WDYT? Top ten percent of households (income)

[Χά�ων]

I'm skeptical. Unless they could redeem the discounts for cash, I don't see how they have any value if not used by anyone. So does that mean I need to pay taxes on the coupon packets we keep receiving in the mail, whether or not we use them?

Why should some gift bag assembler get to decide what I pay tax on?

Wait, I though you were a CPA

[Caroline]

Wait, I though you were a CPA

I though she was a tax lawyer.

[Χά�ων]

I though she was a tax lawyer.

Either way, I figured she should know about taxable items.

[Catwoman]

Wait, I though you were a CPA

I don't know about SKL, but I'm seriously considering a new career as a gift bag assembler for next year's awards shows.

 

"OK, here's a gift bag for Clint Eastwood.... and one for me. Here's one for Meryl Streep... and another one for me..."

 

Let me know if you want in on this. :D

[Caroline]

Either way, I figured she should know about taxable items.

Oh, I was agreeing with you in the knowledge base.

[elegantlion]

The Oscar goodie bags seem to be solely for marketing by other companies. Hey, celebrity winner is seen in my Audi, then people will want my car. I think this group (us) is beyond the herd mentality when it comes to marketing and consumerism, but celebrity tie ins still sell. Get photographed or written about while using one of those goodies and someone will buy it just because. Which probably says more about consumer culture in America than actors. 

 

Wouldn't the companies then get a write off for donating goods?

[LucyStoner]

The Oscar goodie bags seem to be solely for marketing by other companies. Hey, celebrity winner is seen in my Audi, then people will want my car. I think this group (us) is beyond the herd mentality when it comes to marketing and consumerism, but celebrity tie ins still sell. Get photographed or written about while using one of those goodies and someone will buy it just because. Which probably says more about consumer culture in America than actors.

 

Wouldn't the companies then get a write off for donating goods?

For the companies giving the items, it's a business expense. Probably marketing. And they would write it off at their cost, not the "value". A-list actors are not usually their own nonprofits and no non-profit would pass the public benefit test if their mission was to donate luxury gifties to underprivileged A-list actors, though it would be a hoot to write that application! If I give money or items of value to a person, it's a gift, not a donation.

[Incognito]

Tax is a very broad field, and if you are not dealing with income tax, then those rules would not necessarily be on the tip of your tongue.

[idnib]

Tax is a very broad field, and if you are not dealing with income tax, then those rules would not necessarily be on the tip of your tongue.

 

Yeah. I don't know too much about it but I know some tax attorneys focus on corporate taxes or inheritance taxes.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

Sorry to rehash this thread- but- I came across this article and immediately thought of this thread! I had never really heard about this before....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/biggest-scam-bankrupting-business-middle-class/

[StephanieZ]

There's a lot of research already (and disagreement) on what constitutes to U.S. middle class.

 

Here's a chart from the link:

 

This is awesome. I think it does a great job clarifying the social classes in the US. I've recently had a *lot* more interaction with working class people due to having been managing a major construction project on our house as well as managing caregivers for my mom, and these charts spell it out so clearly. 

 

The hallmark of middle class is home ownership (or comparable wealth if ownership not chosen): If owning a home is doable or done, but it is still a large part of your wealth, then you're middle class. If your home is just a drop in your bucket, you're wealthy. If you can't afford to own a home (without major subsidies/help), then you're probably lower class. If you're struggling to be able to own a car, you're likely lower class.

 

. . . It takes more education now to reach the upper levels of the class structure than it used to. Note, grad school used to equal wealthy, but now it equals upper middle class. "Some college" used to land you square in the middle of middle class, but now you're on the cusp of lower to middle class. 

 

Those elements -- home ownership and education level, seem pretty accurately correlated with socioeconomic class in my experience.

 

I also find it interesting to note that although I think of myself as liberal and not "class conscious" or focused on wealth, my social circles have nearly always been limited to others with a lot, lot of education. Given how closely wealth and education are correlated, that is a bit unnerving. Something to think about, for sure.

[IsabelC]

So which is the determining factor here? If we have an annual household income of under US$50K but both have degrees and are paying off our home, do we still qualify as Lower Middle, or are we Upper Lower? Or is this totally irrelevant outside of the US?

[Ausmumof3]

Yeah or you have higher income and own a house (with mortgage) but no degree unless you count a trade cert.

 

It's not so clear cut as income and education level aren't always linked.

 

I found this link interesting

 

http://theconversation.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-how-is-australia-faring-23483

 

No idea on the political slant of the source and I am a little tired so may have missed stuff but makes sense to me.

[Pawz4me]

I saw this article yesterday and thought of this thread.  Since it's been revived, I shall link.  Don't know that there's anything new or earth shattering, but it's still interesting --

 

Why Do So Many Rich People Consider Themselves Middle Class

[creekland]

I found this link interesting

 

http://theconversation.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-how-is-australia-faring-23483

 

 

Ok, according to the map in this link:

 

"The United States of America has an wealth distribution gini measure of 0.85.

This means The United States of America is the 6th most unequal of 174 countries for wealth distribution."

 

This means there are FIVE countries ahead of us.  Come on fellow Americans... we can do better to become #1, right?   :glare:

 

I'll admit to being curious which countries we have to beat.  Here they are:

 

#1 Denmark

#2 Russia

#3 Ukraine

#4 Kazakhstan

#5 Lebanon

[LisaKinVA]

Ok, according to the map in this link:

 

"The United States of America has an wealth distribution gini measure of 0.85.

This means The United States of America is the 6th most unequal of 174 countries for wealth distribution."

 

This means there are FIVE countries ahead of us.  Come on fellow Americans... we can do better to become #1, right?   :glare:

 

I'll admit to being curious which countries we have to beat.  Here they are:

 

#1 Denmark

#2 Russia

#3 Ukraine

#4 Kazakhstan

#5 Lebanon

 

Well, #1 would be considered a more "wealthy" European country (dog gone expensive to live there, nice, but not inexpensive by any means).  I haven't been to Russia, but do note that #2, #3, and #4 are all former Soviet-bloc countries -- and for the most part, these former bloc countries are still re-building and fairly poor by comparison -- especially to Denmark.  You can still see a difference in Germany from east to west.

 

I could probably find quite a bit to argue that while the US has a higher income disparity than Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Lebanon, the overall average living conditions our our general population are quite nicer than the average living conditions in the four countries directly above us on that list.  Denmark...cost-wise, is closer to the costs of living in a major metro area like NY or SF (closer, but I think NY or SF still outpace them).