I would say that's pretty dang rich. As long as you hold the 250k a year for a little while. Save up and invest(although not the case right now) you can be rich off 60k a year! Cut off stupid spending and you will be a millionaire.

Right now if the stock market rises like it did in the first depression, today's market you would be BRILLIANT to purchase stocks at this time. Buy real cheap and wait for a year or so for the market to fly high! You will mosty likely double your investments at the least....IMO.

Based off past downfall of stock market, it would be wise. Then again, we can never tell!

Back to the point....If spent(or saved) wisely, 250k can make you VERY, VERY rich!!

 

If you ever see S&P 500 trading at 600... Buy all you can! My retirement is in cash until I see that. I went into cash jan of 2007.... I missed the top, but also missed all this selling too. I think we'll take out the 2002/2003 lows and hit 600. Wait n see. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

I think that those census numbers can be mis representing. I think that those numbers also include people who rely compltely on public assistance. That tends to skew the numbers, as I don't believe that people completely on public assistance should count, as frankly they're not your typical "working family." I think, especially given that the highest income bracket represented was the $140k-$149k, that if you exclude the non working public assistance recipients that the mean salary would be much higher than $45k. If you take certain senators and their statistics at face value I should have just been able to go out and buy the ATV that I just did on a whim without any regard to cost, when in reality it took some saving for a down payment and preparing for the expense. I know plenty of people in that $250+ bracket and they certainly don't live like the people portrayed on TV as "rich" they live in normal houses and drive mostly regular cars too. They certainly live a little more easily financially but don't live what I would consider to be "rich" lifestyles.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Lt CHEG

I think that those census numbers can be mis representing. I think that those numbers also include people who rely compltely on public assistance. That tends to skew the numbers, as I don't believe that people completely on public assistance should count, as frankly they're not your typical "working family." I think, especially given that the highest income bracket represented was the $140k-$149k, that if you exclude the non working public assistance recipients that the mean salary would be much higher than $45k. If you take certain senators and their statistics at face value I should have just been able to go out and buy the ATV that I just did on a whim without any regard to cost, when in reality it took some saving for a down payment and preparing for the expense. I know plenty of people in that $250+ bracket and they certainly don't live like the people portrayed on TV as "rich" they live in normal houses and drive mostly regular cars too. They certainly live a little more easily financially but don't live what I would consider to be "rich" lifestyles.</end quote></div>


Well, the idea behind the question is "is someone making 250k well off enough to support a greater part of the government." Only someone that is rich could do that. Many rich people (Ie Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) don't care... Its only the republican rich that care. For the most part anyway.

People with no income count because they can vote. Obviously, if you have no income, the likelihood is high that you will think 250k is rich.

Furthermore, living in an expensive neighborhood can be argued as a choice and not a requirement. Therefore, if you're barely getting by on 250k per year due to "your choices", it can be argued that you mis-managed your finances. Those high prices are high only because people are willing to pay them.... And if 250k is not enough, then its not enough and you shouldn't be struggling by living beyond your means. Just like the people that make $1 mill per year and struggle in Manhattan. Silly in my opinion.... I would work 1 year and take the rest of my life off.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JustRandy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Lt CHEG



I think that those census numbers can be mis representing. I think that those numbers also include people who rely compltely on public assistance. That tends to skew the numbers, as I don't believe that people completely on public assistance should count, as frankly they're not your typical "working family." I think, especially given that the highest income bracket represented was the $140k-$149k, that if you exclude the non working public assistance recipients that the mean salary would be much higher than $45k. If you take certain senators and their statistics at face value I should have just been able to go out and buy the ATV that I just did on a whim without any regard to cost, when in reality it took some saving for a down payment and preparing for the expense. I know plenty of people in that $250+ bracket and they certainly don't live like the people portrayed on TV as "rich" they live in normal houses and drive mostly regular cars too. They certainly live a little more easily financially but don't live what I would consider to be "rich" lifestyles.</end quote></div>





Well, the idea behind the question is "is someone making 250k well off enough to support a greater part of the government." Only someone that is rich could do that. Many rich people (Ie Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) don't care... Its only the republican rich that care. For the most part anyway.



People with no income count because they can vote. Obviously, if you have no income, the likelihood is high that you will think 250k is rich.



Furthermore, living in an expensive neighborhood can be argued as a choice and not a requirement. Therefore, if you're barely getting by on 250k per year due to "your choices", it can be argued that you mis-managed your finances. Those high prices are high only because people are willing to pay them.... And if 250k is not enough, then its not enough and you shouldn't be struggling by living beyond your means. Just like the people that make $1 mill per year and struggle in Manhattan. Silly in my opinion.... I would work 1 year and take the rest of my life off.</end quote></div>


When I mentioned people making $250k and not living a "rich" lifestyle I was referring to people I know where I live, which is a pretty low cost of living area. Obviously, $250k is not a lot in a place like Manhattan, but it's a very good living in Albany, NY where I am from. Still, $250k will not allow someone to live the typical rich lifestyle that people like Obama, McCain, most hollywood types etc. enjoy. I think for Obama to call someone making $250k rich and able to afford "a bigger share" of the government's expenses is disingenuous as he passed that level of income a LONG time ago. Maybe when he made $250k per year, it was a rich lifestyle, but with gas prices, food prices, heck just about everything going up along with a still ridiculously overinflated housing market, I can tell you that $250k is not all that much money.

 

I, personally, don't think of $250k a year as being rich. With my parents combined income in the 7 fig range (barely, and please please do not take this offensively or snobby or anything like that, I am simply trying to contribute my views to the discussion), and going to a rich private school with some kids who's parents have double digit million dollar bonuses, own really nice cars, have the latest gadgets, expensive clothes, and of course huge houses, it just doesn't seem rich.

When I'm older, I hope to make at least $150k a year. Who knows how things will play out though. I can respect $150k as a decent, heck a great salary a year. In perspective with other people I know, it's not "rich", or "wealthy" but instead would be..... very comfortable? It's a really really great salary though. I would love to make that when I am older!

 

I think there should be a flat tax rate for everyone. No loopholes for the rich, but they shouldn't be penalized for being rich either.

I still think $250,000 a year is a lot of money. Enough to consider you rich. It would only take you 4 years to make a million dollars, and if you worked 40 years you'd have ten million dollars. At the rate I'm going it will take 40-50 years to make a million dollars. If you make that in 4 years or less, you're rich. Period. How can you makes millions of dollars and not be rich? I don't want to hear excuses that you aren't rich after you pissed it all away. If you're making millions of dollars, you're rich. End of story. <u>Anyone</u> who pulls in that kind of money is rich compared to the other 98% of us. The rest of us may make a million dollars in an entire lifetime, but not in a year, or even 4 years!

If you work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year (taking 2 weeks vacation a year) that's 2,000 hours. At the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour that's $13,100 a year. If you make 20 times that much YOU'RE RICH. At $13,100 a year you would have to work 76 years, 4 months, and 1 day to make a million dollars. NOT RICH. And if you started working when you were 18 you couldn't retire with your million dollars until you're over 94 years old. Getting $250,00 a year and retiring when you're 22 sounds better to me. Why work an extra 72 years if you don't have to? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

$250k a year may or may not be rich, but people at that income bracket probably aren't trying to decide if they want to heat their home this winter, or keep their medical insurance...

I like the idea of a flat tax, but I wouldn't mind it if there was a cutoff at say 15k, below which taxes would be greatly reduced (that group that can barely pay rent and food).

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JeffinTD

$250k a year may or may not be rich, but people at that income bracket probably aren't trying to decide if they want to heat their home this winter, or keep their medical insurance...

</end quote></div>


I think we can definitely agree on your points here. As for the flat tax rate, I like the idea of a flat tax. I can also agree with a lower rate for those making $15k or less a year. In my personal opinion, we should go to a strictly consumption based tax, or other sort of value added tax. I like the idea of being able to legally avoid paying taxes, by simply avoiding consumption, or at least reducing consumption. The nice thing about a value added or consumption tax is that it would encourage people to save more than they do now. A higher marginal propensity to save is good for a nation in the long term. Actually, I am happy that credit is currently much more difficult to obtain. We as a nation spend more than we make and won't be able to keep that up forever. Increasing our savings rate would be good for our long term economic health.

 

Its pretty black n white (no pun intended). [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Here's what McCain says:

We need a simpler, fairer tax code, but not FairTax
Q: Do you support the elimination of the federal income tax in favor of a national retail sales tax, also known as the FairTax?
A: I do not, and I think we should look very carefully at it. Obviously, we need a simpler, fairer tax code. If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes
Q: Wall Street executives are making millions, paying tax rates of 15%, while the average guy is paying 30% in taxes. Is this system fair?
A: Everybody's paying taxes, and wealth creates wealth. A vibrant economy creates wealth. Revenues are at an all-time high.

Q: So you're saying the system is fair?

A: Sure it's fair. The bulk of the taxes are paid by wealthy people. Should we reform our tax code? Absolutely we should fix our tax code, and we should fix it immediately.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Eco..._McCain_Tax_Reform.htm

Obama Says:

No tax increase if earning under $250K; tax cuts under $75K
Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.

Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.

Q: You both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and $200,000.

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

I'm not bashful about it: wealthy will pay more taxes
Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

CLINTON: It's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 30, 2008

http://www.issues2000.org/econ...k_obama_tax_reform.htm