What Do You Consider "Wealthy" to the point that they ought to be

[Mike 03]

Poll question: What Do You Consider "Wealthy" to the point that they ought to be

taxed relentlessly and those funds appropriated to the poor or middle class?

EDIT:

NET WORTH, not annual income.

My apologies for not being more specific and clear. THANK YOU for the folks who pointed out that this was an important, critical factor in my question.

Yes, I'm speaking of NET WORTH.

Also, I'm adding another choice, of "other."

[TroglodyteScholar]

1. Your question isn't entirely clear...

Are the amounts you listed supposed to represent annual income or net worth?

[Mike 03]

3. Whoa, you make a great point...

I was thinking of net worth!

Thank you. I'm going to try to edit it...

[yurbud]

28. $500K net worth is a retired person living in a mobile home.

[Donnachaidh]

2. where is the *other* option?

Some people might want to vote for lower amounts than you listed.

[cali]

14. only the totally ignorant would want to relentessly tax

anyone with a net worth under $500,000. I don't think Mike was taking those folks into account. Maybe he should have.

[cali]

15. somewhere around 25 million or slightly higher.

[Mike 03]

34. Lol, I put that number on almost as a joke, assuming nobody would vote for it. NT

[Posteritatis]

86. And yet it's winning comfortably; that's kind of sad (nt)

[leftstreet]

4. Meh. I thought it was gonna be "to the point they should be imprisoned"

We don't tax bank robbers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I don't think anyone should be taxed "relentlessly" or their funds "appropriated."

However, I strongly believe in a progressive taxation system in which the top marginal tax rates are high without being punitive. The top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 90%, and the economy -- including wealthy people -- survived quite nicely.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. That's because they reinvested in their businesses to avoid the taxes

When they got tax cuts they didn't pass them along to us via good jobs like the supply siders promised. They pocketed the difference and sat on it, created stock and real estate bubbles or left it to their kids.

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. I'm making under $25k a year ATM, but its entirely possible I might have a net worth of over $500k

at some point in my life. Why should I be "taxed relentlessly?"

[Stevenmarc]

7. I live in NYC a net worth of $500,000 doesn't come close to wealthy

[ShortnFiery]

21. Yes, there's no more selfish people IMO, than those with a net worth of $500,000

because they ususally VOTE for Republicans. They actually believe that they will be millionaires soon.

Yes, One person = $500,000 OR Family (two or more) 1 Million should be taxed at a higher level because they're the one's "showing off" their underground lawn sprinklers and pools to one-up "The Jones."

Truth is, I respect the Wealthy as much, if not more than the Upper Middle Class because they don't have to *show off* ... THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE FILTHY RICH. :evilgrin:

[Posteritatis]

83. You are aware that "net worth" != "money in the bank account" right?

You just claimed a large number of people who simply own their own house on this forum are Republicans, which is an impressively stupid sort of statement even for around here.

[hfojvt]

113. ah, no. I own my own home, fully paid for

It's worth about $50,000. Even people here who "own" $500,000 houses probably do not have that much equity in the home. Especially now, when you can no longer buy a $200,000 home and have it appreciate to $500,000 in two short years (if you ever could). And how many here actually own $300,000 (or more) houses? Less than 20% I'd bet.

[treestar]

96. Whaaaaaaaat? How bad can it be?

Are you kidding?

[flvegan]

8. Net worth of $500k? Jesus, you folks are brutal.

By that thinking, a retired widow teacher with a nice house in a good Massachusetts suburb that worked with her husband to pay that house off over 30 years stands to be taxed relentlessly.

Fucking whatever.

[Rage for Order]

9. It doesn't appear that people are thinking through their replies, does it?

Since when did a net worth of $500,000 qualify someone as rich? That's laughable

[flvegan]

41. Thinking? They don't have a single fucking clue.

God fucking forbid anyone retire OWNING their home and having a couple hundred grand in a retirement fund to actually live off of like a middle class citizen until their death. Idiots.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Right! A person with a net worth of $500K is absolutely NOT rich.

If you have a house and a pension and some stock you might have $500K worth of assets. And that's not a whole hell of a lot to retire on if you expect to live more than 10 years after retirement.

[Mike 03]

17. I agree, but I need to be objective. It's hard.

I guess people don't understand what a pittance that money that is anymore. That is just about what you can accumulate, if you are middle class, and work all your life.

That amount, or a million or two or three million is almost exactly what you get if you actually save and work hard. The higher amounts are just what you get when you get lucky or work in an elite industry where you are overpaid.

It's sad nobody seems to get that. But I didn't actually expect too many people to get it anyway.

:hi:

[hfojvt]

114. lots of people 'work hard' and do not accumulate that much money

To even make $2 million over a 40 year career you need an average salary of $50,000. In 2005, 60% of households made less than $57,660. Again, suppose $200,000 of the net worth is home equity. I estimate that to save the other $300,000 would require $200,000 in deposits and $100,000 in interest (I am not gonna run a spreadsheet to be more accurate). Over 40 years that requires net savings of $5,000 a year. If they are saving 10% of their income, they need to make $50,000 a year on average. That may be median income today, but what was it 40 years ago? My point is that you need to be fairly well off, in the top 30% or so, to even have $500,000 in net worth at the end of your working years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. So do you think the top 30% should be "taxed relentlessly ...

... and their funds appropriated"? Taxed, yes; but do you really think the purpose should be to stop anyone ever having $500,000?

[hfojvt]

110. partly why I think income matters more than wealth

but I bet people are thinking of two types of wealth. That $500,000 was thought to be more liquid, investment wealth, not somewhat tied up in home equity. Still, by luck of location, that retired teacher would be in the top 20%, perhaps the top 10% of net worth in this country.

[CreekDog]

123. yeah and how do you tax net worth relentlessly on a person like that?

if all their net worth is in their home, and they have a small pension, are they going to take the house away in order to collect the tax?

the OP is not well thought out.

[wolfgangmo]

125. 500k is really low.

Most working people earn that much and more in their working lives. My parents are worth more than that but I wouldn't call them more than comfortable. They don't drive new cars, they don't vacation much and usually they drive to the spot they like to relax at, they shop local and volunteer.

I thought 10 million was about right, because that is the upper amount that most small business owners might be worth if they get really successful. This keeps the tax cut off above where main street is.

[Gman]

10. To those who vote $500K

that ain't jack shit. If you're 60 years old and your net worth which includes your house, car, stocks, bonds, savings, etc., less what you owe, you could very well outlive how long that $500K will last you. It sounds like a lot of money but it is not. Not these days. If your house is worth $200K, that leaves you $300K to live off for the rest of your life. Ideally you live off the interest, not the principle. But it doesn't always work like that. That's $15K per year for 20 years, or $30 K per year for 10 years. Now you're 70 and broke.

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. They think retired people should have the decency to die and leave their money to the government...

I mean you work all you life for the things you have so why not just give it all to the government when your body isnt useful anymore. :eyes:

[Mike 03]

26. I agree. It's amazing, isn't it??? But it's very enlightening to know

where people are at here. You have to admit, this is clarifying.

[seabeyond]

31. yup. lol. n/t

[Gman]

106. What's happening is DU has a lot of kids here

kids being something < 30 that don't yet get it that at some point they're going to get old and need money.

[hfojvt]

111. bah, it should produce at least $9-12.000 in interest income

and such a person logically, inevitably, will have some kind of pension and social security income in addition to their investment income. It's probably mathematically impossible to accumulate that much equity without also producing a $20,000 a year pension, with the exception, of course, of lottery winners and inheritors. If you have $200,000 in home equity, you can easily downsize into a $50,000 home, especially since you are not tied to a particular location by your job.

That person is probably fairly well off, but a ways away from being a rich person who makes $110,000 a year. But some of those people making $110,000 a year probably don't have $500,000 in net worth.

[Hannah Bell]

121. i agree, it's not really so much for a life of work if some is tied up in a house

& you have to life on the rest for 15 or so years.

but - 1/3 of americans end their working days with only social security for income.

2/3 end them with SS as half of their total income.

so maybe from the perspective of "most" people, it's a lot. because the interest alone is more than they'll ever see.

[DevonRex]

12. Obviously 5 million. A regular middle class person can easily have $500,000 net worth

especially if their house is paid off. Combine that with retirement accounts and you could easily go over that mark.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Then it would be the dream of a lifetime - and oh so rare to be "regular middle class person"

:eyes:

[leftstreet]

19. The Classism in these threads is just so much win!

:puke:

[ShortnFiery]

25. Because, this country's problems are about CLASSISM. The upper 1/10 of 1% own as much

as the lower 50%.

NOT SINCE the Great Depression of the 1930s has there been a greater disparity between the "haves" and "have nots."

Wake up! Those whose families earn more should PAY MORE in income taxes.

THIS IS CLASS WAR - mostly trying to break up the mega-corporations.

[DevonRex]

23. In this regard, all it takes is to live in an area where housing is sky high.

In order to own you have no choice but to have a lot of money in your house. If you're lucky enough to get it paid off, scraping pennies for decades to do it, then your net worth is gonna be higher than those in other areas of the country.

[NashVegas]

51. True. $500k In Boston And $500k In Tupelo Aren't Quite the Same

[DevonRex]

33. Do you understand the difference between income and net worth?

[ShortnFiery]

40. Yes, I do. I'm not saying that we should tax net worth until it's above 1 Million, however,

nobody should EVER say that they are not in the upper echelon of the middle class if they are SITTING on $500,000.

[DevonRex]

45. You've lost with all your awful jabs. Just go away now.

[ShortnFiery]

53. Yes, watch out your authoritarian slip is showing.

;)

[CreekDog]

124. look at this $500,000 house and tell me these people are upper echelon:

1000 square feet, 3 bedrooms, 1 bath

this house is in San Mateo County, CA

[seabeyond]

20. 500k? a couple three kids going thru college and retirement, that 500k is gone. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

22. Wow, I bet there's millions of families of FIVE who would LOVE to have a net worth

of $500,000.

Damn, reminds me of my neighbors who bitch because they have bills. No one told you to buy that Mercedes or BMW. Get by with less. :nuke:

[seabeyond]

27. by doing with a lot less, i may be able to pay for kids college and my retirement.

but instead you would prefer to just take jabs?

[DevonRex]

38. Exactly. We have 1 car, a 1999 that's on its last legs. We save every

penny we can for mortgage, retirement and to put our kids through school. I get my hair done twice a year. Never had a manicure. Haven't bought a dress in a decade. I have 6 pairs of shoes.

I don't know why folks are making assumptions and taking shots like that. It's unwarranted and definitely wrong.

[seabeyond]

46. i dont pay for a haircut, lol... nor nails, or clothes or anything else. i HATE spending money.

tonight i made a dish from the leftover chili. had some people make faces. told hubby, i am in depression mode

my kids have minimal on clothes, much less than people with a lot less than us. i dont believe in spending money on the frivolous. hence, why i have a bank acct. not cause hubby makes tons of money. but cause i dont spend

see people eating out, fast food. we do fast food once every couple weeks. i COOK

i mean, the arrogance of the poster

[DevonRex]

55. That's funny. I call it the "Austerity Budget." My husband's attitude is

that if it loses value we avoid it like the plague. Heh, makes it kinda hard going grocery shopping, tho. :)

I'm doing my own vegetables indoors this year. My tomatoes are doing great and so are most of my herbs. But darnit, any time I have to transplant basil it dies. This time I'm gonna go ahead and grow the seeds in a big pot to start with. I just started green onions so I'm excited to see how they'll turn out. It feels really good to be self sufficient, doesn't it? And not to rely on having to buy things to get by.

Have you started sewing yet? I'm not very good but I can do simple patterns like wrap-around skirts and pullover tops that are great. It doesn't save much money on inexpensive things but it does when you need something dressy and you've worn out what you usually wear.

[seabeyond]

63. i am an isolationist. i dont go out amongst the people. lol

i have a couple outfits and good to go. jeans and sweaters. shorts and tshirts. my oldest son wears hanes tshirts to school. doesnt get any easier than that. we buy shoes at payless. i refuse to do the joneses.

this poster was talking to the WRONG person.

the only thing i spend money on is books. and even at that, .... i use the library so much they all know me well.

hubby does gardening.

those onions go. started on one side of the house and ended up in yard on other side of house, wink.

[DevonRex]

68. OMG, really??? Heh, maybe we can feed the neighborhood then.

Green onions for everybody!

You have real family values and it's good to see. That Joneses thing is such a crock and it gives the kids the wrong idea about life and money.

[seabeyond]

73. right back atcha. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

107. These days, it costs more to sew than it does

to buy - unless you are talking about buying top of the line clothing (and most people can't make top of the line clothing.

When I was growing up, I sewed to save money, but now I sew when I want something unique (like my daughter's prom dress), but I don't expect to save any money at it.

[DevonRex]

115. You're certainly right about that. One reason I do it is that sometimes

(not always) I can find fabric made in the US. And when I do I'll go ahead and buy quite a bit of it just to support American industry.

I had a wedding to go to in November and managed to make a really nice long wrap-around skirt and a velvet top to go with it that was actually quite beautiful. Much nicer than what I had found in the stores and had the added avantage of fitting really well. I'm one of those unfortunate people who are big up top and skinny from the boobs down, so it's hard to find clothes that fit well. Even when I buy separates, the tops just hang so loosely around my waist and hips that they can look pretty silly.

[Ms. Toad]

117. I never altered anything until my brother-in-law

wanted a santa costume for Christmas one year, and he was larger than the largest pattern size. Since then, I think I have altered everything I have sewn - it does give you a lot of freedom. Fortunately, my daughter and I have body shapes that still fit the standard mold. Patterns, unlike the rest of the garment industry, still use the standard proportions and size structure they did back in the 50s. It was a real shock for my daughter, used to wearing size 8 clothes, to have to get a pattern in size 12/14 for her prom dress.

And, incidentally, Vogue still holds true to form - I have never yet made a Vogue pattern that did not have an error that prevented the garment from being sewn as directed. This time I wrote them an e-mail. Their response was, oh yeah - we found that error several months ago - here is a corrected .pdf file. Even though they had printed numerous catalogs since its issuance, and since they found the error, they didn't bother to make this expensive error known to anyone purchasing a pattern. (And since I knew Vogue patterns are overpriced carelessly made patterns and directions I read the directions at least three times before I started - but the error was so subtle that I didn't discover it until I had already sewn and finished seams in the sheer fabric - GRRR....)- but my daughter had fallen in love with this dress: http://www.voguepatterns.com/item/V2880.htm??tab=evening_bridal_includes_designer&page=5

The first Vogue pattern I ever had the misfortune of using had me sew a few seams and then turn the garment inside out. Unfortunately, after the seams were sewn, the garment was topologically impossible to turn inside out. Swore I'd never use one again...

Edited to correct a nonsensical sentence.

[DevonRex]

24. Yep. Plus most of it is in the house. And it takes every penny to pay

that mortgage but if you manage it, your net worth is gonna be high when it's paid off.

[ShortnFiery]

30. And many of those who bitch have to have that second BMW or vacation.

Greed just breeds more greed.

$500,000 is "sitting pretty" and no one is going to cry a river over anyone with that WEALTH.

Pathetic. No! You're blessed to have won the genetic lottery of being born An American Citizen and also to have shelter and food to eat. Beyond that it's ICING. :(

[seabeyond]

36. you dont listen much, do you? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

50. Yes, I do but I don't care about how hard it is for you to "keep up" - you don't

look at the WORLD COMMUNITY and THEN consider, by that standard, most of us in the true middle class are wealthy by comparison.

I'm not saying that people who have a net worth of $500,000 pay more taxes, but THEY AIN'T HURTING EITHER. To say "poor me" to folks in this situation is just ... well pathetic. :thumbsdown:

[seabeyond]

54. no one has said poor me. doesnt mean we are not fiscally conservative with an eye to the

future to pay for the things we are going to need to pay for.

you are the one ranting and raving about mercedes and all kinds of things not knowing wtf you are talking about

how much do you think the one worker in our family is making?

to save the money off his salary, we had better damn well know how not to spend our money.

[ShortnFiery]

57. Since our country is no longer a manufacturing base, $500,000 WILL be considered "wealthy"

in not the too distant future. That is, if we don't have run away inflation.

Batten down the hatches and if you have $500,000 chump change, HOLD ONTO IT! :thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

67. i started battening down the hatches 7 yrs ago.

i can understand your anger. the thing, i am on your side. i went to store today and nothing was 100 dollars. i told young cashier and bagger.... damn good thing i am old and gonna die soon (47) i wont have to deal with all this mess. yawl will be the ones to deal with it

the reason i said it, my area i live in, it is the very people you are angry at. that voted bush, that voted mccain and they are the ones that are jonses and have a zero bank account. they are the ones NOT paying their school lunch bill and then getting pissed cause they only serve them a cheese sandwich.

i know why you are angry.

i am that angry too

and i have fought with people in this area for a long long time.

i just dont like being called one

[ShortnFiery]

76. I guess we are off on a matter of perspective. No, I don't think you should be taxed.

But you are doing much better than the VAST majority of Americans. On that you might concur?

[seabeyond]

79. i am. i an so very fuckin thankful. i also dont throw money away

one of the reasons i dont have financial stress. i am scared of being poor. i have been there. i have been without heat in the winter in reno with snow and no food and no money and no job.

i am damn lucky and thankful for the security

i wont argue with you on that AT ALL.

[ShortnFiery]

87. Peace.

My father grew up during the Depression. His dad always bought him shoes that we many sizes too large because he grew fast and tall. At 16 y.o. he was sent off the Civilian Conservation Corps where he made $30/month and sent $25 back home to the farm. When my beloved father died two years ago, we gave dozens of pairs of Size 13AA to Goodwill but doubted if many men could fit into them. Dad bought so many shoes ... and nice brands too because he NEVER wanted to be without ill fitting shoes again.

I'm sorry if I came off as too brash but I do believe that most of us are blessed to have won the genetic lottery to be born American Citizens. We have it so much better, on average, than the rest of the world community. We must keep helping each other and the rest of the world.

[seabeyond]

94. i grew up poor. my parents 18, 19. started having a kid a year

by the time they were 21, 22 had three little ones. we had a cow and drank the milk. chicken for the eggs adn dad raised a cow for the meat. we lack. we had the bare minimum. nothing extra....

and

we were loved and cherished and didnt feel or know we lacked

so i hear ya again. and agree.

i tell my kids, the poor here isnt like in other places. i think that is true. the pain, suffering generally comes from the lack of love, abuse ect....

yes there are kids that go hungry, and that hunger pain is the same for those children as other countries. but i am thankful to be in the u.s.

[cali]

56. gad, you really don't have a feckin' clue

First of all it depends: If you're 25 and sitting on $500,000 in assets, you're probably "sitting pretty". If you you're 50 and sitting on the same amount, with 3 kids, no you're not in some rarified wealthy group. As for the crapola about how as long as you're born American and have shelter and food you've won the genetic lottery, that's disgustingly dismissive of the many Americans trapped in grinding poverty.

[Raine]

29. $500,000 (???) WTF

that is NOT rich! Why the hell do the majority wanted someone with that small of a worth taxed to death ... that's just RIDICULOUS. :silly:

[seabeyond]

35. you are in trouble. 500k, greedy son of a b*tch, wink. n/t

[Raine]

49. Yeah

I'll have to try not to spend it all in one place. :eyes: This makes me wonder if people here have any realistic concept of money at all. :-(

[seabeyond]

52. I'll have to try not to spend it all in one place..... rofl.

that was exactly my thought. after seeing a certain mentality on other issues, i have decided there are a lot of young.

[cali]

32. So much for the collective smarts of DU on this one

Good fucking grief.

[seabeyond]

37. i am a bit flabbergasted myself. was attacked for all kinds of things for saying

500k?

[DevonRex]

42. Me too. Accused of being some sort of upper crust class warfare queen or something.

Hmmph. Fuck 'em.

[seabeyond]

47. lol lol lol. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, the inner city would be "wealth" to the people who live in this hood.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Pobrecito

[ileus]

39. 175k.

[lightningandsnow]

43. Net worth?

:wtf:

[elleng]

44. Your question is foolish.

NO ONE should be taxed relentlessly. I have no anger towards those who are successful; isn't that everyone's goal?

Whatever the tax scheme, everyone must recognize the VERY different costs of living in different places in the U.S.

[ShortnFiery]

61. When the uber wealthy die, their assets above 6 million should be reabsorbed.

Or do you treasure the idea of Paris Hiltons globetrotting the world while the rest of us live from hand to mouth? :puke:

[cali]

65. What's uber rich in your book?

and in any case it wouldn't work. The uber rich will always find ways to shelter their money from something like 100% inheritance taxes.

[Posteritatis]

Clearly having paid off one's own trailer is getting too close to the line for this one (nt)

[elleng]

84. I treasure nothing about paris hilton.

I hope that we can, somehow, develop guidelines that most can agree on. For example, you mention 'uber wealthy,' and then you talk about 'assets above 6 million.' Those 2 'measures' are not, I think, consistent.

An example: I live in DC, and own a house that we, 2 lawyers working for U.S. government, bought in 1985; at the time we 'paid' (with mortgage) $176,000. To some that sounds like a lot. Thru the years, including the bubble, the 'value' of the house appreciated to 900,000. We are now trying to sell it, and have been doing so for some time. I have retired (and no longer live there.) My husband, who does live there, is still working for the government. I have a pension and social security. One daughter has graduated from college and is going on to graduate school, and the other is in college; they both look forward to jobs in social services. I pay rent, husband pays mortgage, and we still pay tuition. Tho our large asset allegedly has a high value, we are not uber wealthy, and can't in fact afford many of the things we'd like.

Sorry for the long personal story. Times change.

[Ichingcarpenter]

58. Wealthy implies established rich.

THE RIGHT WORD
If you have an abundance of money, you are rich.

Another term for rich is wealthy, which may further imply that you are an established and prominent member of the community whose lifestyle is in keeping with your income (: a wealthy family whose influence on public opinion could not be ignored).

Affluent comes from a Latin word meaning to flow, and it connotes a generous income (: an affluent neighborhood), while opulent suggests lavish spending or an ostentatious display of wealth (: an opulent mansion with every imaginable luxury). One may come from an affluent family, in other words, and not have a particularly opulent lifestyle.

If you're prosperous, you are thriving or flourishing (: a prosperous merchant; a prosperous business).

While prosperous suggests an economic situation that is on the rise, flush means having plenty of money on hand at a particular time (: she was feeling flush after receiving her first paycheck).

Well-to-do implies prosperity, enough to support more-than-comfortable living but not necessarily enough to be considered among the world's richest (: they were known as a well-to-do family with a strong commitment to educating their children).


..... Anyway I put it at between 500 thousand and a million.

[deadmessengers]

59. DU economics threads = FAIL FAIL FAIL n/t

[dysfunctional press]

60. other.

$437,986,233.85 is EXACTLY where the cut-off should be.

[Uben]

62. I was worth a couple of million

...a couple of years ago. That dropped to about 1.5 last year due to my investments in the market. I am retired, and the remainder of my money brings me in about $90K/yr. I live comfortably, but not extravagantly. I have never owned a new car and I have never had a vacation for more than a week at a time. This is probably because I am a frugal person. I learned to save at a young age, and while it is a good habit, it can also be a hard habit to break! I just can't seem to bring myself to spend money on stuff I can just as easily live without. My home, while large, is 35 yrs old.

If you want to retire, you better count on having at least a million in savings if you intend to have a lifestyle that requires arouond $50K/yr. Yeah, you better start putting a little more back, huh? If you're in your thirties, you should be saving about $200/MO minimum. I now it's tough, and sometimes damned near impossible, but you really do have to live for tomorrow now. Waking up in your fifties and realizing you have no savings sucks. You will be working until you die.

I did without a lot of gadgets, never took exotic vacations, and never felt I had to keep up with the joneses. I saved as much as possible. I was a blue collar worker all my working life. I was laid off three times and I always had funds to get thru it.

Now, I am debt free and have been retired for nine years. I am 54 yrs old! I am living the dream I saved and invested for. While I am technically retired, I still make a little money here and there. I sell some stuff on Ebay and I just completed my first estate sale. It took me three weeks to put together, but I netted about $3K.

HAving a million isn't rich, comfortable, but not rich. I voted five million. Those folks bring in $250K/yr, and that's more than enough. That said, I am more than willing to pay any taxes that represent my fair share. That's who I am. I have compassion for those less fortunate. I give generously to charities with both monies and my time.

[ShortnFiery]

64. Oh Brother!

Where to begin?!? :nuke:

[cali]

66. well, do tell us what's so terrible about what the poster said.

[ShortnFiery]

70. Cali, we've don't this before.

I say Good-Day! ;)

[cali]

71. Of course you make excuses

that's typical of you.

[flvegan]

69. Begin with that HUGE fucking chip on your shoulder.

[ShortnFiery]

72. No, how about the FACT that I have lived in some of the most poverty stricken places

in the world?

If you had see the abject poverty that I've seen, you'd think someone stating that 1.5 million is COMFORTABLE as fucking insane as I do.

Don't argue with me, think what you will ... but just wait?

Those of us blessed to live within the USA are SPOILED. :(

[cali]

74. yeah, kids living in poverty in the inner city

or in rural America are just so fucking blessed, genius. That there's worse poverty elsewhere is cold comfort to the kid who's going to bed hungry tonight in an unsafe neighborhood in America. Some comparisons truly are odious. Not to mention stupid. It's like saying the kid in Gaza is blessed compared to the kid in the Sudan. Utterly sophmoric.

[ShortnFiery]

75. Cali, you are consistantly PERSONAL - on that I can always depend. And no, I'm not a genius.

:-) :hi:

Believe it or not, children with a roof over their head in the inner city are much better off than the abandoned "street children" in cities within 3rd World Nations.

[cali]

77. you really don't get it.

and you are clearly unable to get it. Here's the truth: The child going hungary in a slum in America is not blessed. That child is suffering. The street child in a 3rd world country is suffering. Comparing their sufferings is repugnant.

[ShortnFiery]

80. No, you just can't "let go" ... we are talking about a matter of degree.

If a child is NOT ABANDONED with no shelter, however small, and they are loved by a parent or guardian - then YES they are better off because we do care - they can usually get assistance.

Yes, comparatively = THEY ARE BLESSED to live in America vice a 3rd World Nation.

But you just want to argue with me. :eyes:

[flvegan]

78. Well, you've explained how the chip got there, but it's still a chip.

Don't argue with you? Good luck with that. Moron.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Good luck with your challenges.

I definitely hit a nerve - you're welcome and have a good evening. :hi:

[flvegan]

82. Feel better?

Now that you think you feel superior, as if you "hit a nerve"? Laughable. You couldn't hit a nerve on me with a shotgun.

[ShortnFiery]

89. No, the superiority is all yours. You may have it all: You WIN!

Best wishes. :-)

[flvegan]

92. Go sleep it off.

[ShortnFiery]

93. I don't use conscious altering drugs.

I'm a certified addiction counselor. Really. No joke. :hi:

[flvegan]

99. I'll withhold further snark in the matter.

Out of respect for your occupation. You provide a positive service, and I apologize.

[ShortnFiery]

101. Please accept my apology also?

Since my dad sacrificed to give our family a middle class living I don't truly know what it is personally to be in poverty.

I am getting an impression that those who had to fight their way up on the socio-economic ladder may consider "that buffer" ($500,000) as just enough to keep on one's feet.

I was not sensitive enough toward those who KNOW what it is to suffer in poverty. Perhaps they have a different perspective after they have struggled to make it into the middle class.

We need to work together and not fight amongst each other.

Perhaps we all can agree that the Paris Hiltons of this world are indeed, those who don't need all that excess? :-)

[flvegan]

102. Okay, done.

I think that in today's America, $500k, although it seems like so much to us that don't have it and probably grew up never having any idea how much that is, probably think that's crazy money, it just isn't. I agree that the uber rich should pay their share, and so many times it doesn't seem they do. Maybe if more of the very wealthy and big corporations paid their share, we wouldn't have so many folks thinking $500k is all that much, because THEY would have more, and poverty probably wouldn't exist so excessively.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Jack_DeLeon]

103. Congratufuckinglations...

you want a cookie or something?

Yes, very few people in the US are starving. Even the "poor" amongst us arent truly poor by worldly standards, however that doesnt mean its a fucking crime to aspire to save money for the future so that we wont have to live like the poor of the world do.

I'm not about to give up what I earned during my life so that I can life in poverty to atone for living the "good life."

[begin_within]

85. Considering that enormous numbers of people have almost nothing,

the lowest value in the poll ($500k) is the most appropriate at this time.

[Posteritatis]

88. So you're opposed to people owning their own homes? (nt)

[begin_within]

90. No I'm not

[Posteritatis]

95. But you *do* want to to tax most of them relentlessly? (nt)

[begin_within]

98. Yes

[Posteritatis]

104. So home ownership is something that should be penalized? (nt)

[begin_within]

105. You're trying to put words in my mouth

[SmileyRose]

91. NOBODY should be taxed relentlessly.

I personally know someone who is now a multi-billionaire through actual hard ass work and treating his employees and their families like the most valuable thing on the planet. He made his money with integrity, demanded the suppliers he has used to treat their people with integrity as well. He's done everything he can to try to do it with the planet and everyone's future in mind also. He pays extremely well. No, the fork lift drivers don't make a gazillion dollars, but the lowest paid person in his company makes 3 times minimum wage, has full family benefits, matching 401K up to the maximum legal contributions, life and disability insurance you name it. He gives a darn good chunk to charitable acts, both formal organizations and needy people he meets. This guy actually gets excited about paying local and state taxes as yet another way to help the community. Federal not so much since he feel they are in it for themselves, not the country.

Their ARE people I would consider insanely wealthy with "small" businesses who treat their employees like the holy grail itself. They are doing the right thing and IMHO they don't need to be taxed up the wazoo as a punishment for financial success.

That said, we do have to figure out a way to differentiate between these folks and the predator class. It's the predator class who need to get a nice fat bill to make sure the workers they exploit are taken care of adequately.

[Posteritatis]

97. I think you differentiated there pretty well

Comparing, say, Walmart's management to the person you describe there, I'm sure the experiences of the employees are like night and day.

[SmileyRose]

100. I mean to differentiate in the actual tax code.

That's why I like the fact President Obama has said he'll raise the upper rates and capital gains but reward certain business behaviors with tax credits or cuts. Basically he's moving in the general direction of what we had pre-Ronnie. The rich chose to invest in the business and in employees rather than take it as individual income/dividends etc because the tax code was written in a way to make doing so to their financial advantage.

[Sanctified]

108. People will always vote that people who make more than them should be taxed.

I will be interested in these polls when they include lower income ranges. I personally think a family of 4 can live quite happily on $20,000 a year so would have no problem on voting to tax the crap out of someone making over $20k a year.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. Wow - that's actually below the government poverty level for a family of 4

$21,200 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml)

You impose pretty harsh standards for 'quite happily'.

[datasuspect]

109. anyone who can live a fantastically wonderful life in multiple locales

solely from interest income.

[melm00se]

112. one needs to consider

if you tax static money or money 'in motion'.

Static money does no one any real good but money in motion - - that is a different ball game as that has secondary and tertiary affects.

money in motion is used for investment, purchasing and other uses that actually drive an economy forward.

[hedgehog]

116. There is a difference between Net Worth and Annual income.

I'm not sure how much someone would have to have to ensure a worry free retirement for 20 or 30 years (Some people do live to be 100 these days!)
Also, someone could have bought a modest house early in life only to end up sitting on a prime piece of development property.

I think bringing back a good solid Estate tax is what we need to control accumulated wealth. I also think of this less as redistribution of wealth as breaking up clots of money that are cutting off the flow of the economy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. A good point - if net worth is being evaluated

then the estate tax is the more relevant tax than income tax. I could see that $500,000 could be a reasonable point to start applying it. Not necessarily 'relentless appropriation', but at, say, 50% on the amount above $500,000.

[rebecca_herman]

122. freaking $500,000 deserves to be taxed relentlessly?

$500,000 is ridiculously wealthy? really? He died almost a year ago so it's been some time since I saw the will, but my grandfather who lived to be 90 and simply lived a very frugal life (except for the gifts he gave his grandkids by his only child - he always loved any excuse to give us a gift) - he was a radio operator in the war with a small military pension, worked for the USPS after the war as a mailman, and later after he retired worked in the mailroom of a private company for a while. Everything added up probably came to $500k with the value of the condo added in. If not it wasn't so far off. It may have been a bit higher in actuality, it was a difficult time obviously and hard to remember the exact details. Guess it should have all been taxed away relentlessly intead of split up among his only child and 3 grandchildren as he wished....

My mother's parents are still living, and have fully paid off the mortgage of their house. Neither ever worked a high paying job (my grandfather used to make designer ladies' clothes back when they were still made in the US) but with their savings (they are again very frugal) and owning their house they probably hit that mark as well based on the area of the country they live in and home values there. They are just a couple of elderly, retired people who worked hard most of their lives and chose to be frugal in their old age. I don't see how this amount of money, built up over a lifetime, can be considered extravagent or excessive. Many retired people who had lower paying jobs but simply were wise with their money and were able to pay off a mortgage easily have this much.

[mainer]

126. Let's see how far $500,000 will get you...

Assuming this "rich person" owns a home of around $200,000 (and that is NOT a fancy home), then he has liquid assets of $300,000. Let's say it's invested to earn 5% a year -- which nowadays is a nice return. On this $300,000, he'd earn $15,000 in investment income. Out of that he has to pay property taxes, heating, car expenses, plus food. $15,000 is not going to be enough to live on, not with property taxes probably costing a few thousand a year. So he has to draw down on the principle -- which in turn will cut down on investment income, accelerating the principle withdrawal. Throw in inflation, and within 10 -15 years, this person is down to zero. Add a health emergency, and it could be gone within a year.

I wouldn't call him rich.