I said CLEARING 120k. Housing should account for 25% of that, so $2500 a month for your house. I think you ought to be able to find a nice house for that. I understand you can't have anything (you can't buy your own island for 2500 a month) but we're talking about 5% of the population at best. What do you call 'rich' - only the top 1%?
That person is probably taking home about $90,000 a year net, and probably less if he is paying for his insurance, and if he actually puts into a retirement account. He isn't buying a 500k house, unless of course he and the lender are idiots(well I guess we know the lenders are idiots). Edit: I see that you said net later in the post. That would still be a lot for someone netting $130,000
Guys...CLEARING 10k a month. CLEARING 10k a month. That means he/she is taking home 10k a month AFTER taxes. The gross income would be in the 150-175k range. Home loans normally will go 3x your gross earnings, that's 450k+ on the low end. So yes, they could buy a 500k home.
Actually, I think this common misconception consistently clouds the entire discussion. The reasoning behind asking those who make more to pay a higher percentage is simply that the extra burden affects the wealthier more than it does the poor or the middle class. There is no animosity in that reasoning. Nobody wants the rich to give up all of the benefits of the money they earn. Nobody wants to bring the wealthy down to the level of the middle class. Whether you believe me or not, I think it would be interesting if you could read through the arguments under the assumption that there is no animosity towards those who make a lot of money. See if you can gain a different understanding of the reasoning being used.
I'm not retreating at all. High marginal tax rates are bad. Just because you can find some years where we grew IN SPITE of them doesn't mean they are good. Again, this is pretty much settled economic policy. Even progressive economies have low marginal tax rates. What do you want to argue about next, evolution?
Could and should are two different things. I could get a house for over $100,000, but I live in one that cost me $52,000. I don't know anybody living in a $500k house that doesn't make that much a year.
Great post. Just as you have 'rich' like Buffett saying he shouldn't be paying less taxes than his secretaries, you have 'not rich' and 'rich' on both sides of the issue. The weird thing for me is how many 'not rich' are so vehemently against raising taxes on the 'rich.' Fearmongering by the rich has swayed the 'not rich' to their side, as if raising taxes would somehow impede their own ability to someday be rich.
Although a lot of people on your side of the aisle are against the teaching of evolution, I didn't want to assume you were among them. But there you go. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I understand, but the 3x is pretty standard and has been for a long time as a measure of what you can afford. 1x is not.
That's bs and you know it. You seem to have a good grasp on economic theory so it's pretty obvious you're being facetious. Subprime lending wasn't going to people making 150k to 175k a year buying at 3x. It's sad you've got to resort to distortion when you know better.
I'm kind of embarrassed to admit I remember it, but at some point in one of his books Karl Marx talks about his 'petit bourgeois' being the strongest defenders of the class structure. That stuck with me from all those many years ago when I read it, precisely because I keep finding examples that it is true. In other words, while the rich certainly don't discourage it, I think it is something in human nature that makes the wannabe rich defend the system so strongly.
so because you "ought" to be able to find a house for that price means that they should be charged more? and 450K does not always find a "nice" house, especially if you are taking extra rooms for kids and location, obviously, is a big part of it. the problem i have with what you've been saying is that you are implying that since they can get by with that amount, it's ok for them to get hit harder. argueing for the extreme rich is one thing, but hitting the fringe of the bracket is where the real issue is, especially since a household income of that is not "rich". plus, even if they are taxed more then the govt will just inefficiently spend the money on some worthless project
THe problem I have is that some how the line got moved down from 250K to 120K. People at 120K are not getting harder. People at 250K are barely getting hit harder.
again, its your definition of rich. 20k a month is not rich to many. Well off? secure? sure, but not rich. a responsible family of 5, living in a moderate house, aggressively saving for the future (e.g. retirement, child savings, college, etc) living off 10k a month would hardly be considered rich nor would they be living some extravegant "rich" lifestyle. now if you want to move your threshold to the 350k/yr take home pay, then you might have a little easier of an argument convincing people of increasing taxes on those since you are moving further away from the "no man's land" 10K/month may sound like it's a huge and "rich" amount, but looks and sounds arent everything.
Yes, you should contribute more if your material wealth is substantially larger than 95% of the population. If you wanted to tax the top 1% enough to cover us, instead of the top 5%, I'm ok with that. Yep - we should just live in corporations instead of countries . Sorry FB, I did that. I said if you are CLEARING 120k a year you are rich.
