$250,000 a year isn't rich!

[Lief 🗽]

^^^ opebo continues to be our greatest poster.

[phk]

$250k salary isn't rich. Just a highly paid worker.

That is a very reasonable structural definition that shows the observational astuteness of a Marxist.  Are you one, phk?

That said, there would be no harm in destroying this class of 'house n***o' along with massah.  Just pile them in the ditch, there's room.  Or, sorry, maybe we're just on this subject in reference to tax rates?

Not sure opie. But here's a question for you.

I could consider a person with $180k of non-labor income to be "more rich" than the salaried doctor at $250k. Would you agree?

To me rich means having a non-labor income high enough that you don't need a job to work. What economists refer to as the substitution effect. I made a thread about it earlier.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I used to agree, Phk, and I have often expounded upon this very point, However, and it is a big however, it completely leaves aside the class-basis for membership in these higher echelons of 'paid employment'.  I still agree that the 250k doctor is a definite inferior to even a 100K man of rentier income, but as a function of class exploitation I think the doctor (and even more so the corporate executive or banker) is equally privileged, and equally an enemy of the common people.  I say this partly because his 'capital' does exist in the form of expensive education and class-signifiers, if not in rental properties or stocks, or bonds, and partly out of a  'you're with us or against us' mentality you can find in my post above.

Speaking of this sort of hoo-hah, today I had a nice dinner at a 'farang' restaurant in a nearby city, where my ears were assaulted by a table full of 'upper middle class' (in our native parlance) or 'middle class' (in the finer parlance of Al and his ilk) Americans.  Oh it was rough, let me tell you - the horrible little boasters were going on the entire time about their stocks, their investments, their technology, and their special knowledge about all of these things.  There were four of them, and one American woman who seemed (I thought I sensed this) to be slightly embarrassed by their puffery), and one foreigner of indeterminate extraction who seemed reserved. 

Every time I run into Americans in Isaan it is at this restaurant or another in this bigger city, and every time they make me want to jeer.  I swear I have had better conversations and or evesdropping with Mormon missionaries than these terrible self-obtuse climbers.[/tt]

[opebo]

^^^ opebo continues to be our greatest poster.

Thank you, Lief.  You are, as always, correct.

Might I suggest you quote the pleasing post to which you refer in some appropriate thread - I'm not sure if the Comedy Institute (née Goldmine) is appropriate, but somewhere - as I have little doubt the censors will soon remove it for the implication (piling the enemy in the ditch).

[© tweed]

^^^ opebo continues to be our greatest poster.

he has great command of language, skilled in relaying a narrative, the ability to pierce through bullsh**t in many regards... much of this gets lost in translation to the crowds here, which are largely one-dimensional, and without novel perspective. 

he is, however, a disappointment.  not in the sense that is often used, that he never "made anything of himself", or etc.  but I do wish he had a passion.  on the scale of seeking comfort / seeking action he lies all the way toward comfort.  this is not a poor decision, but it means his value to others is limited and sporadic.  if he had a passion; say, something that he cared enough make himself central and then write a book about it, he'd approach immortality and greatness.  tilt him towards the risk-taking rather than risk-averse on that grand scale and he's Hunter S Thompson.

[opebo]

^^^ opebo continues to be our greatest poster.

he has great command of language, skilled in relaying a narrative, the ability to pierce through bullsh**t in many regards... much of this gets lost in translation to the crowds here, which are largely one-dimensional, and without novel perspective. 

he is, however, a disappointment.  not in the sense that is often used, that he never "made anything of himself", or etc.  but I do wish he had a passion.  on the scale of seeking comfort / seeking action he lies all the way toward comfort.  this is not a poor decision, but it means his value to others is limited and sporadic.  if he had a passion; say, something that he cared enough make himself central and then write a book about it, he'd approach immortality and greatness.  tilt him towards the risk-taking rather than risk-averse on that grand scale and he's Hunter S Thompson.

Wow, thank you Miami.  I think that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me.  And I believe it, too.

[Link]

Case in point, the guy has been practicing for 25 years and has worked up to making $250,000.  He was leveraged to pay for college and law school and didn't start out making $250 K.  He had to pay off his debts, his modest home, maybe send a kid to college.  Finally, he has a good yearly salary, but has to take out office expenses, which might be $75,000.  

He's well off, but he's not in yacht, mansion, 3 second home category.

Well kemosabe maybe the guy should have hired an accountant and his taxable income wouldn't be $250,000.   There is a concept in the business world called expenses.  You deduct them from your top line number and get your actual taxable income.  I don't see why we should change the tax code to accommodate ineptitude and stupidity.

No, but we shouldn't say the guy is making $250,000 per year either.

I showed two examples.  The lawyer who is 50 and just grossed $250 K and the 25 year old whose got the first payment of $250 K from his trust fund.

We are not saying here someone who netted $250,000.  We're saying someone who earns it.

You mindlessly post Dow closing prices every day and yet you have no idea what a business' earnings are.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A spam thread somewhere is missing it's i***t.

[Ebowed]

Maybe you need to get a little self aware and meet some actual rich people instead of just assuming anyone doing 4 times better than you is rich.

Or you could get a little self aware and go to a country where the sorts of luxuries that you are accustomed to aren't even thought about.

First of all I am accustomed to none of that sh**t. I do know people who are though. You know, actual rich people.

And maybe you should go visit a country where these luxuries are not thought of. I don't think you have been. As for me....

So you aren't a fan of condescending assumptions, then?  Good to clear that up.

[Person Man]

That's basically opie's thing. He's into fuc king but pretty coy about getting fuc ked. Not neccesarily a bad thing...then again, it would definitely be kind of cool for him to make his move and I don't think its too late.

I would say the tax bracket is a pretty good guide about the life you will lead in the US with a certain annual income. This is the class system based on how you life and isn't an evaluation of power, prestige or any marxist or neoliberal mumbo jumbo.  No one can live in the lowest tax bracket.  That's poverty. It goes to about 10 a year. The poverty line for one person is just a couple of thousand higher. The second bracket is basically the poverty line into the mid 30s. Its basically everyone who makes between poverty and the median wage for a single person. Consider that your "working poor". Basically, everyone who is forced to be a barista, delivery boy or deli clerk right now. You can probably make enough money, as long as you had some sort of extra help, be it from family or the dole....you won't be able to travel or save anything though and your only remedy through a crisis is to simply let it run its course and hope you will not be dead, back in total poverty or in jail at the end of it. The third bracket is everyone between the thirties and the eighties. Everyone from the machinist to the local branch manager at the bank or perhaps a small town attorney who really isn't better than a really good paralegal (someone who only takes routine cases because he would probably loses any case that's close). Essentially, even though you are in the top half of earners, you basically are the most ordinary of Americans. You are Middle Class. The fourth bracket are those who are close to six figures to those who make 11 or 12 a month. Some people would consider you rich and you are a "top earner", but you're not rich. You may live in a nice part of town, have the toys you want (within reason) and have a lot security, but you don't have "kiss my ass" money. You're upper middle class. More rich than poor, but still not rich. People like this are succesful small town boutique owners, managers, bureaucrats (my mom) and small town doctors, engineers and lawyers. The fifth bracket is basically "those who make $250,000". Can't we just call them the modestly wealthy? I guess you get there by having a business that works, being a big town professional or being an executive. Maybe some low-rung entertainers and half-celebrites fall into this category (the third string linebacker for a struggling team in the NFL or a voice for a children's cartoon). At this point, you can have the best of everything....but you can't yet afford a trip to space, your own private island or to have a penis butler. The top bracket is almost half a mil on up....if you make that, you are very rich. End of story. Who the fu ck cares that the guy up from you makes 5 or 10 mil when you make 500 Gs?

[Link]

The fourth bracket are those who are close to six figures to those who make 11 or 12 a month. Some people would consider you rich and you are a "top earner", but you're not rich. You may live in a nice part of town, have the toys you want (within reason) and have a lot security, but you don't have "kiss my ass" money. You're upper middle class. More rich than poor, but still not rich.

I applaud your efforts to inject some reality into this discussion.  Honestly if all politicians thought as you do our tax problems would be solved.  The only thing I would like to point out is I've done statistical analysis on numerous things in my time and I can honestly say that anything that is two standard deviations away from the mean has never in my lifetime been referred to as "middle."  By that definition someone earning $5,000/yr is lower "middle" class.  Under no objective rubric is an income of $144,000/yr "middle" anything.

[Person Man]

Well, there you go, Link. There's a difference between someone just on the edge of the curve and someone past it. I would say the top three brackets more or less coincide with how many standards of deviations you are from the curve.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

[phk]

But anywhere from 54% to 67% (people who've said they've owned stocks) of American households own stocks and it's primarily used by people for retirement and funding skool.

[Link]

But anywhere from 54% to 67% (people who've said they've owned stocks) of American households own stocks and it's primarily used by people for retirement and funding skool.

For the average working schmo the bulk of the stocks they own for "retirement and funding skool (sic)" are in tax sheltered accounts (ie 401k, IRAs, 529 plans etc).

But, but...

[phk]

But anywhere from 54% to 67% (people who've said they've owned stocks) of American households own stocks and it's primarily used by people for retirement and funding skool.

For the average working schmo the bulk of the stocks they own for "retirement and funding skool (sic)" are in tax sheltered accounts (ie 401k, IRAs, 529 plans etc).

But, but...

That's true too.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[phk]

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.

[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.

[phk]

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.

And people who work for I-Banks,  VCs, etc are.

[Link]

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.

And people who work for I-Banks,  VCs, etc are.

If you work at an investment bank your income is salary and bonus.  Both of which are not taxed as investment income.  The funky tax situation comes into play for hedge fund managers...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

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.

And people who work for I-Banks,  VCs, etc are.

But Xahar and Memphis aren't talking about those people. They are talking about people like Buffet, and those with slightly less money than him, who earn Millions of Dollars a year on investment income. They pay a lower tax rate than middle class Americans.

[J. J.]

Case in point, the guy has been practicing for 25 years and has worked up to making $250,000.  He was leveraged to pay for college and law school and didn't start out making $250 K.  He had to pay off his debts, his modest home, maybe send a kid to college.  Finally, he has a good yearly salary, but has to take out office expenses, which might be $75,000.  

He's well off, but he's not in yacht, mansion, 3 second home category.

Well kemosabe maybe the guy should have hired an accountant and his taxable income wouldn't be $250,000.   There is a concept in the business world called expenses.  You deduct them from your top line number and get your actual taxable income.  I don't see why we should change the tax code to accommodate ineptitude and stupidity.

No, but we shouldn't say the guy is making $250,000 per year either.

I showed two examples.  The lawyer who is 50 and just grossed $250 K and the 25 year old whose got the first payment of $250 K from his trust fund.

We are not saying here someone who netted $250,000.  We're saying someone who earns it.

You mindlessly post Dow closing prices every day and yet you have no idea what a business' earnings are.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A spam thread somewhere is missing it's i***t.

A lawyer, which was used in the example, doesn't have a share price to worry about.  A law practice is generally not traded in the market.

Somebody can easily "make" $250,000 and have large expenses in making it.  You must draw that distinction between what he earned gross, and his net income, after expenses.

You also don't understand the effort needed for that lawyer to get to the point where he can make $250,000.  In this case, it was 7 years of post high school education and 25 years of practice.  He wasn't making $250,000 every one of those years; he just got to the point when he started hitting that level.

Somebody like this will not have three homes and a yacht.  He might have a nice house (that maybe he's paid off) and a nice late model car, but nothing particularly grand.

 

[Link]

Case in point, the guy has been practicing for 25 years and has worked up to making $250,000.  He was leveraged to pay for college and law school and didn't start out making $250 K.  He had to pay off his debts, his modest home, maybe send a kid to college.  Finally, he has a good yearly salary, but has to take out office expenses, which might be $75,000.  

He's well off, but he's not in yacht, mansion, 3 second home category.

Well kemosabe maybe the guy should have hired an accountant and his taxable income wouldn't be $250,000.   There is a concept in the business world called expenses.  You deduct them from your top line number and get your actual taxable income.  I don't see why we should change the tax code to accommodate ineptitude and stupidity.

No, but we shouldn't say the guy is making $250,000 per year either.

I showed two examples.  The lawyer who is 50 and just grossed $250 K and the 25 year old whose got the first payment of $250 K from his trust fund.

We are not saying here someone who netted $250,000.  We're saying someone who earns it.

You mindlessly post Dow closing prices every day and yet you have no idea what a business' earnings are.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A spam thread somewhere is missing it's i***t.

A lawyer, which was used in the example, doesn't have a share price to worry about.  A law practice is generally not traded in the market.

Another incredible post by someone who doesn't know a thing about business.  Please educate us J.J.  Show us where it is written a company must be "traded in the market" in order for its shares to have value.  I'm waiting...

[Link]

You also don't understand the effort needed for that lawyer to get to the point where he can make $250,000.  In this case, it was 7 years of post high school education  

If all he did was 7 years of post high school education he got off pretty easy compared to me.  J. J. you should refrain from assuming you know other people's credentials.

[Link]

Somebody can easily "make" $250,000 and have large expenses in making it.  You must draw that distinction between what he earned gross, and his net income, after expenses.

I have never seen anyone mangle the language of business so badly.

Here's how an adult who knows something about business speaks.

I had revenue of $250,000.  My expenses totaled $75,000.  My net income was $175,000.

Some alternative phrases...
My top line was $250,000
I earned $175,000
My personal taxable income was $175,000
My taxes will not go up because at worst Obama wants to raise taxes on people who earn $250,000+.