$250,000 a year isn't rich!

[Torie]

In the boom, Hispanics were buying 700K box homes of 1500 square feet in the most problematical of neighborhoods fueled by all those subprime loans, in the great OC. The ending was not a  happy one. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This entire thread makes me laugh a little at the way these numbers get thrown around (in what seems to me) like we're using Monopoly money. I'm not sure I have much of a coherent point in this post, but it may give a little perspective about middle America away from the coasts and big cities.

A few notes... the township I grew up in outside Sandusky has a median family income of $41k a year and we're the "rich suburb" in comparison since Sandusky's median family income of $31k a year. My parents' salaries added together were about $100k a year before our current recession and we're probably the richest people in our neighborhood, or close to it.

Oh, and the $700,000 home someone mentioned.... where I'm from that's insane. For 700 grand it had better be a huge lakefront mansion next door to Cedar Point. Anyone who'd ever consider buying a $700k house is rich and knows it. My parents' house is worth about $120k. They probably paid less than half that amount for it 25 years ago when they bought it off my grandparents. Yup, my Dad grew up in the same house I did. Of course then it was surrounded by corn fields and now it's in a neighborhood, a nice neighborhood at that.

$700,000 in Sydney is FAR from insane... in fact in most Australian cities.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When push comes to shove, do you think income taxes should be indexed to cost of living?

What was it Harry Perkins said at the beginning of A Very British Coup? Something like 'now it's your turn to go to hell' or words to that effect.

Seriously though, if any group should be protected from the market (or market forces or capitalism or whatever term is preferred by the reader at this particular moment in their lives) then it certainly should not be people earning extremely high wages no matter how articulate or precious they are.

[opebo]

...We want it all

What is this?  A scrap of bread and a roof over the head?  Seriously Torie, try to exercise better taste in future.

Opebo, you are in charge of the "good/better taste" department. I gave that up when I started taking my testosterone shots. Surely you knew that. I may have to discount your IQ down from 131 closer to the number Gustaf gave you.

That's aptitude, not knowledge, Yummie.  I totally forgot about your testosteronious condition. 

But then again, in fairness, the thread is disgusting.   It is enough to make one reminisce fondly of Pol Pot, a man all too often poo-pooed.  (is poo poo as annoying as pubby and the y-word?  I'm just experimenting).

[Sbane]

When push comes to shove, do you think income taxes should be indexed to cost of living?

What was it Harry Perkins said at the beginning of A Very British Coup? Something like 'now it's your turn to go to hell' or words to that effect.

Seriously though, if any group should be protected from the market (or market forces or capitalism or whatever term is preferred by the reader at this particular moment in their lives) then it certainly should not be people earning extremely high wages no matter how articulate or precious they are.

Well the Democrats should raise taxes on the 250k+ set so calm down. One reason they aren't doing it is because they need money. But eventually taxes will be raised on those makng less and people are going to be squeezed more in high cost areas than low. Probably nothing can be done about it, but just pointing it out. Someone making 80k in the bay area is more middle of the road than a guy making 60k in many other parts of the country. The guy making 60k probably has a higher standard of living, unless just getting the privilege to live in California increases ones standard of living.

[Sbane]

This entire thread makes me laugh a little at the way these numbers get thrown around (in what seems to me) like we're using Monopoly money. I'm not sure I have much of a coherent point in this post, but it may give a little perspective about middle America away from the coasts and big cities.

A few notes... the township I grew up in outside Sandusky has a median family income of $41k a year and we're the "rich suburb" in comparison since Sandusky's median family income of $31k a year. My parents' salaries added together were about $100k a year before our current recession and we're probably the richest people in our neighborhood, or close to it.

Oh, and the $700,000 home someone mentioned.... where I'm from that's insane. For 700 grand it had better be a huge lakefront mansion next door to Cedar Point. Anyone who'd ever consider buying a $700k house is rich and knows it. My parents' house is worth about $120k. They probably paid less than half that amount for it 25 years ago when they bought it off my grandparents. Yup, my Dad grew up in the same house I did. Of course then it was surrounded by corn fields and now it's in a neighborhood, a nice neighborhood at that.

120k wouldn't buy you a cardboard box in the Bay area. Here in middle America it's a nice starter home. It's not as if there is a choice of lower priced housing out there and people just chose not to live in it.

[Yelnoc]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

That is such an Atlas post that it makes me sick.

[Napoleon]

It is perfectly fair. Now we are going to subsidize those in desirable living locations? CoL is demand based. You guys are a trip.

[Yelnoc]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

That is such an Atlas post that it makes me sick.

What?

[Napoleon]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

That is such an Atlas post that it makes me sick.

What?

I think he is hinting at what I posted at the same time. You don't get a tax break for choosing to live somewhere with a high demand for housing and necessities.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While upper middle class in places like the bay area extends well into 6 figures, $250,000 a year is still rich here.

[Torie]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

That is such an Atlas post that it makes me sick.

What?

I think he is hinting at what I posted at the same time. You don't get a tax break for choosing to live somewhere with a high demand for housing and necessities.

Yes it's been fun. I was amazed that my initial throw away joke about a Big Apple discount to kick Chuck a bit where it might hurt, got such real traction. But once the ball got rolling, it was just such a blast to ride!  

[Sbane]

Actually even though we have been talking about the people living comfortably in these high cost places, let's talk about the people making 40-50k with a family in these places. Sucks for them doesn't it? I guess they should all just move.

California is a good place to be rich, not middle class. Of course getting the thread back on track,  the Dems are fighting for the richers lol. Money in politics is awesome.

[Napoleon]

Actually even though we have been talking about the people living comfortably in these high cost places, let's talk about the people making 40-50k with a family in these places. Sucks for them doesn't it? I guess they should all just move.

California is a good place to be rich, not middle class. Of course getting the thread back on track,  the Dems are fighting for the richers lol. Money in politics is awesome.

Yes they should. And they are, at least the Whites. They are either moving to the Central Valley or IE or those Southwestern states mentioned earlier. That is how the market works.

[TJ in Oregon]

I really wish the Democrats were stupid enough to propose taxing different parts of the country differently based on cost-of-living indexes. This thread really got my hopes up that they had proposed it, but alas I can't find a quote of anyone other than Torie suggesting it.

I was getting ready to plaster the quote all over and spread the word like mad. Do you guys realize how bad that type of proposal would go over in Ohio? I mean, you could forget about Kasich ticking people off.

As to my opinion, I think it's a stupid idea. The reason why housing prices are higher in certain markets is because people are willing to pay more to live there. I see no reason why the federal government should subsidize that.

Of course, my family and I would likely be affected negatively if something like this was enacted, so I'm biased

[Sbane]

Actually even though we have been talking about the people living comfortably in these high cost places, let's talk about the people making 40-50k with a family in these places. Sucks for them doesn't it? I guess they should all just move.

California is a good place to be rich, not middle class. Of course getting the thread back on track,  the Dems are fighting for the richers lol. Money in politics is awesome.

Yes they should. And they are, at least the Whites. They are either moving to the Central Valley or IE or those Southwestern states mentioned earlier. That is how the market works.

True, true. And immigrants come in to take their positions who are enjoying a higher standard of living than in their country of origin.

I have a feeling that if Prop 13 was ever overturned, the entire housing market in California, especially Southern California, would just unravel. Lots of renters around....

I also wonder how drastically reducing immigration would impact the housing market in California.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Collin County, Texas!  I'd rather live in hell right next door to my pal Mark Twain!

By the way, I really love sbane's ideas. You see, the litigation potential is just so awesome. It's even better than a tax cut - yes it is.  Yummy.

Oh god, please don't let that become a staple of your vocabulary like "puppy" and "pubbie".

It's Pubbie - and don't you like cute little baby dogs that poop on your carpet?  Are you human?

Well I guess I would have only gotten a B- at Torie Linguistics.

Please let puppies be cute dogs and not pronouns for legislation or redistricting proposals.

[Sbane]

I really wish the Democrats were stupid enough to propose taxing different parts of the country differently based on cost-of-living indexes. This thread really got my hopes up that they had proposed it, but alas I can't find a quote of anyone other than Torie suggesting it.

I was getting ready to plaster the quote all over and spread the word like mad. Do you guys realize how bad that type of proposal would go over in Ohio? I mean, you could forget about Kasich ticking people off.

As to my opinion, I think it's a stupid idea. The reason why housing prices are higher in certain markets is because people are willing to pay more to live there. I see no reason why the federal government should subsidize that.

Of course, my family and I would likely be affected negatively if something like this was enacted, so I'm biased

I think Nadler suggested it a while back as well, but you can imagine the reaction of non-coastal Democrats. It would definitely be political suicide. But in these times when we are looking for revenue sources while hurting people the least, I am merely suggesting where the piggy bank is. Sorry if that hurts you.

Overall this would be impossible to work out, and might just help get the demand for lawyers back up. As well as accountants. It might sound good and seems fair to me, but would probably turn out to be a bigger disaster than prop 13. Don't f with the market.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

That is such an Atlas post that it makes me sick.

You're not alone.

[Napoleon]

Actually even though we have been talking about the people living comfortably in these high cost places, let's talk about the people making 40-50k with a family in these places. Sucks for them doesn't it? I guess they should all just move.

California is a good place to be rich, not middle class. Of course getting the thread back on track,  the Dems are fighting for the richers lol. Money in politics is awesome.

Yes they should. And they are, at least the Whites. They are either moving to the Central Valley or IE or those Southwestern states mentioned earlier. That is how the market works.

True, true. And immigrants come in to take their positions who are enjoying a higher standard of living than in their country of origin.

I have a feeling that if Prop 13 was ever overturned, the entire housing market in California, especially Southern California, would just unravel. Lots of renters around....

I also wonder how drastically reducing immigration would impact the housing market in California.

I doubt you will ever find out.

[Link]

I really wish the Democrats were stupid enough to propose taxing different parts of the country differently based on cost-of-living indexes. This thread really got my hopes up that they had proposed it, but alas I can't find a quote of anyone other than Torie suggesting it.

Sorry to disappoint.  It's just obviously such a bad idea.  NYC is already jam packed with too many people.  Why you would ask people in Texas or Michigan to subsidize that kind of behavior is beyond me.

[fezzyfestoon]

As far as what Americans consider rich (Bentleys and gates and trophy wives), that's certainly not perceived as rich around here. It's pretty bizarre actually. That's a very normal amount of money to make if you ask many people in my town. In reality, that's an ass-load of cash to be raking in under any circumstances. I think a lot of it has to do with how at that income level, so much of that income is frittered away in a vast majority of households on extravagant goods taken for granted. TVs in every room, two cars, brand name everything, fancy clothes, computers, smart phones, etc. are all a part of the lifestyle and not considered a part of wealth anymore. But anyway, I doubt that has anything to do with the political considerations of "rich" we're discussing.

[phk]

It is perfectly fair. Now we are going to subsidize those in desirable living locations? CoL is demand based. You guys are a trip.

I was thinking this too. The 'tax cut' is akin to a subsidy and would create a positive feedback loop increasing demand and increasing COL.... which would result in decreasing tax rates....