refman can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming since he mentions universal health care etc that he is referring to government spending, not private donations.
You are flat out wrong here. While it may be true that a lot fewer people would go to law school or medical school if there was not as great a financial incentive, many people still would. Some people want to be doctors. Some people want to be lawyers. I went to grad school in physics knowing that it would be damn hard and that I would actually not make any more money than if I had just stuck with my engineering degree as an undergrad. You know why I did it? Because I didn't want to be an engineer, I wanted to be a scientist, and that requires the Ph D. And I'm sure that if I wanted to be a lawyer, becoming an accountant instead would not appeal to me.
