Do people on DU really think $88,000 annual is rich?

[Ripley]

I keep seeing this number used as a banner for the fat cats. They own yachts, belong to country clubs and drive Hummers. I find it hard to believe so many folks think that is "filthy rich." I think there are a lot of college-educated families where both parents work that make twice that amount of money. When you deduct the cost of raising children (college tuition), housing prices and health insurance, $88,000 doesn't leave much for Hummers. I don't think that income would afford you a yacht or Hummer, unless you took out massive loans.

I'm not trying to defend "rich" people, just trying to show a little perspective. I don't know what the median income is these days, but there are lots of families making that much. Maybe to young people in college and low-wage earners, anyone making over $50,000 is rich. But your perception of these "rich" being: buys exotic cars and toys is incorrect IMO. The people who buy those things probably earn well over $250,000 per year.

It also greatly depends upon where you live. While $88,000 for a plumber and a secretary in Baltimore might not afford you a home and 2 cars, it probably would afford you a huge house with a pool and 2 cars in Birmingham.

Perspective.


On edit: I guess this should be in GD, not P&C. Sorry about that.

[oneighty]

1. Hi Ripley

I understand the median income in our county is well under thirty thousand/year.

Our state assemblyman said thirty nine thousand is a pretty good income.

Eighty eight thousand would be wealthy!

Ed.

[Ripley]

7. Hi 180!

30,000 sounds low to me. However, I think the middle class is really big, or a lot of people think they are in it.

[Isome]

12. 32k a year

Is the number I've heard as the average income.

Though 88k may not be "rich", it's neither poor, nor average. That's the perspective you should consider.

[Iris]

77. that sounds reasonable. I've read the average college graduate makes $40K

Two college graduates making average salaries would be $80,000 - probably the woman would make a little less than $40K and the man would make a little more to make about $80,000.

Now, if two people made $88K - that'd be a pretty nice chunk of change coming into a household.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Depends

On where you live. Some places -- like NY, DC and LA -- that's not a significant number.

[kysrsoze]

111. Precisely. $90K in Chicago is nothing when 2BR condos are $300K

Now, if you live in San Antonio, TX and made this much, I'd call you upper-middle class. You still certainly wouldn't be rich. That's about enough to buy a nice home there, have a low-level luxury car or a boat, and save some for retirement.

Around 1980, that was a lot of money, but it's not anymore. You almost have to have dual incomes with more money than that to have kids and send them to college while still being able to occasionally take a vacation.

[Heddi]

157. yeah. In Seattle $88k is....

is no big shakes---well, until everyone started getting laid off :-/

The median home price around here is nearly $300,000----a friend of mine has a home---it's about 1000sqft, their bedroom is cramped in the basement, and they have a 'normal' size front yard (re: big enough for 4 flowers) and their home was just appraised at $265k.

Hubby and I thought about buying a house in Seattle but we cannot in any way afford it. Not with home prices the way they are.

Now, where I'm from in Charleston, SC, $88k a year is like MILLIONAIRE status. You can buy a 2-story 3br home with a WAY decent yard for under $100k. My mom's house--a 4br, 2ba with den and living room and 2 acres is valued at $65k, and she lives in anything BUT squalid housing.

It depends on where you live.

To me, I'd DIE the day I made $88k a year!!! Shit---I got excited when I started making $20k a year.....

[fortyfeetunder]

202. That's right Heddy, $88K in Seattle...

I agree $88K doesn't do squat here. The Eastside is worse than Seattle for housing...But what I am still dumfounded about is how the >$500K houses in East King Co. are selling like hotcakes..

I feel bad for the people working in my neighborhood but have to commute 30-40 miles to something livable...

[smirkymonkey]

167. In NYC, anything below six figures is low income (relatively speaking)...

Most of my friends and I make between 50 and 85k - we are single, childless and non-property owners (can't afford it here). Most of us are living on tight budgets and can't really afford too many extras. After rent, student loans, utilities and other basics, there isn't much left. Anything below 50k here seems almost like poverty level.

[private_ryan]

203. living in South Carolina, Alabama etc

not in NY, NJ, CT area. Everything is relative

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Everyone in America thinks they are upperclass.

Everyone in America thinks they are upperclass. Yet I believe (and I would be happy to be corrected) that 88K/year is well above the median income.

That's one of the problems with class-based politics: a lot of the people Democrats are fighting for actually believe that they are the upper-class people that Repubs are fighting for. And that's why it is important to use real figures like the 88K/year figure instead of vague phrases like 'the rich'. With the figure, perception is less important. Anyone can just say "I make more than that" or "I make less than that" and they'll know where they fit into the discussion.

[pop goes the weasel]

most think they are middle class

From http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/yuen/poli1/handouts/vital_signs_class.htm

According to the National Center for Opinion Research:

Ø 36 % of those earning $15,000 a year call themselves middle class.

Ø 49 % of those with incomes between $ 35,000 and $ 49,999 call themselves middle class.

Ø 71 % of those with incomes above $ 75,000 call themselves middle class.

$88,000 a year is about where rich starts. Half of all Americans make less than $40,816. If you are making $88,000 a year, and you are seriously cash-strapped, I suggest moving into a smaller home, buying used cars, and shopping at thrift stores like the vast majority of Americans. And kiss off taking vacations or getting medical care. Really, there is no more unpleasant noise than the whining of someone who has all they need.

I am reminded of an anecdote told by a hair-dresser my daughter knows. One of her clients came in for her regular appointment, and part way through broke down crying, "I am sooooo poor!" How poor? "We only have $300,000 left in the bank!" We can only hope that the poor little rich girl cashed in her reality check.

[mjb4]

3. rich for one income...middle

class for a two income family

[Ediacara]

4. It's well off

but not rich.

[SammyWinstonJack]

74. It's a good living depending on how many that amount supports

but I wouldn't call that figure "rich".

[Nicholas_J]

5. Well certain people do

When arguing whetther one should totally cut the Bush tax cuts, or only cut those on those earning over 350,000 a year, the point at which on leaves the ranks of UPPER middle class, and enters UPPER CLASS:

IN 2002, the PER CAPITA INCOME in the United States was 30,941 dollars per year

source:

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm

Meaning that each individual man, woman and child SHOULD have 30,941 available to them.

Yet in the same year the average family's mediaan income was:

United States median, you must use the United States median income limits. The United States median family income is $54,400.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:qESGsXYlnz4J:www-domino.hud.gov/ihp/referenc.nsf/380e0a27f8c7e989852566b10065f962/f4c4fbc2a46f534f87256b6000763ba6/%24FILE/02-04%2520Recip%2520-%2520Income%2520Limits.pdf+%22United+States%22+%22Median+INcome%22+%222002%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Meaning a the average family at median income (exactly half earning above this and half below this is less than half of the per capita income of the entire United States.

88,000 dollars, is above that median, but still less than the 123,764
that each average family of 4 would recieve at an EVEN income distribution in the United States.


88,000 is still well within the range of the middle of the middle class.


In order to reverse the impact that the Bush tax cuts have had on the middle class and poor, the cuts to these groups MUST be kept inplace, in order to minimize the impact that the Bush tax cuts have had in filtering down to the states in the forms of the most regressive types of taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and other consumption taxes, as well as the iincreases in state income taxes.

A repeal of the Bush tax cuts would immediately lower the average take home pay of the average family, yet not lessen the effects of the state and local taxes that have been instituted to attempt to deal with the cuts to state and local budgets that resulted from the Bush tax cuts. The immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts on ALL working citizens will NOT result in the immediate rollback of the rasied state taxes, in fact if they will result in ALL local governments rolling them back at all.

Repealing the tax cuts on the rich, while not doing so on the middle class and working poor creates a large enough pool of federal money to begin assisting the states get out of their deficits, and increase spending and services while protecting the poor and middle class from further lessening of economic well being.

[stopbush]

6. The American Dream

is just another American MYTH.

Americans all think they're going to be Rockefeller someday. With a lot of luck, lots of hard work and very little inventiveness, it will all fall in our laps. Politicians play on this myth like crazy. If they can couple it with religion, all the better - you know, rich man can't get into heaven, meek will inherit the earth, proseprity's around the corner BS.

The median income for a family of 4 in this country is IIRC around $44k. Ergo, $88k is twice the national average.

Only 3 PERCENT of American housholds enjoy a 6-figure income or higher. THREE PERCENT!!

The standard for buying a home used to be that you could afford a 30-year mortgage if the price of the home equalled no more than two years of your gross annual income. That would mean that the price for an average home in the USA should be just under $90,000 for the average family of 4. Does anyone think that's true? Well, if you want to live in a shack and drive a car that still uses leaded gas, I guess that would work out!

No, $88k is NOT a great salary in this day and age. But the fact remains that for the MAJORITY of Americans such a sum would be equivalent to a king's ransom.

[Ripley]

13. I don't believe that.

3%? I can find a higher percent than that in my small southern town.

[Ripley]

10. Thanks for clarifying that with numbers.

I think people need to pay more attention to who the really rich are (the top 10% who earn millions) who are benefitting from Bush's economy, not the upper middle class.

[silverlib]

92. Sometime yes and sometimes no

I know a lot of people in this bracket that are republicans, so they must think they are rich and that Bush is protecting their tax dollars, when wealthy to the Bush administration, in my opinion, is the the $1,000,000+ range and those are the individuals, along wtih wealthy corporations meant for the most protection.

Before my husband lost his job, we were in the range and I did not think we were rich by any means and still solidly Democrats. Now, without that income and only unemployment from his side, which is only temporary, I think we were rich.

So it's all in perspective.

[poskonig]

143. Nice clarification.

The median family is the most relevant piece of information when examining income alone and I am glad you pointed it out. Do you have any data that goes beyond this concerning family wealth in America?

(edit: never mind, I looked below.)

[Clete]

8. Considering my income is a third of that,

it would seem like a lot to me.

[tpub]

9. if someone making $88,000 is

buying yachts, exotic cars, fancy houses, etc. they are either getting money from other sources or they are deep in debt.

There are too many people in this country trying to look like they are rich when all they're doing is burying themselves in debt.

[The Lone Liberal]

11. $88,000 per year is not rich.

The people who qualify for the description of rich in 2004 are the Decca-billionaires.

Depending on the geographic area of the country. $88,000 would be either the lower middle class or the upper middle class. It would still be the working class.

[JitterbugPerfume]

14. It certainly would be at MY house

but I guess it is in the eye of the beholder

I would like to HAVE that kind of money so I could find out !!!!!!

[Ripley]

15. Now look at the vast differences in post responses here.

As I initially stated, I think geography has a lot to do with it. Wages as well as cost of living are extremely different from one locale to another. But the statistics flying around that only 3% of Americans make over $100,000 sounds way too low. And the MAJORITY is poor sounds way too high.

[The Lone Liberal]

19. You ask if that were rich

The answer is no. You ask if there are a lot of Americans making that amount the answer is no. The majority of Americans are making far less than that and I assure you if they are possessors of the items you mentioned they are in debt.

[stopbush]

31. 3% is low?

That's still 8.5 million people in a nation of 280 million.

[Brian Sweat]

162. For two income families it may be a little low

But for an individual, it sounds high to me. If you live in New York, Chicago or San Francisco, you might know quite a few people who make 6 figures, but I am pretty sure that less than 3% of the people that I know make over $100,000 and I make pretty good money myself (not six figures though).

[jafap]

96. The 3% figure is low, but may be correct

if he/she was talking about individuals and including children, people in nursing homes, prison, etc.
My data shows that 5% of American families are making more than $150,499 - in 2002 that was the lower income limit of the top 5% by household. Still, only 15% of households were making between $83,500 and $150,499. So I repeat that the $88,000 household is richer than 80%+ of all American families. Not what I would call "middle" class.

[aquart]

16. It's poor to the rich. It's rich to me.

[MUAD_DIB]

17. You could try and goolge to see what the average

family of 4 lives off of per year.

[Clete]

29. Actually, I am trying to find out right now

how many people are in each wage bracket. I think those figures are more accurate than the average wage a family of four's income is. I will post when I get them.

[Clete]

57. Jody posted the same links I have below.n/t

[ChemEng]

18. Everyone here keeps making a basic mistake...

One is rich based on what they've accumulated, not what they earn. Consider: would you rather earn a salary of $100,000 per year from a job, or $50,000 per year from a bond coupon yielding 3% tax free? Since a 3% coupon implies a face value of $1,666,667.00 for the bond, I'll take the $50,000 every time! Anyone who has that much money in a bond, also probably owns their house.

That is why I find it hypocritical for rich politicians (who already have a fortune) to talk about taxing income. Let's also talk about taxing wealth as well.

[stopbush]

46. Here's one for you

Would you prefer to make the national average of $40k a year and pay a flat tax of 10%, or would you prefer to make a million dollars a year and pay a 90% progressive tax?

In the first instance, you're going to pay $4k a year and be left with $36k. In the second, you're going to pay $900,000 but be left with $100k. Do you know many average Americans who wouldn't opt for case 2 if they had a choice?

Repigs always use the "percentage of income" argument when discussing taxes, as in "why should the well-off pay a larger percentage of their income as taxes than those low-earning lucky duckies?" Why do you think Steve Forbes loves the flat tax second only to no tax? And, of course, user taxes and sales taxes aren't calculated into the repig tax burden.

But the rich are always better off. While most homeowners need to finance their homes for 30 years, the super rich can just pay cash and skip all of those inconvenient interest payments. After 30 years of interest and principal, Joe Average has given his lender about $900,000 for that $300,000 home that he "bought" 30 years before. And so it goes with other big ticket items like cars and appliances (last I looked, the same-model car or washing machine cost roughly the same on skid row as it did on Rodeo Drive) - the rich pay cash while the middle-class make a down payment and finance the rest at anywhere from 6% (car loan) to 21% (credit card).

It's rigged, I tells ya, rigged!

[ChemEng]

54. You nailed it!

But what do you think of implementing an asset tax? Say 0.5% of net asset value (house, stocks, bonds, gold, collectibles, etc).

If Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, then he would have to pay $250 million. If someone is worth an even $1 million, then they would pay $5000. Not a whole lot, considering everything.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Tracing assets is very complex

Many assets have no paper trail and would require a great deal of effort to track and prove worth -- antiques, collectibles, etc.

[ChemEng]

59. I agree, but we seem to make do with housing..

Housing values rise and fall, and are somewhat subjective, yet we seem to make that system work. Stocks and bonds are priced daily. Business property evaluation could be based on tax returns. Other property such as collectibles would be more difficult, but if you buy a painting at an auction for $25 million, that would be a good place to start.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Other assets

Tons of American assets are NOT traced however. Every single collector in the U.S. -- except for a very few high end people -- handles the hobby without declaring it anywhere or any way.

If I collect coins, I buy the coins out of pocket and no one knows what I have. The same goes for Barbies, baseball cards and antiques. All done in cash, no records in most cases.

This might not sound like much, but if I have $20,000 or $200,000 worth of collectibles, it makes a difference. And, trust me, if you start taxing assets, MORE people will put their money in untraceable commodities.

[ChemEng]

71. To an extent, but we make do...

when it's time to calculate for the inheritance tax. People cheat on taxes no matter what type. But tell me how someone will hide $100 million home? Or $100 million in stocks? The key is too keep the tax rate relatively low, as I've suggested in other posts. Say 0.5% with a $1 million deductible.

[shimmergal]

161. Not exactly.

Lots of people have $10,000 to $20,000 value _on paper only_ in collectibles. That doesn't mean that they either 1) spent that much to acquire them, or 2) could sell them for that much if they needed cash. You have to find a willing buyer first, and it doesn't always
happen.

[starroute]

68. A tax on assets takes no account of ability to pay

Consider someone who is unemployed but still has a house, a car, and money in the bank. Should that person be paying any taxes at all? Should they be paying the same as their fellow-worker who has the same assets but still has the job?

Or consider someone who makes $100,000 but spends wildly on wine, women, and song and has nothing left to show for it at the end of the year. Should they be tax-exempt?

The trouble with taxing assets is that they reflect past events and have very little to do with current earnings or future earning potential. The inheritance tax probably is (or was) the only kind of tax on assets that does not create obvious injustices.

[ChemEng]

70. Read post 56 below.....

I think we can protect the person you mention by having deductibles.

For the life of me, I don't understand why it is ok for states to tax assets, but not the federal govt.

If you want to help the little guy, go after the true wealth.

[Fescue4u]

107. I'll take the $40k

I'll take the $40k at 10%, rather the 1 million at 90% any day.

Considering that its going to take a hella lot more of blood sweat and tears to earn 1 million, to be only left with $100k is ridiculous.

Contrary to popular belief, folks making a mil a year are not sitting on there asses. They are proably working 80 to 100 hours a week, with stress that would kill a mule.

Me, give me the $36k after taxes, after a 40 week.

Now..assuming that there is a reasonable tax rate (which of course 90% would never be), i'll opt for the $1 mil.

[Fescue4u]

108. Squarely Middle Class.

Not Upper middle, nor Lower middle.

As I said above, enough to pay your bills and save a little.

No buildings are named after people making $88k.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

82. Wealth would be fine

to tax, if it were only taxed once. I would be fine with that. Here's what I would not be fine with: Taxing the same principal over and over again each year, as some have recommended.

[tjdee]

159. John Edwards is talking about this!!

John Edwards wants to know why a millionaire who calls his stockbroker on $80K in investments is taxed less than a guy working overtime to make that much.

He wants to equalize it. Not heard any other candidate talking about this.

[Isome]

20. Stats from PBS site

U.S. median household income:
$ 40,816
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)

Average household net worth of the top 1% of wage earners:
$10,204,000
Average net worth of the bottom 40% of wage earners:
$1900
(Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000)

Definition of middle class in terms of income:
$ 32,653 to $ 48,979
(Economy.Com’s The Dismal Scientist, 1999)

.::link::.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. you seem to have a mistaken impression

1) that all us democrats are poor folk whoes eyes pop at flush toilets

2) that all us po folk are jealous of people who make more money because they can by more things, rather than just disgusted with them because they fix the system to their benefit.

[Ripley]

130. What the hell is your problem?

Where did I insult you? And what makes you think I'm not poor. My post was discussing perspective which some DUers lack. I never said anyone was jealous...I have seen posters say specifically that if a family's income was $88,000 they then had Hummers, blah blah blah. I know people who earn and deserve $100,000 incomes and they cannot responsibly buy Hummers, etc. without going into massive debt. They save money, pay their bills on time and buy new Toyotas.

I knew someone would accuse me of class warfare here. Why should you be disgusted with people who earn their money and pay their bills? Maybe you should save all of your anger for the rich who actually do the things you say they do instead of lumping in average tax-paying Americans who did nothing but land a good job.

[greekspeak]

22. The word "rich" is a relative term

I guess I am just a boy from the wrong side of the tracks. But to me, "rich" is anything over $52K a year. That is more money than I can imagine right now. In the early 90s, my parents TOGETHER made about 20K. They dont make much more than the current equivalent of that now. The wealthiest people in my family, my grandparents Fisher, MAY have made close to the equivalent of $88k back in the 70s. And I always thought they were well to do. Maybe not "rich" in the sense of a Bill Gates, but they certainly had more money than I could hope for. I guess what I am trying to say is that it all depends on your perspective. If you are making $100K a year and feel strapped, $88K would not seem rich at all. If you are making $32K a year and are strapped, $88k might seem rich. It does to me in my circumstances.

[Nikia]

23. It is well off

Of course, I live in rural Wisconsin and lived in rural Ohio growing up. Families of people making around that where I grew up usually owned a higher priced home (Of course $200,000 was a mansion), belonged to a country club, owned a nice car, bought their teenagers new cars, and bought nice clothes. Some owned a second home on the lake (granted usually not as nice as their primary home) and some had boats there as well. I consider $88,000 upper middle class. It is my opinion that they can buy almost anything that they want if they are indeed buying things that they want and not going overboard just for the sake of owning expensive things. My husband and I make about half of that togther and are not poor in that we can buy the things that we need and don't have to wait for groceries to go on sale to buy them like many other people we know. Yes, there are those who make well over $88,000 per year but most advertised jobs here are for under $10.00/hour and many people making those wages or less do not have anything left after paying for necessities.
BTW: If we reprioritized things, we probably could afford to lease a Hummer (They're only $650/per month at the closest dealership) or buy a yaht on credit.

[FatbackSlim]

24. I'm not far from that figure

For me as a single person, I'm not rich, but yes, I'm pretty comfy. It helps that Atlanta has a very reasonable cost of living; I'm sure I'd be living in a cardboard box if I were in San Francisco.

[Superfly]

25. Go to Salary.com

and run the performance test on the bottom of the page. Compare your salary to that of Bill CLinton, et al, and THEN answer this thread.

[Superfly]

58. Actually, run the "Salary Timer"

My mistake

[MindPilot]

26. Geeez, that's about what I make!!!

I certainly would not consider myself rich, well-off or even comfortable. I'm single, drive an eight-year old car, and after the basics are paid for, don't have much left over for descrentionary spending. I don't see how someone making half that with a family can do it.

[FatbackSlim]

27. Avatar

I think your icon gives away what your problem is. :-) Move to Atlanta!

[MindPilot]

32. You're right but my house is going up $50k a year

and shows no signs of even slowing down...:party:

[FatbackSlim]

41. Nice!

As long as the economy stays where there are people who will buy your house, that's great. Housing values are going up here as well, but not that fast.

[ChemEng]

48. Does anyone else here see a problem with this post?

No offense, but I want to use your situation to illustrate a point. You say that you make about $88,000 per year, yet after paying for basics, you have little left over for discretionary spending. I assume you consider your house payments as non-discretionary. You thus must pay a lot for your mortgage, but are fortunate to have it returned many times over in your house's appreciation. And the govt is helping you with a big fat tax deduction.

Now the question: Why should some schmuck in Kansas who makes $33,000 help you pay for your house? I also think we need to think of people as rich based not on income, but on assets. I'd rather own a house in California versus Oklahoma on the same income. See my other post....

[FatbackSlim]

49. No...

...because he's in turn helping the schmuck in Kansas pay for *his* house. Tax policy has been very successful in encouraging home ownership. I'd trade the interest deduction away as part of a more fair and rational overall taxation scheme, perhaps, but in the meantime it has been *very* successful.

[ChemEng]

51. How???

If the guy in California is paying most of his income for a house, and pays less federal tax as a result, how does that help someone in Kansas pay for their house???

But I digree....and you miss my point entirely. My real point is that the definition of rich should be based on assets, not income. I'd much rather have a house that is appreciating $50,000 per year versus making an additional $30,000 per year income.

[FatbackSlim]

52. Because...

The guy in Kansas gets the same deal when *he* wants to buy a house.

And I actually agree that wealth is not only income, but assets as well. But if you're suggesting that those assets be taxes, I couldn't support that at all.

[ChemEng]

56. Actually, I am suggesting taxing assets...

I think we should! We could have a deductible for assets, say $1 million. But why not tax assets? Say a tax of 0.5% on assets over $1 million?

By the way, we already tax assets today at the state and local level, but it is a discriminatory tax. It is called a property tax. If you own a house, but no stocks or bonds, you get nailed. If you rent and own a lot of stocks and bonds, you're given a free pass. Doesn't sound fair to me.

[FatbackSlim]

60. I agree it's unfair...

So the property tax should be repealed. It's hard to consider property *yours* if you effectively have to pay rent on it.

I'd rather see some form of a consumption tax, with the fundamentals of life (food, clothing, shelter, medical) exempted.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Consumption taxes

Like VAT taxes and such are highly regressive and tend to depress spending. And that causes further problems.

[FatbackSlim]

65. To an extent

You're right, but exempting certain items can help with the regressive part.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Assets

Defining assets is very hard. Sure, some of objective value -- stocks, bonds, cash, etc. They all have value that ignores geography. But for most Americans, the big value is in their house. But that value isn't true. If they live in an expensive area, they have a home that is worth a lot, but unless they move OUT of the area, they can't really realize that wealth.

[MindPilot]

61. It's a bit more complicated than that

If it were simply a matter of paying less tax for the privilige of owning a nicely appreciating piece of real estate, I would agree. However, the tax deduction is the interest I pay, which is about 98% of the mortgage payment. So I don't see me and the guy in Kansas as subsidizing each other. The government is using both of us to subsidize the banking industry.

Nor do I agree with basing the idea of income on unrealized assets--that's I think what got Enron in so much trouble. The value of my home, while looking real nice on paper, is not realized until I sell. (Additionally, I couldn't afford to buy the home I already own.) Plus I have to pay capital gains tax on anything I don't spend on the next home.

[ChemEng]

69. It's not that complicated....

Take your example. You get a personal deduction. Also, liabilities (read mortgage) are subtracted from the asset value. You pay only on the net increase. If you can't afford to pay today because the asset value has increased so much relative to your current income, then you'll have a running I.O.U. to the government that you pay when you (or your heirs) sell the house (on top of capital gains).

The point is that you have a rapidly increasing asset value in part because of the tax deduction. I think you should in return pay for the privelege of using government funds (tax deduction) to help you get in a house.

You are not subsidizing the banking industry with a housing tax deduction. The housing industry, maybe, but not the banks. The tax deduction does allow more people to own homes (a great thing!), but let's call a spade a spade. It's a subsidy to people who but homes.

[jafap]

98. Are you still calling me a schmuck?

I will have you know that the interest deduction does not help those at the bottom who do not pay enough interest to make it worthwhile to itemize. Second that capital gains made from the sale of a home are not taxed either (and they never were as long as you bought another home within a year) much to the benefit of wealthy schmucks. What do you bet Ben Affleck makes a nice capital gain on the $26 million estate he recently bought?

[Yupster]

80. So what about my parents?

They're 80 years old and get by on social security and a few hundred dollars a month from an old pension. The catch?

They live in NYC and own a house that they bought in 1959 for $ 20,000. Today it's worth about $ 600,000. Their total net worth is about $ 700,000.

A tax on assets would put them out of the home they have been living in for over 40 years.

Property taxes are about to put them out of the home anyway.

That's a shame for 80 year olds who love their neighborhood. They don't have the energy to go home looking at this point and certainly don't want to leave where they've lived their whole life -- NYC.

[ChemEng]

89. As I mentioned before, deductions would protect

people below a certain threshold, just as we do on income taxes. I've suggested a deduction of $1,000,000. Above that, I have a hard time saying that you're too poor to pay.

The govt already operates this way in one case: Medicare. If you have any assets whatsoever, you must spend them down before you get medical benefits above a certain level.

[jafap]

97. who are you calling a schmuck?

Me or Toto here?
I believe the word you are looking for is "schlep", you schmuck. Oy vay, take a class in Yiddish would ya?

[kysrsoze]

112. Yeah, but....

Wait until you want to buy a bigger home in the area. It's great if you want to move to Montana afterward.

[Brian Sweat]

165. I hate to rain on your parade,

but interest rates are rising and the housing boom is about to end. I suspect that the incredibly low interest rates of the last few years has caused a lot of people to buy houses ahead of schedule. In the next couple of year, I think there are going to be an unusually low number of people in the market for a new home and as a result, it will be an extreme buyers market. I don't think you will lose all of the value your home has appreciated over the last few years, but I am pretty sure you will lose some.

[w4rma]

30. The payroll tax cut off is *always* calculated as an individual

A working couple making $80K and $60K still pay the full payroll tax even though they are making $140K, together.

[dsc]

33. Context helps here

If you are discussing threads that have been around lately it has been in the context of applying the payroll tax to people whose income is above the current cut off. That would merely have them paying the same rate as I and every other lower middle class person already does.

It should be noted we are talking about 1 person earning that kind of money. Some of them may be the sole earners for a family but many of them aren't. Have this person be a single person and she would be at around 3 times per capita income. Give this person another earner with say a 40k salary and a couple of kids and they still are living very handsomely indeed. Rich no. Able to pay an increase in payroll taxes yes.

[FatbackSlim]

40. Payroll tax

Given that there's a cap on Social Security benefits a person can receive, it's not unreasonable that there's a cap on the tax they pay, too.

[dsc]

72. That would work

if we hadn't been using the money for years to subsidize tax cuts for the rich. Once we started doing that your argument no longer applies.

[papau]

78. The proposal is to remove SS cap on Benefits as Wage cap's removed

the current high end 15% factor would be extended to the income over $85000 -

and as you say -

seems fair to me

[HootieMcBoob]

34. If I were making that much

Or even if the combined total income of my household was that much -- I might not be rich but I think I would sure feel a hell of a lot richer than I do right now.

Some day I hope to be that rich :)

[bread_and_roses]

35. Census figures

for households
7.7% $100,000 to $149,999
2.2% $150,000 to $199,999 in 1999.
2.4% $200,000 or more
For the full table, go to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet?_lang=en
and pull up the table on economic characteristics.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

150. Manhattan (NYC) skewing of top brackets

Interesting to see what's going on here in the big apple:

$50,000 to $74,999 ... 15.1 %
$75,000 to $99,999..... 9.0 (33% are making above $75,000)
$100,000 to $149,999 . 9.9 (almost 25% are above 100,000)
$150,000 to $199,999 . 4.7
$200,000 or more ....... 9.4 (this number is incredible)

[Nikia]

36. I suppose that housing coast have something to do with it

We live in a $625 per month duplex which is higher end. We are considering buying a house. We have seen some $80,000 houses which are in move in condition and 2 or more bedroom and over 1200 square feet. Most newer ranches and nicer and larger old houses are around $120,000.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. By comparison

Friends of mine bought a house not that long ago near DC. It was a starter house for about $425,000. That's a big damn difference.

[MindPilot]

42. Yes that's a very big part of it.

About 60% of my paycheck goes to my mortgage. Here in SoCal, I doubt if you could even find a vacant lot for 80k. A very small 2bdr-about 800sqft with no yard in a crappy neighborhood is still in the 200k range. And you would be very lucky to find a place to rent for $650.

[midnight armadillo]

126. Cheap housing!

My two-bed apartment is $1050/mo, and that's $400 under market value. There's a pair of half-acre lots about 1/4 mile away that are for sale for $400k each. Starter homes (i.e. ~1000 sq. ft, 0.03 acre) here run $350k and up.

$88,000 for me, wife, and baby would maybe let us buy a house here, but we'd be pretty house-poor.

[SoCalDem]

37. 88,000.00 , I believe

is the reference point in regards to FICA deductions.. Lots of us here just feel that it's unfair for people UNDER 88,000.00 to have every stinkin' penney they earn, subject to FICA, and the ones above have a "free ride" from that point on..

The argument is that the richer ones would never "collect all that they have paid in"..but that argument is a silly one, because SS was intended to be a safety net for the poorest, but was set up to include all, so that the uppers would see a bit of their money back too..

Does anyone really think that millionaires are running to the mailbox on the 3rd of the month to see if their check is there, so they can buy food??

We are all asked to make some scarifices in this country, and if the "elite" are not willing to get their hands dirty, or send their sons/daughters to die in foreign wars, the least they can do is pony up a little extra FICA to help support those people they exploited for all those years, in their old age :)

[jody]

38. Please browse the latest census data on income at

Income 2001

ON EDIT ADD
I believe this pub is what you seek, Money Income in the United States: 2001

[Monte Carlo]

43. Depends upon your Fixed Costs...

... things like rent, food, transportation, and utilities. Things that one cannot avoid in common American life. Where I live, in the Greater Boston area, those things are EXPENSIVE. I think only California is more expensive. A 3 Bedroom Cape or Split-level will run you $500k easily in my town. $88,000 is about enough for a nice little house around here in the suburbs of Boston.

People say that $88,000 will make you rich in Birmingham, AL. I don't wanna move to Alabama!! That's a long, long way away. I like where I live, and I don't wanna leave... yet, anyway.

[ibegurpard]

44. For a single person with no dependents?

Yes. For a family of four? Not even close.
Also definitely depends on where someone lives. In New York or San Francisco even a single person with no dependents would probably have more difficulty living on that amount.

[Philosophy]

45. I only made $8800 last year

And I was actually in the negative the two years before that. I'm seriously about two months away from living in a cardboard box. Thanks for the tax cut!

[vi5]

47. I make just under that......

Without my wife working, and I would consider us very comfortable. The thing is we have 2 reasonably priced cars and a very modest house and we don't carry a penny of debt month to month other than those 3 things.

The difference I think is that most people make that salary and live above their means by carrying things on credit so they may seem richer than they are. We choose not to do that and instead put whatever we can extra towards saving for a rainy day.

The main thing honestly that kills us every month are property taxes. Of our monthly mortgage payment close to $500 are property taxes alone. I don't say that to complain about taxes (personally I view them as my responsibility) but my point is that may skew the number and perception of how much an $88K salary buys one. In the heartland it may buy a lot more than here in Northern, NJ.

[InkAddict]

50. That depends...

I once thought that was a wealthy income, but after being the spouse of a worker who's been merged, downsized, outsourced etc...in that "job of the future" and seeing that the kids were well-rounded students little-effected by the ever-present peer pressures of drugs and unsafe sex that's hated by government on the one-hand and rewarded on the other (just luv those inspirational human interest stories in the media), and with at least some college under their belts before heading out of the nest, and while assisting an "only child spouse" care for a stubborn, deaf and chronically sick, uneducated 86-year-old parent who was positive he'd die in his bed at home long before this...guess I'd need to have that figure of household income just to break even as we head together after 33 years of marriage for the homestretch before retirement (LOL)- Sorry, not many dreams/prayers left. Did you know stress can kill you? Just pinch that cynical sarcastic thick patriotic skin I've developed-sacrifice is good, eating is bad!

Also, I guess I'm often just not rational enough to make anymore decisions, possibly including this judgement -- so maybe my right to vote should be rescinded or at least manipulated for the benefit of those that obviously know better and/or just wander off to the detention camps after the next attack - Yep, onward Christian soldiers - let's see that "faith-based" charity at work.

[tameszu]

63. For a family of 4, if BOTH parents earn 88K+, yes

This data is available in the link at post #38.

A household whose total income was over 165K would be in the top 5% of median households.

This wouldn't be surprising, since the median *household* income is under 40K.

And, yes, someone who makes over 100K would be solidly in the top 3%. If you think you can count more than that in your little town, remember that you have to count *everyone* who is over 18 years of age. If you do that, I doubt you will have any trouble counting 33 people who don't make 100K for every person who does.

Society is funny that way. The person who put up the statistics about how many people think that they're middle class is telling. If we define middle class as the 2 middle quartiles, it's quite likely that a lot of people are in the top quartile and a decent number of people who were in the lowest might define themselves as middle class. In America, where there's a mythology associated with being middle class, a lot of people don't know or don't want to admit that they're actually significantly poorer or richer than average. Why do you think the repeal of the estate tax was so popular?

[TheBigGuy]

66. $88K/year seems like alot of money to me.

I wouldnt say its "rich" as I would define that as being worth over a million and/or making over $100K/year...but $88K/year puts one in the "affluent" side of the ledger for sure.

[InkAddict]

67. And it depends on

whether or not that's an actual yearly compensation or whether it's just a three-months and you're out the door - MOVE ALONG, we got outsourcing, downsizing, and merging to do! Try catching up mortgage payments on even a modest home loan that was A-ok w/bank just 15 years ago when it takes six/seven months to find that three-month contract that one must drive over 200 miles daily to keep - SLIP, slidin' away - you know the nearer your destination, the more...well you get the idea - an emergency stash is a now just a mirage in a Mid East desert!

[StrongBad]

73. This is around what my dad makes each year...

...and my family is far from being "rich". We are comfortable but my dad has to slave his ass off at a job he hates to make it this way. I also live in New Jersey and the standard of living here is much higher than in other parts of the country. We are probably slightly above average in comparison to others in our area.

[JanMichael]

75. No. Where'd you get that silly idea?

:shrug:

[papau]

79. I agree - rich is the top 1% = $700k income,, few million assets

Heck I's throw in the top 5% - over $350k income, couple million assets

The fun thought is that even these folks are screwed by the 13000 really rich families in the US - the ones buying Ann's books as a joke, providing themselves with Churches that will accept the books as tax deductible contributions.

It would be fun to be a member of the 13000 families. Hate to tell you what percentage is GOP!

:-)

[SyracuseDemocrat]

83. Actually,

I don't think that the GOP Percentage would be that high. I bet that some of those 13,000 families would be Hollywood families, and those families (Streisand, etc.) tend to be liberal. I would wager that the GOP percentage is only about 60%.

[Terwilliger]

90. You should live as a poor person

when you can't make rent, and have to saacrifice food in order to make rent, then you're poor

If you're a family of 4 (plus parents) I'd think you'd have to make $20,000 just to cover a cheap rent.

[rman]

128. richer is top 0.1% and 0.01%

That's where the explosion of income is taking place.

In the words of Paul Krugman:

"Traditionally people look at income distribution by "quintiles", by blocks of 20%. But that is not where the action is. It is not in the top 10%, it is not even in the top 5%.

To really see what is going on you need to look at the top 1%, the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%. Then you discover that there has been an explosion of income on the very top of the scale.

top 1%
1970 9%
2000 22%

top 0.1%
1970 2.8%
2000 11%

top 0.01%
1970 1%
2000 5%

We are by these numbers fully back to and by some measures above the level of concentration of income that we had in the 1920's."


...a five-fold increase of income for the super-duper ultra wealthy.
Now that is Rich.

[jiacinto]

76. 88K is not rich

While a family making that income can afford the basic neccesities they aren't rich either.

[Ramsey]

81. That would not be rich

Middle-to-upper middle class, depedning upon what part of the country they live in. Certainly not rich for the major East or West Coast cities.

[amazona]

84. with my income in the high four figures, hell, yes!

I can't imagine making over $80,000 a year. If someone can't live high on that, they need to move out of Manhattan or Silicon Valley. Sheesh.

"Lots of families" making that much? Maybe so...but there are lots of families who make half that -- or even less.

As far as $80,000 family having to take out a loan to send the kids to college, so what, poor people have to do the same if college is an option at all. I would like see someone complaining about that income try to make it on my income. Most poor people have "massive debt" too -- and it isn't going for "Hummers."

[JohnKleeb]

85. depends where they are living

if its around here I think its average but in say Applachia its stinking rich.

[DemBones DemBones]

86. Of course an 88K income doesn't make you truly rich but

lots of people earn considerably less.

If this has anything to do with income caps for Social Security taxes, I support eliminating them and taxing everyone's income. Right now, if you make 88K , you're only taxed on the first 70K, but if you're struggling to get by on 10K, you're taxed on every dollar of it. That's clearly unfair, 88K being "rich" in comparison to 10K.

The truly rich don't have to ask how much things cost. However, some people blow a fortune behaving that way -- see Tyson, Mike.

[Undemcided]

87. Depends

A cop and a nurse in Cali would earn well over 100K. I guess it all depends on the cost of living in each place. I don't think you can set a figure for the whole of the States.

[Terwilliger]

117. LOL...unDEMcided

:D

[Terwilliger]

88. YES

thats a lot of fucking money to most people

[Robin Hood]

91. Richer than 30,000

[jafap]

93. $88,000 puts you in the top 20%

If being richer than 80% of the US is not rich, then I do not know what is. Costs and incomes are doubtless different for different areas, but I do not have current statistics for regions. In 1979 median household income was $16,841 for the US, $18,243 for California, and $22,870 for Contra Costa.
It is not very rich, or extremely rich, but neither is it middle class. Since I graduated from the U of Mn in 1985, my lifetime earnings are about $130,000 including a two year stint at graduate school. So this oldster thinks those making 6.5 times what I do, are fairly well off.

[leftofthedial]

94. it totally depends on

the definition of "rich" (some amount above national average? some amount above local average?)

In my experience, living in a fairly major metropolitan area, $88K for household income would not be rich. $200K would be more like the low end of "rich."

[seg4527]

95. Re

I'm a teenager, living in a family of 4. My dad makes like 55,000 a year, and my mom makes 5 thousand or less from a part-time job. We live very comfortably. And that's at 60,000 a year. Is 88k/a year rich? I think so.

[jody]

100. Your question focuses solely on income whereas "financial wealth"

is another indicator. The "one per centers" own 50% of our financial wealth and part of that group, the "one half per centers", own 42% of our financial wealth. Financial wealth is total wealth less home equity.

Many of those people pay little or no income taxes. They are the beneficiaries of abolishing estate taxes, dividend taxes, corporate taxes, and capital-gains taxes. Many heirs to those fortunes contribute no more to society than a gutter drunk but they can rise to high office, even the presidency.

Life isn't fair and AWOL and his cronies want to make it more unfair.

[psychopomp]

122. Well put

"Many heirs to those fortunes contribute no more to society than a gutter drunk but they can rise to high office, even the presidency."

A salient point! However, the high rollers do contribute to society when they push all of that money around, even if only by accident.

[jody]

138. Understand, but in pursuit of still more profits, they approve the export

of jobs from the US.

They can hold those jobs hostage until "We the People" are ready to surrender part of our Sovereignty as ransom for their return.

All men may have been created equal, but mammon has made multinational corporations superior to men. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Exporting jobs

Might be inconvenient to those of us who lose them. But it is perfectly OK for a company to do it. In fact, if it saves them money, it is their obligation to do it.

[jody]

144. "their obligation to do it."? That sounds good but unfettered competition

is runious. One need look no further than the Mexican side of the border to confirm that observation.

Just as labor was able to selectively strike one company at a time and rachet up wages, companies can shift production to impoverished companies and end up with inflated profits. Labor was succesful because it had government support. Multinational corporations depend upon NAFTA and the current fast track treaties being negotiated by AWOL for the leverage to push wages down toward the starvation level.

AWOL has all eyes focused on IRAQ, et al, but the real danger is the expanded trade agreements which he is negotiating. NAFTA and Chapter 11 in particular were bad enough but even Canada and Mexico realize now they lost some of their sovereignty.

Corporatists who control AWOL and his cronies are pulling the perfect con on the US.

[Muddleoftheroad]

145. Another word for unfettered is free

I like freedom. Freedom to speak. Freedom to think. Freedom to trade.

If my company wants to do business with people in Africa and hire them to work because I want to aid Africa, that is MY business. Not yours. And I have the right to sever relationships with employees just as they can do so with me.

[jody]

152. That's OK, but don't ask the People to pay for a military force to

defend your assets in Africa.

If your company wishes to leave the US, go for it, but as long as you use the People's power to protect your international assets, then you must pay the piper. That might very well include maintaining production facilities in the US.

The economic notion of free competion is in practice, just a way for a few to accumulate massive wealth through a dysfunctional market.

Today, the "one half per centers" own over 42% of America's financial wealth and if they are successful in bribing congress to eliminate estate taxes, dividend taxes, corporate taxes, and capital-gains taxes, then it's just a mattter of time before they own nearly all of our financial wealth. At some point the working masses will realize that and who knows what will happen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. If my company

Pays taxes and/or has Americans working at its overseas branches, I have a right to expect American military protection.

[jody]

168. That's your opinion, but SCOTUS has ruled that government is

not obligated to protect any individual. Each individual has the inalienable right to protect self and property.

Corporations are an artificial creation under the sovereign power of "We the People". It is true that corporations have some of the rights of individuals, but it is a corporation's responsibility to protect itself just as individuals are expected to protect themself.

[Muddleoftheroad]

171. Nevertheless

If American citizens or their property are attacked anywhere in the world, it is the obligation of the government to protect them as fast as you can say, "provide for the common defense."

That's why nations tend to intervene when things happen to their citizens.

[jody]

174. Nevertheless, govenment is not required to prevent an attack against

corporate assets either in the US or outside the US. Once an attack has started, it is a proper for the government to evacuate US citizens, but that's all.

The problem with many multinational corporations is that they have moved their profits out of the US to avoid taxes, something that the government prevents for the "working masses".

Multinational corporations are getting a free ride from "We the People". :puke:

[Muddleoftheroad]

176. No free ride

They hire workers, they pay taxes. They provide services. That's not a free ride.

As for attacks on U.S. citizens, once they begin, it is the obligation of government to protect those citizens and take actions AGAINST those who do them harm.

[jody]

179. Why do you ignore the facts that multinational corporations do move

profits out of the country.

Corporations exist at the sufferance of the People. If the People wish to terminate a corporation doing business in the US, that's the right of the People.

You appear to believe a "created artificial entity" has more rights than its creator? Where did you get that idea, certainly not from our Constitution?

The entire notion of corporate rights began in 1886 in the US.

There are many interesting sites on the web and the following link has an interesting quote http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

QUOTE
Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.

Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.

The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.
UNQUOTE

[Muddleoftheroad]

180. Of course they do

If an organization exists across jurisdictions (counties, states, nations) it is bound to move its profits around to the location that needs it most. I will just say Duh to that one.

Corporations exist because the people have a right to form them. I don't think corporations have more rights, nor do I think they have less. I don't think that a nation can takeover or ignore corporate rights in anything other than a national emergency, without going through normal legal channels.

[jody]

182. You assert that corporations have the same rights as citizens.

Do you really believe that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

If so, then corporations should be allowed to vote and be drafted into the military. Corporations should be sentenced to prison for crimes and executed for capital crimes.

In fact, corporations are created instruments that are allowed to exist as long as they serve "We the People". If exporting jobs from the US is deemed by the people to be detrimental to the common good, then the People can dissolve a corporation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

188. As usual

You take your tirade to the point of the ridiculous.

Corporations are legal representations of people. If they commit crimes, the people involve pay. If they make a profit, the people involved benefit.

If We the People go about dissolving corporations, you will plunge the U.S. into a Depression of epic proportions.

[jody]

189. We don't need to actually dissolve corporations, just remind them that

they exist under the sufferance of "We the People".

It was you who asserted that corporations had the same rights as an individual. Of course that's nonsense, but corporations have been allowed to exercise some of the rights of citizens.

It is also a fact that multinational corporations do move profits offshore through a variety of accounting transactions aka scams.

It is also a fact that when multinational corporations export jobs from the US, they usually wreak havoc on the environment and governments of less developed countries. Nike's use of sweat labor is just the current offender. Union Carbide caused the tragic 1984 Bhopal, India incident through corporate neglect because it had bribed local government officials.

Multinational corporations have used the CIA for industrial espionage from the very beginning and used the CIA to overthrow governments that were aligned against corporate interests. Recent attempts to overthrow the elected president of Venezuela are just one example. Chile has its own 9-11 tragedy because it was on that day in 1973 that Henry Kissinger and the CIA toppled the government of a properly elected president.

I don't need to go on, I've made my case. Multinational corporations use the executive office as their personal lackey to protect their worldwide assets. Those same corporations bribe via campaign contributions enough votes from both parties to insure a "bipartisan" vote for laws favorable to the corporations. All that while they fund both major parties to keep the voters distracted and disenchanted while they rob the People blind.

Corporations aren't bad, but multinational corporations are being used by the corporatist to create a plutocracy. It's time for the People to wake up to that danger and put the multinationals back in their proper place, i.e. to serve the common good of the People.

[Ripley]

191. Sorry to interrupt, but

I noticed this statement by Muddle:

"Corporations are legal representations of people"

...and find that an odd statement in itself. I used to work for a corporation and I don't remember that being part of the contract. But I could be wrong.

[jody]

193. I understand, a number of people believe that the single most necessary

amendment to the Constitution is one that says corporations have none of the rights of individuals.

Corporations allow people with incredible wealth to limit their risk to the capital they have invested and protect their personal wealth. Add that protection to their goal of eliminating corporate taxes, dividend taxes, estate taxes and capital-gains taxes and in a few decades, a handful of family’s own all out financial wealth.

On top of that, they use the Department of Commerce to advance their programs, use the Department of Defense to protect their worldwide assets, and the Department of State to pressure other governments to kowtow to their business interests. They've even got the President and Congress to sign trade treaties that make the US Supreme Court subservient to an international arbitration panel that is not bound by US law.

That's the real threat of the people who fund AWOL and his cronies. :shrug:

[Ripley]

194. You are on a good roll my friend...

See my post 184 down the pike.

[Muddleoftheroad]

201. Corporations

Also fund job growth, invest in new technologies, cut into the trade deficit, train workers, fund retirement accounts for millions of citizens, etc.

More accurately, "Corporations allow people to limit their risk to the capital they have invested and protect their personal wealth." That encourages people to take risks. If you limit that option, then you limit their willingness to help the economy.

U.S. corporations should use the various engines of government to aid them. They do this just as those government agencies abroad aid their competitors.

[jody]

212. Ken Lay of Enron loves the position you occupy. For people like

Lay, the corporate game is "Heads I get richer, Tails the working masses pick up the tab".

You say "U.S. corporations should use the various engines of government to aid them". That's an unlimited assertion! Corporations still exist under the sufferance of "We the People" and if the People want to limit corporations, then they have the authority and power to do just that.

Personally I think people like Ken Lay, Cheney with his company, and the Carlyle mob are abusing the People's trust, apparently you don't.

[Muddleoftheroad]

215. Of course

They are abusing the people. Though not sure how many of us trusted them in the first place.

But it is the responsibility of every person who runs a business to maximize what they do and using government resources designed for that purpose is entirely rational.

Yes, the people can limit corporations. The people can also plunge this nation into a Depression should they so choose.

[Muddleoftheroad]

200. You worked

You weren't part of the corporation, you were an employee. Corporations represent the owners of said corporation.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

99. that's lower middleclass...middleclass 80k to 199k

[Nikia]

102. So what about people who make under $80,000?

Are you calling the majority of Americans lower class? There are huge lifestyle differnces between those who make $80,000 and those who make $20,000. Have you ever had a conversation with someone who made $80,000 per year that started like this, "I'd really like to grill some bratwurst but there isn't any place that has them on sale this week." or "Can I borrow $10 for gas? I'll pay you back after we get our checks. I am out of gas and out of money and don't know if I'll even make it home."
I also think that the word "class" is a bit loaded since it is usually associated with habits and values that do not necessarily have anything to do with income.

[snippy]

101. IRS income statistics.

From individual returns for tax year 2001:

Top 1 percent Adjusted Gross Income break ...$292,913

Top 10 percent AGI break .....................$92,754

Bottom 10 percent AGI break ...................$5,121

Median AGI ...................................$28,117

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html


Those with AGI of $100,000 to $200,000 paid an average of 16.7% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $200,000 to $500,000 paid an average of 23.4% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $500,000 to $1,000,000 paid an average of 28.4% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 paid an average of 29.7% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $1,5000,000 to $2,000,000 paid an average of 30.0% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $2,0000,000 to $5,000,000 paid an average of 30.1% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $5,0000,000 to $10,000,000 paid an average of 29.7% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

Those with AGI of $10,000,000 or more paid an average of 27.4% of their AGI in federal income taxes.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in03at.xls

I do not consider income of $88,000 per year rich, but I also do not consider people with AGI of over $100,000 per year over taxed.

[kysrsoze]

115. Those figures are misleading on the surface. Here's why...

Let's say your adjusted gross income (before) is $1,000,000. The odds are that you are a lawyer, a doctor or some type of business owner. You may only be taxed on half that much. People making that kind of money can afford a good financial/tax advisor who can show them how to MASSIVELY write off many things, including a 80% of the cost of a $50K Hummer, a home office, business expenses, etc.

When you get to that level, you have TONS of options on deferring or reducing your adjusted gross income to a small portion of what you're actually making. When all is said and done, the right deductions can bring your taxable income down by upwards of 50% +. Normally, you're making a LOT more than what the IRS says you make after all your deductions.

[snippy]

133. Very true. Every year the IRS reports the number of returns with AGI over

$1,000,000 and zero fedral income tax paid.

[gulliver]

103. $88k isn't rich, and you are absolutely right.

Talking about the $88k people as if they are rich is politically ignorant and poisonous for the Dems. Novak tried to play that angle on Clark when Clark appeared on Crossfire. Novak asked if people, er, couples making $100,000 per year should have their taxes raised. Clark's answer was perfect. Roughly, "We need to look at the revenue situation. Then we'll start at the top and work our way down."

That's the way to approach it, IMO. The grass roots people at open source think tanks like DU need to stop talking about the $88K people as if there is some chance these folks are going to get soaked. That's both wrong to say and hurts us politically.

[Ripley]

134. Thanks for understanding.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my post, because some people seem to think I'm covering for the enemy and "most" people live on less. I find the statistics being posted here confusing, lot's of different analysis. But, I didn't mean to imply $88K was poor, and I agree with you they are the wrong group of people to be angry against.

Just because someone earns a good living because they went to college and choose to save their money instead of get into debt is no reason to attack them as "taking advantage of the system."

[jafap]

205. I think that Clark was absolutely right

I would like to advise Dean and Gephardt to back off on the reversal of the Bush tax cuts. My 80-20 figure is over-simplified but probably fairly accurate. That is, reversing the tax cut for the top 20% will return about 80% of the revenue. Since top 20% starts at about $85,000 that means that families making $88,000 to $120,000 who are not super-duper rich will lose some of their tax cut, but even Bill Gates and the Walton kids will not lose all of it. For example, the creation of a 10% tax bracket for the first $6,000 of taxable income produces a savings of $300 for me and the same $300 for Bill Gates. Cuts at the bottom benefit people at the top as well, but cuts at the top do very little for those at the bottom except create a greater demand for personal servants.

[Fescue4u]

104. $88K is enough to pay your bills

and save a little.

Its not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

[Logansquare]

105. Fun/horrifying--Salary Calculator

You enter your current income and location and then calculate how much money you'd need to enjoy the same standard of living anywhere else in the U.S. We absolutely gave up any dreams of moving to the Bay area after checking it out :-)

http://www.homefair.com/homefair/calc/salcalc.html

By the way, we live in Chicago and make more than 88,000/yr. In my home town in Ohio, we could live as well on exactly half of that.

[molly]

106. If you live out "west". it may be impressive

but here in the east - unless you are single - it's not. If we are talking a 2 wage earner family in the east it sure doesn't buy a lot. A single person making that income would be comfortable and perhaps desirable for another single person earning the same amount.

[Democat]

119. $88k is not a lot out "west", if you are talking about the coast

No way.

[molly]

136. Definitely not the coast

[Hamlette]

109. Rich is always "more than I make" no matter what I make.

[DisgustedTX]

110. Not even close to rich - $88K is a nice, middle-class income

I don't make close to it, but no - certainly not rich.

With good budgeting, it would make for a very comfortable life.

[inthecorneroverhere]

113. Middle class-comfortable

No, $88,000 a year on two incomes is not rich. However, it is comfortably middle class and should be able to afford a couple or a small family the ability to live anywhere they wish, even in exclusive regions such as the SF Bay Area or, on a tight budget, a small place in Manhattan. No, it is not enough to support a large family or lots of in-laws in Manhattan. Just a couple and a small child or so.

$88,000 a year should be sufficient to purchase a nice 3-2 or 4-2 home in most any relatively safe, pleasant suburban location with trees, landscaping, flowers, etc. $88,000 a year is enough to set up a college account for the future for a small child.

$88,000/year is 'rich' in a few rural locations, but is decent-middling average in most suburbs.

[sam sarrha]

114. El Paso TX, mean income is $14,000 a yr. i worked for Boeing here, their

only nonunion shop, as a manufacturing specialist, for $16,000. i hear that entry level middle class is about $37,000 anually...before Bush.

[carolinayellowdog]

116. 4 states have median family incomes 80K+

Those are CT, MA, MD, and NJ. But of course parts of many others do, notably NY, CA, VA. So 88K is middle middle class in those states for a 4 member family income. Median *household* income is just over 42K nationally but includes all one person households.

This seems mainly a semantic issue. I would tend to think of anyone in the top quintile of their own locality as rich by local standards. But *really* rich means not having to work for a living.

CYD

[MaraJade]

118. Depends on the circumstances surrounding how the $88K is

made, by whom, and where the person making that kind of money lives.

In many places, a SINGLE individual that is making that kind of money
is rich.

If the person making that kind of money happens to be supporting a
family of, say, four persons (mom, dad, child, child) then they are
in the lower portion of the middle class.

In both of the aforementioned cases, if they are living in a major
metro area, say NY, LA, Chicago, SF, then the single person is
probably middle class, while the family of four may be flirting
with "poor."

However, if the $88K is the annual pension received by an elderly
couple (Social Security, plus pension from employment and return
on investments), then these persons are rich. Kids are gone, having finished college and started their own households. One would have to
have a considerable amount of money in savings and investments to
earn annual returns approaching $88K. Most older people in this position are also homeowners (bought the house in the 50s or 60s for $10-$20K--house now worth $100-$200K). These are also people with
many assets, such as vacation homes, pleasure watercraft and
upper scale Motor Homes. These people are indeed wealthy.

[jafap]

123. nice analysis

and I agree about expenses making a difference as to how "rich" an income is - location and dependents and health (oh my).
However, after the current tax cuts a family of four with an income of $40,000 pays only $55 in federal taxes. A single person, like me, with an income of $13,000 pays $500. Plus, you might consider that I could move 3 more people into my house without changing my house payments (and my utilities might not change that much either because utility bills are very slanted against small users (my water bill is the same for 0 to 1500 gallons, and my trash bill is the same for 3 bags a month as it would be for 20 bags a month)). A single person making $40,000 would be paying $4300 in taxes!!! (and please do not tell me how people with children have more expenses. I have three dogs which cause me some expense too, but I do not expect my neighbors to subsidize my choices)
A retired person making $40,000 is not paying the $3060 in FICA taxes that a working person would. Also, much of the income they receive from social security is taxed neither by the IRS nor their state. I am also paying a mandatory 3% in KPERS (retirement) as well as making IRA payments (as every true Irishman should). Plus the fact that they are mostly insured through medicare whereas many working people are paying thousands for health insurance.
However, it is ridiculous to suggest that an $88,000 family of four in NYC is "flirting with poor". As Bender said in the Breakfast Club -"don't you ever compare yourself to me" and as far as 'flirting' goes - they "don't know any of my friends, they don't look at any of my friends and they certainly would not condescend to speak to any of my friends." Flirting with - ha! More like sneering at.
A few months ago "The Nation" published an article titled "How the other half STILL lives" which you can probably still read at their website. To quote it:
"Community Service Society, a nonprofit social service agency, said that 'one-in-five New York workers earns less than $8.10 an hour. Three-quarters of those earning less than $8.10 an hour are living in poverty.' According to a comprehensive CSS study, 52.6 percent of low-wage workers are women; six out of ten have a high school diploma; and more than one in ten is a college graduate. Eight in ten are people of color.

More than 600,000 New Yorkers earn between $5.15 an hour and $10 an hour. Some 56 percent of these low-wage workers have no health insurance for their families, 52 percent have no pension or 401(k) plan and 37 percent receive no paid leave."

Those people are poor, capisce? A couple with both workers making $8 an hour has an income of $32,000 annually. No matter how the $88,000 family has expenses that eat up their income, they also have an extra $56,000 a year that a real poor family does not have or 275% of the income of a poorer family.

edit: Not that anybody reads what I write, but I do not mean to sound harsh since you made good points and I cannot expect you to write a book on the subject. I just want to add some other points and point out that there are many families poorer and have some fun quoting BC.

[FormerOstrich]

120. When I had finally had it with the Corp grind in 1997

I was well above the 88K. But...then I stopped and analyzed.

I just came off a big project and I thought about it. I hadn't seen any of my friends or family for over three years. I had just left my 10 year old car in a restaurant parking lot for over two weeks because it wouldn't start and I didn't want to take time to deal with it. A 40 hour week was like a vacation.

Then I started adding up the amount of money I was spending to stay away from home. Pool service (I know pool sounds extravagant but this is PHX), Yard service, Housekeeping service, dry cleaning, lunches out, "working" happy hours,......

I immediatly discovered I could earn a lot less and actually have more money.

Of course, then there is now where I am making almost nothing, don't answer the home phone because it's creditors, and may be on the brink of my house going into forclosure. Then again, had I had the time (and/or inclination) to buy new cars and bigger houses I would have lost it all already.

There may be many statistics but in reality each case is different. Several years ago when I went to Mexico each year on vacation, I was always in struck by happy a lot of the people were. They sing while they work, they whistle toons, they'll re-open shop to serve you. Money does not buy you happiness.

[Trajan]

121. I have made slightly more than ....

$88,000.00 per year for the last 5 years ....

We are DEFINITELY not rich .... We are barely making it ....

The secured debt is overwhelming ..... House and cars alone absorb about 65 % of monthly take home .... add utilities, phones, car insurance .... wowzers ..... we are drained dry ....

This AINT rich .....

[jafap]

125. I have made slightly less than

$20,000 a year for the last five years. So I really cannot conceive of how you spent the $340,000 that I did not make. You must have a very expensive house, and very new cars. I suppose $120,000 of it went to taxes, but oh, the things I could do with $220,000 da da dee da da da dee da dee da da.

[REP]

124. I Wish

The combined incomes of me and my Loved One is more than 88K (even with me being on disability leave from work) but where we live, we can't buy a house, and the "new" car is a five years old when purchased mid-size Pontiac (the one I drive is 17 years old and is paid for). It means we can eat out on weekends, not buy all our clothes at Target, and afford car repairs when needed. No Hummers, no country clubs, not even a good-size apartment.

[Skidmore]

127. That is a lot of money to make per year...

My mother worked for 30 years as a nursing assistant in a rural hospital. She was still making just at $7/hr. at the time of her death in 1995. After many years of hard work, my husband and I just finally passed $60K per year COMBINED income, and we should be thinking about retirement. I very much anticipate that we both will need to stay employed until we're 70 or experience bad health, whichever comes first. Most jobs in this area pay just at minimum or a little above. Some one making $88K has been in a profession for a while.

[Hubert Flottz]

129. Most really wealthy people don't really earn money!

They are born with it, or they steal it! The really wealthy see to it that the average person stays in his place! A small business owner has a much harder path in life than someone like Bush! A family farmer is a good example!

[xequals]

131. No, I don't.

88k is a nice salary, but no where close to being rich, especially with a family, mortgage and other expenses.

This is why I consider myself a moderate Democrat. I'm liberal socially on most issues but I hate liberal economics, especially the tax and spend welfare state. I agree with Clinton and the New Democrats on economics. The idea is to make the system fair for both the little guy and businesses. Without a system that looks out for the interest of both, it's impossible to have a middle class. Growing the middle class is what Democrats have always been about anyway. It's just that the radicals of the '60s and '70s (like McGovern) pushed liberal economics so far left that center-left economics (JFK, Clinton, etc) seems conservative. The fear of ultra left wing economics (state controlled market, welfare state, socialism, communism) -- not social issues -- is what drove people away from the Democratic Party into the arms of far right corporate whores like Reagan.

[BiggJawn]

132. Well, Ripley, how do YOU measure up?

Sorry if you've already answered that.

88 Kilobucks....That's more than twice what I make, and I used to consider myself "middle-class" (I now realize I'm "upper lower-class") That's also more than me and my Girlfriend would have together.
So, if I couldn't see $88,000 a year as "rich" (actually, the correct term is "wealthy" richness deals with much more than just bank account size) I'd at least look at it as EXTREMELY "well-off"

$88,000....And I make $38,000...Boy, (slaps forehead) what do I know? Guess I need to start liking NASCAR and listening to Rush so the ReTHUGlican Cargo Cult will come and rescue me, too....

[Ripley]

135. I had an emergency yesterday, so I left this thread

soon after starting it....YOWZA!! I should have known I opened a can of worms!!

We fall into the high middle class category and yes, we have a comfortable lifestyle. But we EARNED IT. The difference I see in some posters perspective is that some feel if they are poor, it is MY fault because I have a nice house and new car. Well I was poor too for many years, struggled, saved money, worked a lot, took out loans to get through college and invested a little. Now that I live in the south where property taxes are per year what I paid per month in the midwest things got better.

People seem to believe it is okay to give out child tax credits (which I don't get to benefit from) yet, I shouldn't be able to use home ownership as a tax benefit. I don't understand that concept. Home ownership has always been encouraged as a way to help the middle class and to have a bitter attitude towards someone who has a mortgage is silly IMO.

As I originally stated it is all perspective, mostly from what part of the country you live in and what your education is.

[BiggJawn]

137. Hot topic, isn't it?

I don't blame you for anything because you've finally "made it". Shit, who isn't trying to get someplace where they're comfy? I had a mortgage once. There's a reason the word is derived from the French for "Death Grip", I was top-heavy and lost my ass when I relocated and couldn't sell the place for what I owed...

Like I said, I used to think of myself as "middle class" on the income scale. Now I realize that all those years I wasn't making even 30 kilobucks, thinking I was lower-middle-class because I had education and a car that ran, I was really poverty-stricken...

Hell, at 38 K, I'm STILL lower class.
Anyone wanna trade a whole BUNCH of Beethoven and Mozart albums for that redneck that sings all those "We gonna kick yer camel-ridin' ASS, Boy..." country songs?

Might as well learn to play the part....

[Ripley]

139. I wasn't referring to you.

Look at post 21. I have not fixed the system for my benefit. I play by the rules and do my own taxes...probably to my detriment.

[BiggJawn]

169. Ripley, I ain't madatchu! Peace, friend!

I play by the rules and do my own too. just haven't had the "opportunity" others evidently have.

[Ripley]

173. Okely Dokely.

And by the way, have any Vivaldi cheap? ;-)

[ProfessorGAC]

141. No

It's comfortable. Not rich.
The Professor

[poskonig]

142. Just income, what about "wealth", etc?

Suppose someone has a lot of equity in a home that doesn't show up in income, for example? Or money in stocks, etc?

I'm personally not certain we can always decide who is "rich" on the basis of income alone.

(edit: never mind, I read the rest of the posts)

[salmonhorse]

146. $88,000/12 = $7,333.33/mo

And that ain't bad in todays America so long as you don't throw it all down a rat hole.

[Muddleoftheroad]

147. Before taxes

Now you are talking less than $5,000 and given cost of living and housing prices many places that just ain't much.

[SoCalDem]

148. After taxes ... $932.72 per week......edited

88,000.00 divided by 52 weeks = $1,692.31

28% FWH <473.85>
10% SWH <169.23>
SDI <12.95>
FICA <129.46>


Housepayment $1600.00
car payt #1 400.00
car payt #2 300.00
insurance (car)250.00
insurance med 700.00
gasoline 250.00
gas/elec/water 350.00
phones 250.00
insurance life 100.00
food 500.00....total $4,700.00 per month "spent"
...


932.72 x 4 paydays a month (a few months will have an extra one ) starts us out at $3730.88.. start subtracting those more realistic "bills" and you will pretty soon see whay people are "upside-down" on debts.. There are no "fun" items in that "budget" and nothing for savings..

[Muddleoftheroad]

149. Thanks!

nt

[nn2004]

151. Should 88k earners get a bix tax cut?

I think they should. Anyone else?

[JVS]

156. No

[CWebster]

153. Debt

I don't believe in it, what can be more un-American than having no debt? I have zero debt. If I had 3 billion dollars I would exercize the same conserving, resourceful, practical habits and shop at thrift stores, flea markets, drive an old car, pick other people's trash, search the reduced plants at the nursery, barter, stretch meals into ongoing incarnations, grows fruit,herbs and vegs and have money saved.

[carolinayellowdog]

154. National stats as of 2000 place 88k in top quintile of households

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/overview/income.cfm

so:
bottom fifth earns less than $17,955
fourth quintile $17,955-33,005
middle quintile $33,006-52,271
second quintile $52,272-81,959
top quintile $81,960+

note that these are household incomes and 4 member family quintiles would run higher, individual incomes much lower, hence the 88k figure is extremely high for an individual, but not for a 4 person household

[JVS]

155. It is relatively well off if that is earned by one person in the family

And as such the focus of government policy should not be to make the 88K household richer or make it easier for them to buy a bigger house, car, or whatever else is expensive. Let's worry more about the families struggling to break 20K

[ikojo]

158. I don't think $88K is rich but...

anyone making that salary isn't hurting too badly.

Wealth cannot really measured in terms of a paycheck. It is really measured in terms of the assets one has:
-house
-stocks
-bonds
-other real estate holdings

Most working-class people do not have all of those things. If working-class people own stocks and bonds it is more than likely through and employer sponsored 401(k) plan and not on their own. Most working-class people if they have any "wealth" to speak of have it through home ownership and it is through home ownership and the access to capital and credit that home ownership opens up that enables some working-class people to move to the middle or upper middle class.

[T Roosevelt]

160. I posted a poll in the Economic Issues forum

What income bracket is your household in? to get an idea of where DU is from an economic standpoint. (probably should have posted in GD for visibility)

[0007]

163. I think it is more than enough for anyone

to live comfortably. If one has twelve children it might be more than plenty.

[Braden]

164. if you live in Massachusetts and Make $88,000 you are middle class

not rich,

consider a decent home in my town now goes for $400,000
4br 2ba relatively modern.

if you have a mortgage of $360,000 you are paying $1700 per month plus another 350-400 for taxes.

consider how much you would pay in taxes and there is not much left over monthly.

[BiggJawn]

172. if you live in Indiana w/that income, you advise the Governor...

Guess it's relative. 88 kilobucks probably wouldn't buy squat in Hilo.

[Ripley]

175. Hey, you're catching on...

sort of.

Perspective is needed on this issue sometimes here at DU because some folks think we progressives are all in one category of wealth (low) fighting the other (high).

I really didn't mean to segregate folks.

But damn BJ if you would just sell me all of your classical CD's at a good price, I'll let you drive my Hummer when I'm in your town! (uh, sarcasm alert).

[bif]

170. No. Well off starts at 100k.

In my opinion.

[VOX]

177. Context is everything. $88K/yr. isn't rich on the East or West Coast...

Or in some other metropolitan regions where housing and living expenses are high.

Also, kids or no kids? $88K in, say, San Francisco with 2 kids is just scraping by.

[Oracle]

178. Not in San Francisco...

125K a year is at the bottom, but the beginning of being rich

When your making 125K a year, you usually also have many frills that go with it paid for...sometimes a car, expense account, 100% medical & dental for family, travel, etc...

Yeah, 125K a year is the beginning of being rich...and I'm sure the 125K plus, a year crowd are mostly Republicans.

[killbotfactory]

181. If I made $45 an hour I'd feel like a king...

:shrug:

[ulysses]

183. it's not "struggling" in my book

Maybe not rich, but it looks pretty good from where I am. :shrug:

[Ripley]

184. Okay everybody, let's give a hand to jody!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is doing a great job around the middle of this thread explaining to Muddle that offshore profiteers who take advantage of US tax laws are well, how shall I say it? THIEVES.

Unintended consequences are sometimes excellent.

Thanks jody.

[Muddleoftheroad]

187. Hands off

Sorry, I am not part of the tie-dyed anti-globalist set. Companies do what they need to do to make a profit, to continue to survive. I've worked for my fair share of such organizations that didn't. If a company doesn't look for the cheaper forms of good labor, it can't compete on the world stage. That means it goes out of business. THAT means lost jobs, lost wages, lost taxes, lost opportunity and lost people.

I have no tolerance for the anti-globalist, quasi Pat Buchanan ramblings of those who hate business.

[Ripley]

190. First of all, I am not a tie-dyed anti-globalist.

And I never accused you of being one.

I don't hate business, and I surely would not call myself a Buchanan follower.

You seem to have a broad brush you use: anti-globalist. Who the heck on DU says they are that? If you would like to get more specific, as jody did, you seem to flail in your answers. Your answers don't seem to be pro-USA business, but pro-whoever-the-fuck-has-a-deal business.

I have no tolerance for the anti-American, quasi Pat Robertson ramblings of those who hate America.

[Muddleoftheroad]

199. I love America

I also see the real need for both business and multinational business. I also don't support government overegulation of business.

Companies that compete on an international playing field have to have a level playing field. If you handcuff American corporations, then they will lose out, shut down or fire some of their workers.

Actually, on DU, I've seen TONS of anti-globalist posts. Wait till the next gotta-be-there anti-globalist protest at the World Bank or Starbucks or wherever they hold those things. You'll see tons then.

OK, so you, like me, hate Buchanan, but how then do you expect that cutting yourself off from the realities of global trade will aid business?

[Aaron]

206. Agreed. Jody is a big plus to DU (n/t)

[LuminousX]

185. Nobody 'Feels' Rich

People who make $1.2 million a year don't feel rich. People who make $5 million a year don't feel rich. How much money do you have to make to be "rich."

I know people who have a total family income of about $50,000 and they seem damn rich to me. They go on a lot of vacations. Yet, they don't have cable, don't subscribe to magazines, don't go out to dinner, .. well you get the picture. They've applied their money towards that one thing, one thing that I consider luxorious and am envious of. Let's face it, if they applied that money towards driving a really nice car, I wouldn't think they were rich, because they'd do nothing, go nowhere and have a nice car in the driveway.

So what is 'rich'? My definition is having enough money that you can do what you love to do without jeopardizing your basic financial security.

[Ripley]

186. oooh you sound so...uh...logical

in your assessment, I might faint.

[Nikia]

192. Thinking more about this thread

I don't despise anyone for the income that they may have. Everyone has different needs and priorities and uses their income in different ways. I suppose that I do get a bit annoyed though by people who I'd consider upper middle class who make around $88,000 and complain about how poor they are and are totally oblivious to the situation of those making less than half of that and trying to raise a family or single people earning less than a quarter of that. I also am a bit annoyed by the same people who think that they are better than such people and that and that these less financially fortnate people deserve to barely be able to afford to necessities since they are not educated enough, or employed at the right company, or made some poor earlier decisions in their lives. The gap between the rich and poor is widening and that is a problem. I don't know what can be done about it. We must deal with the fact though that many jobs pay less than is needed to live comfortably.

[jody]

195. I'll second that. Those who have been blessed with wealth have an

obligation to share with the less fortunate. The concept of "noblesse oblige" or benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank is alien to people like AWOL.

AWOL wears his religion for show but his actions continually violate the basic teachings of Jesus who said:

QUOTE
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth sheep from the goats:

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed? or thirsty, and gave drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took in? or naked, and clothed?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did not to one of the least of these, ye did not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
UNQUOTE

Whether one is religious, agnostic, or atheist those statements are good guidelines for society.

AWOL and his cronies claim to be Christians but they're really goats.

[Ripley]

196. There is just too much baaaaaaing around here...

I find it interesting that you have chosen AWOL to describe Jr.

I usually refer to him as Smirk, because that is what he does all of the time.

Aren't you in the Montgomery area? How hard is it for someone to get those "no show" files for AWOL?


On edit: I'm asking you, as a professional, how it can be done and if you can tell me. Please don't take my post as being snide.

[jody]

197. AWOL's records were obtained under the FOI act and are at

the following sites.
http://www.kings.edu/twsawyer/awol/awol-bush.html
http://www.awolbush.com/
http://awol.gq.nu/

Bush did not attend Guard drills from May 1972 through April 1973 and his military records show that. He was also grounded for failing to take a USAF drug test.

During that same period, he performed community service in a Houston inner city poor district supposedly in lieu of a sentence for cocaine possession. Bush had never before or since showed any compassion for those less fortunate than himself.

[Ripley]

198. Thanks for the links.

Why can't someone, anyone slip this into the TV media? Even an "entertainment show" as they tell us they are distinguished by their coverage of only Non-news?

[WCGreen]

204. I do taxes for a living and I see that people who

Make about 80-90k per year feel comfortable yes, but certainly not rich.

I have at least a dozen if not more that make in exess of 250k, these people feel richly comfortable.

I had one client who mad over 1 million on year and he went on a spending spree that would make Ken Lay Blush....


The point is, living in the suburbs, paying for your health, keeping up with all the stuff you have to in order to be a informed consumer, buying stuff that won't kill you or break down in fifteen minutes, if you have kids it even worse, you need at least 75-100 just to sustain that life style....

And it is important. This life style that some would call rich or at least conforatble keeps a lot of other people working......

This is where the tax relief should have been aimed.

I don't see how anyone can sustain a middle class lifestyle and plan for a slightly better than dismall retirement on less than 100 kper year.

remember, a lot of people are still paying back student loans, saving for their kids college and are helping with elderly parents....

Now I'm a card carrying democrat. I actually worked for the dem party, ran for office, sat on the Board of Elections in Ohio's largest county and I can say with some credibility that if the dems keep demonizing people who earn 88k per year, the GOP wins.

[Wonder]

207. I've been told you don't have real fuck you money

till your net worth is over 10mil
and people vie for that
not so much the money
but the privilege to say fuck you

88,000 is mere chump change
blessings are worthless
and grace hardly amazing

:eyes:

[tedzbear]

208. It depends where you live...

88 grand in San Francisco doesn't go very far but in North Carolina it is huge.

[juajen]

209. My word,

Have you been to Birmingham lately? Believe me, this would not provide a big house with a pool. No, I don't live there, but do have family there. It would go farther here in Lafayette, LA though, but not by much. This is a pretty wealthy small city.

[dawgman]

210. My wife and I made a combined $48k last year.

We get by and live within the city limits of Seattle in a nice neighborhood (Greenwood). So don't try to tell me that $88,000 isn't a life of privilege. Stay out of debt if you think that that is any thing but more than enough to get by. I've been out of work since March so I'll probably make significantly less than $20,000 this year. I am NOT poor but $88,000 is more money than I know what to do with.

peace, dawgman.

[Regice]

211. All of these tax schemes are way too complicated

The problem is the current tax code is thicker than the yellow pages. Only a really rich person can afford to hire a team of accountants to figure it out. No matter what scheme you propose, a team of lawyers and accountants will find every loophole. The best thing to do is make it simple and easier to follow. The savings in IRS staff alone would make up for all of the revenue lost.

$88k per year wouldn't buy a shack near my office, but is good money where I live. I choose to buy a house far away rather than rent an apartment closer to work. I couldn't afford a tent anywhere close to the office.

[quilp]

213. No. Even twice that is not 'rich'. It is simply "well off"

It is in fact the real "middle class". "Rich" is a secure income of over $500,000 a year.

[Pocho]

214. FOR ME, IT IS DAMN RICH, BOTH IN MONEY AND ATTITUDE, AND

that is clearly expressed not only in the responses to this thread but throughout DU in general.

[JHB]

216. Someone with an 88K income might buy a boat...

...maybe even a nice one, but calling it a "yacht" is just pretentious.

[corporalclegg9]

217. Has anyone considered AGE?

Everyone here has talked about geography (which is a VERY valid point; I know this for a fact because I live in the outer NYC suburbs), but has anyone considered age?

Example:

A 25 year old recent graduate making $88,000 per year would be considered richer than a 60 year old nearing retirement making the same amount because of the potential for future earnings. Yes, I know that you have to consider cost-of-living increases, but as most college educated people get older, their income generally increases faster than cost-of-living because they become more capable at their job, get promotions, etc...

Everyone's talking about median income being such and such and the national average being such and such, but people's income naturally increases as they get older.

If we're looking at middle-aged people (in their 40's, perhaps), then I think that comparing their income to the national average is probably fair. I would also consider it "normal" for younger people to make less than the median income and for older people to make more.

Thus, let me combine geography and age and I'll give my opinions:

A 25 year old living in a cheap area making $88,000 is certainly in the upper ranks of income. Rich? Depends on your definition of rich. Well off? Absolutely without a doubt.

A 60 year old living in a cheap area making $88,000? Rich? I would say not. Well off? Most likely. Assuming a normal backwards income distribution throughout their life, this person is very comfortable, and probably could have retired at 55 if they so desired.

A 25 year old living in an expensive area making $88,000? Rich? I would say not. Well off? Most likely. This person has to make some financial decisions to avoid spending all thier money, but the cards are certainly stacked in their favor. This person does, however, have to put some thought into finance, and I suspect that this person's long-term financial picture is not quite as rosy as most people here would think. I would still peg this person as upper-middle class, but not rich.

A 60 year old living in an expensive area making $88,000? Assuming normal backwards income distribution, certainly not rich, and possibly not even terrible well off. This person probably had to work pretty hard to achieve this income level because honestly, $88,000 for an older person in New York City isn't that much.

Finally, I have assumed a single person income of $88,000 per year. If we're talking family income, then each situation that I described above becomes significantly "less rich".

[Catonsville1]

218. Teachers ARE over paid afterall!!

Are two teachers with 8 to 10 years experience Fat Cats?

[Catherine Vincent]

219. Teachers overpaid?

Not in my area....

[Catonsville1]

220. If $88K is Rich, then two teachers combined are rich

In Baltimore county, and most other Maryland counties, teachers with 8 to 10 years make in the upper 40's to 50 grand (for 9 months work). So two teachers with any sort of summer income would be fat cat high rollers. Of course this is BS. By todays standards in the Mid atlantic or Northeast, a family needs to earn 100K to have a decent house, a couple cars, and senf their kids to college. That is middle class. I don't see teachers as overpaid (or under) it seems fair to me.