$250,000 a year isn't rich!

[memphis]

Schumer is full of it, though if this is the political posturing we have to endure for people to get that the GOP only cares about the super rich, "so be it". 250k/year is undeniably rich anywhere. I don't care that there are richer people around. A 300 lb person surrounded by 400 lb people is still fat. And somebody making 250k ( in earned income, after all deductions) would pay $0 more under the original Obama plan as tax rate are marginal ,as anybody who knows the first thing about tax code could tell you. And large majorities of people consistently tell pollsters that they want richers to pay more in taxes. The GOP will get burned on this issue. Not that they care. If they give on taxes for richers, they have no reason to exist.

[memphis]

Per census bureau, median household annual income:

Orange County, CA $71k
New York County, NY $68k
San Francisco County, CA $70k

Any way you slice it, $250k/year is rich. It's four times the average income in a wealthy county and five times an average one. And even still, it's exempt from any additional taxes even in Obama's budget. It's insane to argue these folks are not living the good life. If they have money problems, they're making some seriously bad decisions. And I suspect many are.

[memphis]

I'd like to raise an issue which I'm not sure has been discussed since I have not looked through the whole thread.  The tax on dividends and capital gains is a paltry 15%.  And I think that is where a lot of wealthy folks are getting off easier than they should -- the low tax rates on investment income disproportionately favors them.

It seems fundamentally wrong to me that making money for doing work is taxed at a higher rate than doing nothing and accumulating money.

Investments is not "doing nothing", for people who actually work in the field.

Good. They should be taxed as earned income then.