Jump to content

Menu

Do you think $250,000/year is wealthy?


Recommended Posts

Ok I must have heard the debate wrong...:confused: Joe the plumber has his own business...this was all over the news a couple days ago about Joe the plumber questioning Obama about spreading the wealth around. Or am I missing something?

 

:001_huh::001_huh::001_huh:

Holly

 

 

Some how the facts got skewed - he doesn't own the business and if he did, it wouldn't be anywhere near the $250K profit mark. He has clarified that he meant IF he bought the business and IF he got it to the point of making a $250K profit, then he would pay more tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 373
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been mulling over this thought for some time.

I still say it's low to moderate wealth.

Or low to moderate upper class since we are comparing this to middle class status, would be a better wording? The least level I can imagine that dollar amount falling in would be the high end of upper middle class. No way can I consider it anything lower and really I have a hard time accepting 250K as any sort of middle class.

 

You know someone is wealthy when 250K actually seems middle class to them. Yes, I find the notion that 250K is middle class laughable.

 

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being wealthy. Just making money of any quantity is not a sin unless it's ill-gotten gains. Regardless of how they spend it or at what dollar you think it applies. But 250K is a LOT of money no matter where you live or how you spend it or how long it took you to earn that yearly amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been mulling over this thought for some time.

I still say it's low to moderate wealth.

Or low to moderate upper class since we are comparing this to middle class status, would be a better wording? The least level I can imagine that dollar amount falling in would be the high end of upper middle class. No way can I consider it anything lower and really I have a hard time accepting 250K as any sort of middle class.

 

You know someone is wealthy when 250K actually seems middle class to them. Yes, I find the notion that 250K is middle class laughable.

 

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being wealthy. Just making money of any quantity is not a sin unless it's ill-gotten gains. Regardless of how they spend it or at what dollar you think it applies. But 250K is a LOT of money no matter where you live or how you spend it or how long it took you to earn that yearly amount.

 

 

Yes. It doesn't mean that they didn't earn it, or don't work hard, or should be required to pay a higher percentage of taxes. That wasn't the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I must have heard the debate wrong...:confused: Joe the plumber has his own business...this was all over the news a couple days ago about Joe the plumber questioning Obama about spreading the wealth around. Or am I missing something?

 

:001_huh::001_huh::001_huh:

Holly

 

I saw the clip this morning. He didn't say he owned the company. He said he was thinking about buying it. And the 250K wouldn't be his net or salary from the business. So he is not a good example of what this discussion is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has alternately cracked me up and made me sad. I would like to state for the record I am wealthy. We make less than 1/3 of that magic $250K number. I live in a (slightly under) 1200sq ft home built in 1970 that has not had much changed since that date. Our single car is 9 years old and it replaced the 11 yo car we had before that because our family outgrew that car. Our children share rooms, wear used clothes and only own a GameCube because it was a gift. I have never owned $300 shoes. I use coupons, shop sales and worry about rising costs of everything. We pay an obscene amount for health insurance and property taxes. My Dh's company went from 35 employees to 11 two weeks ago and the future looks shaky. Saving for our children's college education and our retirement are a dream.

 

So why am I wealthy? We give 10% of our gross income in tithing to our church and about the same amount to other charities that we carefully research. We have that choice. The choice makes us wealthy. We can choose to fulfill what we perceive is our obligation to those less fortunate. One of the reasons we feel this obligation is because of the faith we subscribe to. If this choice is removed from us it is no longer a matter of faith. If the government forces us to give more and more of our money based on how much we earn to those who have less, we are creeping closer and closer to a state religion. It seems to me that by forcing a person who has worked hard to make a certain amount to pay more is the same as saying we feel that people who make more than a certain amount are greedy cretins who don't care about their fellow man and must be forced to show compassion.

 

I would be more inclined to support a use tax on those goods or services that are perceived as available to the wealthy. Those goods and and services that we have heaped so much scorn on in this thread. Possibly a tax on luxury cars, yachts and mansions. Maybe a tax on $300 shoes and handbags to be distributed directly back to the poor. How about people who have housekeepers and nannies and landscape services? Oh wait, who would decide which services and goods should have this tax? There was a time when someone who owned property was considered wealthy, so all of you who have paid off your houses/ property; more taxes for you! But wait, you cry, we worked hard to pay off this house we shouldn't be penalized with higher taxes. What about places on this planet where owning livestock makes you wealthy? Any of you who own goats have an obligation to the poor to pay more! See how it gets all crazy when one person tries to impose his/her ideas of who has more than they need and should pay more to those who don't have as much.

 

Many of us claim we don't want to government to legislate morality. Charity and requiring more and more money from one part of the population for another part of the population is absolutely a moral issue.

 

Whew this got long! But then so is this thread.

 

Have a great day everyone,

Amber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where has anyone said this? How about looking at the history of any socialist economy. That says it pretty loud and clear to me. And that's what the REAL debate is about, or should be.

 

I fail to see your logic with respect to Alaska. And BTW, Alaska is NOT the highest welfare state when you look at the revenues produced by this state. Alaska is simply a state that does a better job taking care of IT'S OWN (thank you very much free enterprise and Sarah Palin) than do most states who require the FEDERAL government to take care of them.

 

And the "w/o force" statement, now THAT'S amusing, almost.

 

Really?

 

–Alaska has been the top recipient of federal taxpayer dollars per capita every year since 1999, and one of the three most lopsided states in terms of “receipts versus taxes†every year since 2003. For example, for every $1.00 Alaskans sent to the IRS in 2005, Alaska received $1.89 in federal expenditures. These federal subsidies from lower-48 taxpayers have helped Alaska maintain the lowest tax burden in the nation every year since 1999 and the first or second lowest every year since 1981.

 

–Besides its nearly 2:1 federal tax subsidy, the Alaska government is primarily funded by taxes on oil and natural gas production (i.e., through higher gasoline and other energy prices paid by the rest of the country).

 

–As a result, Alaska is the only the state in the Union to have neither a state income tax nor a state sales tax. Indeed, Juneau gets so much money from so many sources that it pays residents an annual subsidy out of the state coffers — currently about $1,600 per person.

 

–Only 25 of Alaska’s 161 municipalities levied a property tax as of 2004.

 

In other words, Alaska is pretty much a leech on the rest of America — and, tax-wise, Alaskans have it pretty good.

 

In fact, Alaska is arguably the least self-reliant state in the union, dependent on federal largesse to an unmatched degree.

 

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=21a83b02-cab0-408b-b9b7-3c9d7ee83ef6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those goods and and services that we have heaped so much scorn on in this thread.

 

You saw scorn for goods and services in this thread? There were some items mentioned in some posts, but I didn't sense that those items were being scorned or that anyone was being disrespected for being able to afford those things. People were just discussing their ideas of wealth. Or at least that was my impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe the Plumber? He doesn't own the company yet. He said he was thinking about buying it. And it GROSSES about $250-280K a year. He wouldn't even be in the category we are discussing.

 

So, when we say someone who makes $250K is wealthy are we talking someone who grosses $250K or someone who nets $250K?

 

I've been completely working on the assumption of a $250K gross. In my experience, when someone says, "I make ___," they mean gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch. I won't argue the facts because I have no idea....but ouch.

 

Ouch in terms of slam attack from a biased viewpoint, not of the facts.

 

Impressive dodge of the REAL issue Jenny, that being SOCIALISM. Why no attempt to attack my comments about socialism? THAT is the real issue and the one the Obama camp doesn't want to discuss because there is NO denying it, and they (and you) probably know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when we say someone who makes $250K is wealthy are we talking someone who grosses $250K or someone who nets $250K?

 

I've been completely working on the assumption of a $250K gross. In my experience, when someone says, "I make ___," they mean gross.

 

I'm not the OP, so I can't say what she meant. But in my mind, what someone makes is their salary if they're an employee, their profit before taxes if they're self-employed, or their salary plus distributions if they're an S-corp shareholder/employee.

Edited by LizzyBee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when we say someone who makes $250K is wealthy are we talking someone who grosses $250K or someone who nets $250K?

 

I've been completely working on the assumption of a $250K gross. In my experience, when someone says, "I make ___," they mean gross.

 

If someone earns a salary, I think in terms of gross pay.

 

But a small business that grosses $250k does not result in gross owner wages of $250K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the OP, so I can't say what she meant. But in my mind, what someone makes is their salary if they're an employee, their profit before taxes if they're self-employed, or their salary plus distributions if they're an S-corp shareholder/employee.

 

 

Yes, this is what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faithe (who also thinks it is absolutely ludicrous that it costs $26,000 per student in our school system to watch the kids fail simple exams and graduate not being able to read, think or know their constitution.Then the teachers who make $85,000 a year to work 10 months with all holidays off complain they are not making enough money is another can of worms. We need to GET REAL in this country and start running things within our means...lala land was nice...but when being asked if making $250,000 a year is a good living?? YEESH!

Teachers here don't make even close to $85K per year, and if you do your research, you'll find that that is far above the average. Also, "all these days off" is a myth as well. If you think it's so easy to be a teacher, I suggest you go to school to be one; there are government programs in most states to help you, and then you can live the grand life of a teacher. Teaching, rightfully so, is listed as one of the most stressful jobs in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in a CAPITAL market $250,000 is NOT wealthy.

In a socialist economy, YES it is, because not everyone can achieve it.

Certainly not everyone can achieve it in a capitalist society, either. There will always be bottom dogs. It takes the bottom dogs for a capitalist society to work. Even if everyone got doctorate degrees, that would simply mean that people with doctorates would be flipping burgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was self-employed (S-Corp) from 1999-2001, I made over $100k a year. Guess how much (TOTAL) went to taxes? 45%. 20% went to Social Security and Medicare, 7% went to state taxes and the other 20% went to income taxes. Sure, I got to "keep" about $55,000 -- .

Who did your taxes? Social security and medicare combined for self-employed people is 15.3%, not 20%. Now that caps out at $102,000; and you pay only 2.9% beyond that. The cap was even lower in 1999-2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch in terms of slam attack from a biased viewpoint, not of the facts.

 

Impressive dodge of the REAL issue Jenny, that being SOCIALISM. Why no attempt to attack my comments about socialism? THAT is the real issue and the one the Obama camp doesn't want to discuss because there is NO denying it, and they (and you) probably know it.

 

I was not dodging it. Call Obama a socialist, I have no problems with that. You will also need to call Bush one too. I'm a libertarian and happy to call a spade a spade.

 

I was pointing out your own state is reaping the benefits of socialized programs, getting most of its $$$ from the US government and the citizens of the lower 48. Please share the "facts" that magazines like the Economist are missing.

 

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7830279

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firmly middle class....Like Joe the plumber....he earned this by his own right...He has his own company which he started up on his own. He built his company from the ground up.

First, Joe, the Plumber, like so many other Americans, doesn't have a clue. He would actually benefit under Obama's tax plans. He wouldn't make anywhere near $250,000. That's all the business is worth:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html

 

Second, Joe, the Plumber, is behind on income taxes (has a lien) and owes medical bills. He can't exactly blame Obama for that.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=6047360&page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not dodging it. Call Obama a socialist, I have no problems with that. You will also need to call Bush one too. I'm a libertarian and happy to call a spade a spade.

 

I was pointing out your own state is reaping the benefits of socialized programs, getting most of its $$$ from the US government and the citizens of the lower 48. Please share the "facts" that magazines like the Economist are missing.

 

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7830279

 

Exactly, clearly you do not have a problem with that, as seems to be the case with nearly everyone who supports Obama. I have a serious problem with a potential leader of the U.S. being a full-minded, hell-bent SOCIALIST.

 

Why everyone is so hung up on the debate over a number pulled out of a hat ($250,000) is outright beyond my comprehension. It's a distraction to the real issue. The issue is the move of our country toward socialism, and there seems to be alot of people, such as yourself Jenny, who have zero problem with that. The comment about the Bush bailout is another distraction, without relevance to Obama's plan for "wealth redistribution" aka "socialism".

 

I'll save my full debate on AK's issues for another day. But I'll tip you off that it has to do with a few factors including AK being a young state still building its infrastructure, low population/acres of land with most of it rural, and COL that is astronomical compared to lower 48, and obligations to the native peoples. BTW, did you read that article? I thought it countered your attack pretty well. Ant any rate, I'll cut the debate there, as my focus at the moment is on our county's willingness, and seeming eagerness, to to be come a SOCIALIST state.

Edited by Alaska Mom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...