Rich vs. Poor

[Bryan Blaire]

A question I've been wondering and discussing with some people at work:

There has been a lot of talk about "taxing the rich more, making them pay their fair share", etc, in this campaign already (class warfare is always so much fun, and only really valid when you feel like you are on the bottom, or a victim).

When I say family, I mean a traditional sized family of four people. This is all being discussed at the federal level, not the local or state levels.

So, my question is this:

Without going to look up any stats, just going off your gut, "When do you consider a family rich?" What do they have to have the ability to do? What is the total salary per year that a family has to make to be rich?

My follow up question is this:

"How much of their total salary per year should a family have to give up in taxes, if they are rich, and why?"

My answer:
To be rich, a family should live in a reasonable house, have two cars, have the ability to make all their required debt payments, and be able to make any emergency payments they might incur within a year without hurting their "fun money". Their total salary would be above $350K a year.

As far as taxes, I think that any family should be paying in at most 15% a year, for the purposes of providing for needed federal government institutions, such as national defense and customs and immigrations services. Any other institutions, such as education and social programs, should be left in the realm of the state or local governments.

[Davian93]

Anyone who makes more than me is rich...

Seriously though, good question B. I would think it would depend greatly on where you live. For example, if I made $100,000 in Vermont, I would be upper middle class. If I made the same in N. Virginia, I'd be middle class barely. I'd say $200,000-$400,000 would be considered upper class in most areas. In places like SF, NYC, LA that wouldn't be the case though.

The super rich should be taxed far more than just a little bit rich as they don't really need the money and it would help keep an egalitarian society. If you make say $5 million, you should be in a 50%+ tax bracket.

[Weird Harold]

Anyone, individual or as a family group, who has enough assets to go one year without an "Earned Income" is "Rich."

I don't believe the Rich should be taxed any larger percentage than middle income or "working poor" -- ie those above the poverty level but living paycheck to paycheck. Those at or below the poverty level should pay no taxes at all.

[Sinistrum]

Heh I'm not even going to try to answer this one. I'm just going to sit back and watch the tax and spend crowd squirm around trying to draw a line that isn't going to alienate a ton of voters. :D

[Davian93]

Heh I'm not even going to try to answer this one. I'm just going to sit back and watch the tax and spend crowd squirm around trying to draw a line that isn't going to alienate a ton of voters. :D


How about tax and pay off debt? That'd be nice for a change. Tax and cut programs and actually restore the nation's credit.

[JSUCamel]

As far as taxes, I think that any family should be paying in at most 15% a year, for the purposes of providing for needed federal government institutions, such as national defense and customs and immigrations services. Any other institutions, such as education and social programs, should be left in the realm of the state or local governments.

Or, you know.. fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org).

As for my definition of rich.. I'm with WH on that. Any income that allows them to go an entire year without needing any Earned Income and without going having to reduce their quality of living.

[Sei'taer]

Since I am in the 50th percentile, it is truly anyone who makes more than I do that is rich...thats what the IRS says anyway (they'll let you know those kind of things when you get kicked to a higher bracket).


As far as taxes. I think we should have a flat tax, 12% to 15% across the board. If you make a million, you pay 120,000 or 150,000. If you make 10,000, you pay 1200 or 1500. rich pay more, poor pay less, everyone shuts the fuck up about the unfairness of it all.

[Ivhon]

Wow...Im like totally in agreement with both ST AND Dav, here...

couple of things. Wealth does not = class (please read Paul Fusell's Class)

As for my definition of Rich. Certainly where you live can stretch your money quite a bit further (or eat it up). I would say that net worth of 2 mil is rich most places. 30 mil is filthy rich everywhere.

Simplistically, Id like to say Im for a flat rate tax such as ST describes. Unfortunately, the only way that will work is if there are absolutely no loopholes or shelters - which kills 80% or more of charitable/arts funding. At this point, though, I think it may well be worth it.

[Weird Harold]

I would say that net worth of 2 mil is rich most places. 30 mil is filthy rich everywhere.

There's problem with defining "Rich" in absolute numbers; a couple of weeks ago, BBC.com reported that zambia (or somplace that begins with Z in africa) was suffering 165,000% inflation! Like the Wiemar Republic int he early thirties, runaway inflation has made pauper into millionaires and billionaire and they still can buy a loaf of bread for two million or even buy more than one or two for thirty million.

When I was young, anyone with a million dollars could retire and live off the interest from a simple savings account. Now, a Million dollars a year is just "rich" -- not even "filthy rich."

[Sarevok]

zambia (or somplace that begins with Z in africa) was suffering 165,000% inflation!
Make that Zinbabwe.

[The Librarian]

The fairtax page says
you should be taxed by what you buy,
not by what you earn.

That might reduce frivolous spending
and increase saving.

A market economy is dependent on frivolous spending
and all money in savings is stagnant.

Why would you need to define rich to make them pay more?
just make taxes a curve on the earnings,percentage plain.

It would be no use though.
You will never be able to make taxes good and fair.
They are, after all, about money.

[Hopper]

The greatest advantage to the Fair Tax system is that EVERYONE gets taxed. I strongly recommend reading the Fair Tax Book. If nothing else, it'll give you an amazing insight into the history of the Federal Income Tax and its effects on America.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Anyone, individual or as a family group, who has enough assets to go one year without an "Earned Income" is "Rich."

Are you talking about the EIC? I have NEVER had that credit, not even in college. I wouldn't call myself rich by a long shot.

[Davian93]

Are you talking about the EIC? I have NEVER had that credit, not even in college. I wouldn't call myself rich by a long shot.

No...he means the ability to take an entire year off without any money coming in and not have a change in your lifestyle.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Ah. Yeah.... not me, either. ;)

[Davian93]

Ah. Yeah.... not me, either. ;)

Nor me...;)

[Sei'taer]

The greatest advantage to the Fair Tax system is that EVERYONE gets taxed. I strongly recommend reading the Fair Tax Book. If nothing else, it'll give you an amazing insight into the history of the Federal Income Tax and its effects on America.

I'm sort of in agreement with Libby on this one. No tax is going to be fair or is going to be paid by everyone. I can beat a few aspects of a national sales tax and I haven't even really tried to beat it yet. Give me some time and I can probably get by with paying less than 2 or 3 percent. Here's just a start:

I go to the farmers market up the road from my house and by all my veggies (untaxed), then I go to the butcher shop and since I know him (his name is Phillip...good butcher IMO) I ask him to make me a deal on my food since I will be paying cash, and he offers not to charge me taxes (I know he'll do it because we do this on a regular basis now). When I buy my next car, I'll tell them I'll pay such and such for the car, if they cover TTL, which I know they'll do to sell the car, because I've worked the same deal on the last 3 cars I've bought.

Thats off the top of my head...I'm sure if it was implemented I could get really good at it. Problem is that the flat tax can be cheated too, just in different ways, for instance, a small business owner shows his salary as $10 dollars a year or some such and gets by paying very little. The good thing about the flat tax though, is that rich and poor pay the same percentage, a consumption tax will cause the poor (those above the poverty level, but still not into middle class) to actually pay more in taxes than someone like me who has the contacts and the hutzpah to dodge it. Thats all beside the fact that I don't agree with the poor not paying taxes. I think everyone should pay taxes.

[Weird Harold]

Are you talking about the EIC? I have NEVER had that credit, not even in college. I wouldn't call myself rich by a long shot.
Nope, not the EIC, but the type of income it's name for -- "Wages, Salaries, Tips, etc."

You don't have to be rich to earn too much to qualify for the credit -- the credit is intended to offset the tax burden on poor people, not the middle-class and rich people.

If you HAVE to work to maintain your standard of living then you're NOT rich.

If you make enough that can't or don't spend it all each month, then you're rich. (If you have to squeeze your budget to save a pittance every payday against a rainy day, that doesn't count.)

[Ozymandias]

firstly... being able to go a year without income requires more than what I would consider "rich".

What if I'm making 200k a year, but have only been in the workforce for 5 years? Its highly like I wasn't putting 20% of my salary into savings, as the initial outlays of buying a house, car, etc, furnishing the stuff, is huge. But I think most people would consider someone making two hundred grand to be "rich".

I would say any family that can afford to put a child through private university without needing a student loan or any aid can be considered "rich". Figure that totals about 30k all told... any family that can afford to spend 30,000$ a year on a new expense and not dig into savings or borrow is wealthy.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

That's an excellent indicator, Ozy. Though no matter how rich we ever get, the kids are paying for their college themselves. We may, and I mean MAY pay off their student loans (if they have any) later. I think Bryan and I did as well as we did in school because we were paying for it. We will, of course, not tell our kids this deal while they're going to school.

[Davian93]

That's an excellent indicator, Ozy. Though no matter how rich we ever get, the kids are paying for their college themselves. We may, and I mean MAY pay off their student loans (if they have any) later. I think Bryan and I did as well as we did in school because we were paying for it. We will, of course, not tell our kids this deal while they're going to school.

College=Military service...

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I wasn't really eligible for military service until my asthma went into remission. (Then there was that car accident....) They may not be able to go that route, so requiring that of them is not feasible.

[Davian93]

I wasn't really eligible for military service until my asthma went into remission. (Then there was that car accident....) They may not be able to go that route, so requiring that of them is not feasible.

I was teasing...I would probably encourage my kids to gun for a service academy if at all possible/interested...but I don't know about telling them to enlist.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

And to get back on topic, I don't know what I'd consider rich. I do know that if lightning strikes and I end up on the NYT bestseller list, I'm going to resent like hell a 50% tax on my earnings, Dav. No one helped me produce that novel, after all. And no one helped me while I was a struggling author. (I usually get the reverse response: laughter.)

[Weird Harold]

What if I'm making 200k a year, but have only been in the workforce for 5 years? Its highly like I wasn't putting 20% of my salary into savings, as the initial outlays of buying a house, car, etc, furnishing the stuff, is huge. But I think most people would consider someone making two hundred grand to be "rich".

Theres a difference between Getting rich and Being rich.

If you're making 200K a year or making 200M a year, if you have to cash that monthly paycheck to meet your expenses you're NOT "Rich," you're just well-paid "working poor."

I would say any family that can afford to put a child through private university without needing a student loan or any aid can be considered "rich". Figure that totals about 30k all told... any family that can afford to spend 30,000$ a year on a new expense and not dig into savings or borrow is wealthy.

I think your estimate of private university costs is way too low -- putting a child through a public (State/Land-Grant)university is close to 50K a year at "resident" rates. Out-of-state tuition alone can run nearly 50K.

[Davian93]

think your estimate of private university costs is way too low -- putting a child through a public (State/Land-Grant)university is close to 50K a year at "resident" rates. Out-of-state tuition alone can run nearly 50K.

Since when? UVM is around $10-12K a year for residents of Vermont and that's an expensive school...if I sent them somewhere else (say a public school) it would be lower...Now if I sent them to the private college down the street it would be $32K a year...but still not 50K.

[Weird Harold]

Since when? UVM is around $10-12K a year for residents of Vermont and that's an expensive school...if I sent them somewhere else (say a public school) it would be lower...Now if I sent them to the private college down the street it would be $32K a year...but still not 50K.
What's the rate for non-residents of Vermont?

Going out-of-state for an education is way more expensive than staying in your home state.

[John Snow]

what 'rich' is....bearing in mind the date, and the likelihood that differences are more extreme by now

http://www.alternet.org/story/16515/

[Davian93]

What's the rate for non-residents of Vermont?

Going out-of-state for an education is way more expensive than staying in your home state.

Including everything (tuition, board, lab fees, books etc) this is the breakdown:

In State: $10K
Out of State: $19K

[Weird Harold]

Including everything (tuition, board, lab fees, books etc) this is the breakdown:

In State: $10K
Out of State: $19K
Either Vermot is much cheaper than the rest of the country, or the predictions of ever increasing tuition rates hasn't panned out -- those numbers are LESS than almost any college considered when my eldest daughter was college shopping in the early 90s and, at that time, tuitions were predicted to triple in ten years -- which would put the tuitions my daughter was faced with at 30K-70K/annum

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Intersting article, Snow. I think that puts us on the KS/MO border.


And yeah, Dav, VT is cheaper than even the University of Houston where I went. http://www.uh.edu/financial/undergraduate/tuition-fees/

From the looks of it, Resident: 15K (incl. room and board) and Non Resident: 20K (Incl. room and board).

[Davian93]

Intersting article, Snow. I think that puts us on the KS/MO border.


And yeah, Dav, VT is cheaper than even the University of Houston where I went. http://www.uh.edu/financial/undergraduate/tuition-fees/

From the looks of it, Resident: 15K (incl. room and board) and Non Resident: 20K (Incl. room and board).

As a Social Democrat/Progressive run state, public education is highly subsidized...considering the amount of taxes I pay, having affordable higher education is a nice thing. MA was even better, as a veteran I could have had full paid tuition to any state school...UMass is a pretty decent school (almost as good as UVM) so it wasn't a bad deal.

[cathar]

In Butte, Montana if you make $50,000 or more you are well off, not rich but could meet all debts have two cars, etc. growing up my family (of five) made about $25,000 and had everything we needed and lived comfortably. I am glad i don't live where you all live.

[Ozymandias]

I'm pretty sure your wrong, WH. For example, I know UPenn, which is probably one of the top 5-10 most expensive universities in the country, is going to run you about 45 grand all told (room/board and tuition).

Penn State is gonna run you about 11k for in state residents. So I think 30 is a pretty fair number.

[Weird Harold]

I'm pretty sure your wrong, WH. For example, I know UPenn, which is probably one of the top 5-10 most expensive universities in the country, is going to run you about 45 grand all told (room/board and tuition).

Penn State is gonna run you about 11k for in state residents. So I think 30 is a pretty fair number.
Like I said, that estimate was based on projected increases from costs in the early 90's -- projections that were obviously wrong.

[Terez]

I had nearly 20K in financial aid this year and I still needed help.

[Weird Harold]

Penn State is gonna run you about 11k for in state residents.

Universities with "State" in their name are what are called "Land Grant" universities and their in-state resident rates aren't reperesentative of the cost of education in general -- in-state rates are essentially fixed by law because they're subsidized by government (state and federal) for the benefit of in-state residents.

Land Grant Universities are also limited as to the number of out-of-state students they can admit (as a percentage of total undergraduate enrollment; 30% IIRC) so the non-resident tuition rates generally reflect how attractive an instituion is to non-residents; (more applicants than slots means rising tuition rates to thin the herd.)

Any university with A&M in it's title will generally also have artificially low in-state resident rates. It's the out-of-state/non-resident rates that are the true measure of college costs because that's where those who are "rich" can send their kids by basing the choice on academics rather than cost.

[JSUCamel]

Dav, don't read this.

For the rest of you, L.E. Modesitt wrote another blog. Sometimes I wonder if he frequents TL.

http://www.lemodesittjr.com/blogs/blog/2008/06/wealth-in-fiction-and-reality.html

[Davian93]

Dav, don't read this.

For the rest of you, L.E. Modesitt wrote another blog. Sometimes I wonder if he frequents TL.

http://www.lemodesittjr.com/blogs/blog/2008/06/wealth-in-fiction-and-reality.html

LOL...thanks for the warning Camel. Seriously, what are the odds of that?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I'll answer his question: the have-nots hate the haves. And anyone who "has" more than you is deserving of that hate. And politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, namely the have-nots.

[Ivhon]

I'll answer his question: the have-nots hate the haves. And anyone who "has" more than you is deserving of that hate. And politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, namely the have-nots.

I think that it is pretty clear that politicians of both parties pander to the haves. The Democrats might give lip-service to the have-nots, Republicans don't even bother with even that much.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I think your mistaking courting with pandering. ;)

[Davian93]

I think your mistaking courting with pandering. ;)

Court...go down on...usually they do whatever it takes.