Forum Post: If you earn $150,000 then you are a RICH AMERICAN
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 8:51 p.m. EST by theaveng
(602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to a Gallup poll, the average American thinks $150,000 is "rich". So when the politicians talk about raising taxes on the rich, this is probably who Americans think of. Raise the taxes on people earning $150,000 or more.
- college educated persons think $200,000 and non-college think $100,000. (I guess I'm considered "rich" to my non-college friends. Funny..... I don't feel rich.)
ARTICLE -- http://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/is-150000-a-year-rich/
If you live in New York or California, you're poor. Too many people spend too much time counting other people's money. The only thing that should be asked is did they earn it honestly. If they did, leave them alone. :)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-evildoers/
The Revolution starts here!
Thusly the difference between paying capital gains or income tax.
Those in the top .1% are going to earn money from capital. I think Rich is a distraction, the real question is, do you earn money from capital?
"The only thing that should be asked is did they earn it honestly"
Well said.
Well, Toshiba and Enterprise didn't earn their money honestly. That's the problem. Toshiba also has it's hooks into nuclear power plants. These fuckers can't even build a laptop.
That's a strange comment. California's deep in debt (like Greece), but New York is flush with cash.
Under the premise you make $150,000. Sorry, I didn't clarify
Rich is a distraction. Dont fall for it, keep your eye on the target.
The problem is in Capital, and those who have it. And the corruption found in those families. 433,000 families have income over 1 million a year, at this point families start earning money thru capital, not income.
The top .35%.
and if you raise their taxes 10% how much revenue does that produce? and what will it be used for?
I actually dont want to raise effective rates on the top rate of income tax. I want 70% top rate, and deductions and expeditions for investing in the US, like we did from 1938 to 1986.
The 1986 Tax Reform Act removed 80% of those deductions and exemptions.
so you want to exchange the growth we had from 1980 - 2007 for higher taxes ? ok so you are arguing specific tax rate policy without any bacckup. I am for lower taxes for everybody
GDP growth from 1980 to 2007 was the worse period since 1933. SO you want to argue that high taxes stunts growth? When GDP statistics show the reverse........
You 'a smart dude.....
GDP growth from 2000 to 2010 was 2,55% GDP growth from 1980 to 2007 was 3.38% GDP growth from 1960 to 1980 was over 5% http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&tstart=345790800000&tend=1292475600000&hl=en&dl=en
Since 1982 we have dropped capital gains taxes in half, dropped corporate taxes from 48% to 35%, Income from 70% to 35%
And GDP keeps shrinking.....
But you want to drop taxes even more....
You forgot about the Kennedy tax rate reduction starting 1962 and the pickup in GDP growth.
Your own economist Roemer's recent paper clearly states that there is a correlation between taxes and GDP. I can link it if you want...
So you want to incentivize the US public to invest only in the US, why?
GDP picked up after the '57 recession, when oil prices dropped from $18 a barrel to $13. Then in 1964 LBJ signed off on the tax cuts.
I did not say "only in the US". But majority of incentives to invest in emerging tech and markets were removed in the '86 TRA.
In 1970 the US was probably the highest cost labor nation. Thats no longer true, they are sectors where US Labor can be competitive, especially when you figure in energy costs of shipping items to the US.
Shipping 450 ft tall wind turbine booms from India isnt very cost effective, thats an item that can be manufactured in the US. The Atlantic Wind Connection project is a HVDC undersea cable, 350 miles long, from NJ to Virginia. It can support up to 1750 4MW turbines. The large expensive parts to ship, can be made in the US, near the site of installation.
Lets identity sectors where financially it makes sense to make stuff in the US, and move it forward.
Theres are other sectors where the cost of labor and trans shipment makes it cost effective to manufacture in ... lets says Asia, leave that alone.
Either Roemer is wrong or you have improperly stated the issue, the 4 major functions of GDP growth are Productivity, Energy, Resources, Population growth.
My economists are Stiglitz, Krugman, Delong. I looked for Roemers paper, didnt see it, please yes, link to it.
Tax Increases Reduce GDP
"Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."
http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html
Ah yes, You spelled it Roemer, the correct spelling is Romer.
The Romer study looks at exogenous tax increases and excludes endogenous increases. Raising taxes to pay down a deficit are exogenous tax increases. Raising taxes to invest in jobs or productivity are called endogenous tax increases. http://www.economics.ucr.edu/seminars/fall06/ets/Romer11-27-06.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Romer
When the top marginal rate was raised in 1990 from 28% to 31%, this was an exogenous tax increase, meant to pay down the deficit, and GDP dipped to negative .26% in 1991.
In 1993 the top rate was increased to 39.6% and the increased revenue was invested in jobs stimulus and capital tax breaks for small businesses to buy equipment. GDP stayed steady between 2.55% and 4.8% until the dot com bubble burst, and Clinton left office leaving Bush with a recession that started under Clinton.
US GDP growth
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth
Marginal rates
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
ok - raise em up - see what happens. things are frozen now with just the wiff of raising taxes. you already have your tax increases with Obamacare & Dodd Frank anyway. keep it up.
I wonder who they polled? Thinking $150,000 is rich is ridiculous. I'm thinking they missed a zero somewhere.
do you realize that the average income for the bottom 90% of households is just over 30k per year - from that point of view 150k must look quite well off don't you think
Wrong, not average. Sigh. Median income is 26k for all workers, a male working full time, year round made 47k in 2010, in adjusted dollars made 49k in 1073.
Per the US census report for 2010, which I covered in this article here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016909/-Income-disparity-run-rampant-median-income-for-males:-lower-than-in-1970?via=blog_694100
not sure if you read the post properly - for bottom 90% of the population - household income averages just over 30k - not much to live on - this does not mean that what you wrote is incorrect but you are including bill gates and buffet - i am not!
I would imagine that those making $30K/year would view $150K as wealthy. Anyone making 5X what I make is wealthy in my eyes. However...
Not sure where you got your numbers. I find that $30K/year should apply to INDIVIDUAL income not household income. The site that I've referred to shows that 50% of INDIVIDUALS earn under $32K/year.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
i think the numbers are correct - remember that we are talking about the bottom 90% of households. i would have to do some digging to find the number again but it comes from an investment newsletter. interesting guy - stephen leeb - he is pushing the idea that we are running out of all the resources we need to run our society - even what we need to make alt energy - his book is "game over" - frightening really. jeremy grantham is saying the same thing basically. his point on the income is that income inequality is killing the economy and the stock market - the bottom 90% have no money to buy anything. i find it interesting that many investment people are now saying this - the capitalists are fighting among themselves!
Economists dont really use average. I seriously doubt you or I can find a statistic that says "average of the bottom 90%". That said, what you say maybe indeed not too far of the mark. The issue is proving it.
Heres the 2010 Census report on income
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
Page 42 of 95, Table A2
AS you can see there is a huge difference between Median and Mean, or average. Median household income in 2010 was 49k average was 67k.
You should also note from this table A-2 one can see that median income for the bottom 90% is under $24,999, probably around 23k.
The only time we're going to see a stat like "the average income of the bottom 90%" is in an article written by a non economist, who is trying to write for the low information reader, the Mother Jones article youre citing. They give $31,244 as the number. And they have great charts
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
The problem there is the very people who we want to pay attention to these statistics, are likely to blow you off for using info from MotherJones. Which of course is a left wing magazine and cant be trusted to tell the truth. You and I know thats not true.
Its also true that most who pay attention to statistics, hate average numbers. They are next to meaningless. Worse, Average numbers are always higher, and thusly do a poorer job of describing the picture.
See the Census report, median household income for 2010 is 49k, mean or average is 67k, while the average for the bottom 90% is 31k, but the median for the bottom 90% is slightly less than 25k.
Whats worse is that when looking at income disparity, we see Median incomes stagnate, while income for the top 1% or top .1% are increasing, so as income disparity increases, average income increases. Giving the false illusion that everything is fine because average incomes are rising.
Heres an illustration:
If 10 people make 10k a year, median and Average is 10k If 9 people make 10k and one makes 110k, median is still 10k while average is now 20k.
If 9 people make 10k and one makes 410k, median is still 10k, while average is 50k.
This example would be even more striking if we looked at the top 1% vs Median income.
The above simply makes the clear case that income disparity has increased. This is the value of using median income statistics.
i looked at the site where i read the stat - stephen leeb - complete investor - he is pushing the idea that we are running out of all the resources our society needs but he is also pushing income inequality as a problem for the economy - interesting book "game over" - mostly pointing out we are screwed. point taken as to median. it is possible he used median but aren't we nit picking a bit here - do we agree that ordinary people have no money - that it has been funneled to the top. also, at the moment proving a point does not seem all that important - there are too many people here who are just trying to cause trouble - doesn't matter how well you prove your point. for those who are reasonable then the details may matter but - i stopped reading mother jones years ago - they are still doing their thing looks like. seems to me we are on the same page - obvious truth to anyone who wants to see it - keep it up
Yeah, we're on the same page, yes I am nit picking, for an important reason though.
Average income figures do not properly reflect income growth of the uber rich, and average does not properly reflect stagnant wages over 35 years.
IMHO its far better to show the 50% mark, median income and compare it to income from the top 1% or even top .1%.
ok, won't argue - things look pretty ugly no matter how you cut it. sounds like you are reading he same stuff i am - top .! or even .01 is really the problem. have you read graeber - "debt the first 5000 years" or m hudson - the economy is not going to recover unless we change things - looks like we will have two choices, austerity and austerity lite and neither one will work. once the economy is back on track then we will have $200 oil which will wreck the economy!
Yeah oil can be a bottleneck. Unless we go to renewable energy, and use renewables for transportation, reducing oil used for transportation. Over decades this will help out.
I think we need to spend 8-9% of GDP on Jobs stimulus, to create 20-25 million jobs. A trillion to 1.3 trillion bucks.
i don't think we have decades or even years - oil is $100 with the usa in deep recession - "game over" is really informative i think. i would love ot hear a good critique of it since it is my main investment strategy - that and buying land in upstate ny so i can heat my house when the time comes!
From 26K I guess 150K is pretty far off and could look relatively rich. It's a very subjective poll.
Your exactly right. For me the issue with wealth is one about huge amounts of capital concentrated in the hands of the few. I see this as starting with households that earn 1 million a year or more. That would start at the top .35%.
From a framing point of view, I see the word rich as a distraction, from "Earning from Capital".
Even if there was common sense responsibility on the parts of large corporations it wouldn't be so bad. We're not seeing that though. Instead, there's companies with record profits and ridiculously highly-paid CEOs running workplaces that are trying to circumvent basic workers rights (and then using lobbying to circumvent Constitutional rights, etc.). And you are right, we don't need to get caught up focusing on broadly defined terms. We can zero in on the details and pin down more precise numbers as you presented.
and what the hell is this - Wrong, not average. Sigh. - are you so tired of correcting those less bright than you (not that i am!)? i am thinking you are wrong - i would have to look but i am sure i can back up the stat. and don't you realize there are all sorts of ways to look at the same numbers - i won't add the sigh but i am feeling it!
Economists dont use average see my comment above. Yes, the bottom 90% average 31k per year.
But the median of the bottom 90% is about 23k a year.
ok, i finally found what i read months ago - from stephen leeb - i investement update every monday - this one is from oct - will send the whole thing but here is the part i mentioned - "So let’s talk about of the investment consequences of the kind of income distribution we have today – income distribution, again, that’s so disparate that it attracts the attention of the most conservative of monetary economists. The upper 10 percent of the economy carries almost all the weight, whereas the bottom 90 percent has an average household income of around $32,000 a year. That pre-tax number, by the way, is not enough to pay for most private schools in New York City (not colleges, but high schools); it also isn’t enough to pay for a semester of a private college by a mile.
is that household or individual?
Important question....
But the median of the bottom 90% is about 23k a year.
That would be IND. More importantly all workers, part time, full time, temp seasonal, male, female.
from leeb if you are interested - A surprising comment from the Fed's Richard Fisher 10-10-11 Master Key: -30 In the past two Federal Open Market Committee meetings, in stark contrast to previous Fed policy setting confabs, there have been three dissenters. Probably the most vocal and fiercest among them has been Richard W. Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Fisher’s inflation fighting credentials are extremely well known; he believes the mission of a central banker is, above all, to control inflation.
So we have to believe that this is the reason he dissented from recent Fed moves, which included Operation Twist and the Fed’s promise to keep short-term interest rates at or near zero until 2013.
With this in mind, we took note of recent comments from Fisher on October 6th, in which he said, “I’m somewhat sympathetic [to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators].” He went on to say, “We have too many people out of work,” and the part that struck us the most: “We have very uneven distribution of income.”
A central banker talking about uneven income distribution as being a worrisome sign for the economy is almost like a pig recommending that you eat pork. The reason we say that is not so much that we believe that whatever the distribution of income may be a consequence of capitalism itself. Rather, a brief look at history strongly suggests that the only condition, at least in modern history, that has led to a more even distribution of income had been inflation – especially high inflation. In the past 40-plus years, it was only during the inflationary 1970s that income distribution disparities narrowed.
Admittedly, it would be a long stretch to say that Fisher is all of a sudden arguing in favor of inflation; we doubt it. But it is possible that his remarks reflect a recognition that the economy is balanced on a razor’s edge, with one side representing some form of Armageddon (in the form of depression, with very dire political and societal consequences not out of question), and the other side being inflation – with a side effect of a more equitable distribution of income.
History supports the notion that nations can go through periods of high inflation and live to tell the tale. The U.S. alone, in the past 150 years, has experienced three bouts of 20 percent plus inflation, not even counting the 1970s. We can also mention Japan, which has gone through its own period of high, 40 percent inflation. In fact, every major war has led to massive inflation.
If we undertake the spending required for the development of a renewable energy-based economy – as China is doing – it will require a wartime-like effort, and high inflation would seem inevitable.
Fisher’s comment taken by itself would be less important if we couldn’t relate it to remarks made recently by Charles Evans, head of the Chicago Fed, who said much more explicitly that the Fed should give up inflation targeting for a while and focus on unemployment.
We think slowly but surely the powers that be are recognizing that, at least for a short period of time, inflation and even relatively high inflation would not be a death-knell for the economy.
To us that’s a potential point of inflection. And, once inflation does start to rise, the more than decade-long bull market in gold will look like a mere appetizer compared to what’s to come. But we promise you, we’re not going to spend time talking about gold for a least a little while longer. Our position in that area certainly hasn’t changed.
So let’s talk about of the investment consequences of the kind of income distribution we have today – income distribution, again, that’s so disparate that it attracts the attention of the most conservative of monetary economists.
The upper 10 percent of the economy carries almost all the weight, whereas the bottom 90 percent has an average household income of around $32,000 a year. That pre-tax number, by the way, is not enough to pay for most private schools in New York City (not colleges, but high schools); it also isn’t enough to pay for a semester of a private college by a mile.
Investment-wise, how do you take advantage of this extraordinary spread in income? One way, at least in the retail patch, is to follow a barbell approach.
As the rich continue to get richer, luxury items should continue to do very well. Though it’s hardly the largest of the luxury retailers, Tiffany & Co. (TIF) certainly comes to mind. If there’s any relatively small company that fits the definition of a franchise, it has to be Tiffany. This is reflected by its mention in artifacts of popular culture from Breakfast at Tiffany’s to the lyrics of “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend,” immortalized by Carol Channing and Marilyn Monroe, respectively, in the Broadway and film versions of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Clearly, when one thinks of luxury, the name Tiffany comes to mind. Financially speaking, the company’s fundamentals are strong, and it being in the business of gold and silver does not hurt either.
Though its history may not be as culturally celebrated or as long, Coach (COH) in a relatively short period of time has also established a world-wide luxury franchise.
We’ll stick with those two as representing the high end of the income distribution barbell. At the other end would be companies serving the lower income bracket, and as more individuals fall into this unfortunate group, the companies with the best (i.e., lowest) pricing have the best chances of showing gains.
Our favorites here would be Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), which is the clear leader (though as we pointed out recently, Amazon (AMZN) is coming up fast), plus two small ones that stand out in our mind: The TJX Companies (TJX), which owns T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and other brands, and Dollar Tree Inc. (DLTR), a chain of U.S. discount variety stores where items sell for $1 or less.
In conclusion, it’s no coincidence that these sets of stocks at both the high and low ends continue to outperform a range-bound stock market. Until Fisher and the other Fed chiefs decide in earnest to opt for inflation, we expect these trends in the retail sector to continue and the corresponding barbell approach to retail investments to be your best bet. Tags:
so household at 32k might be correct?
Median Household for the bottom 90% is probably about 44k
Regular median household for the 100% is 49k
i don't buy that - i think it is too high - i am going to have to look for the stat i quoted. here is the median for my home town and it's neighbor in western ny (and that is not the bottom 90%) -Estimated median household income in 2009: $36,828 (it was $34,712 in 2000) Fredonia:
$36,828
Estimated median household income in 2009: $29,837 (it was $28,313 in 2000) Dunkirk:
$29,837
Median household income is 49k from the US Census report. Page 58 of 95 table A-5
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
yes but i thought we were talking about the median of the bottom 90%
I reread the Mother Jones article, the 31,244 is for Average of the bottom 90% household income.
My bad, so Median of the bottom 90% would be less than 31,244
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
wow - you plan on getting off planet earth - a bit of a long shot don't you think. i think we are in much more trouble than you do as far as resources go - i guess we will find out soon who is right - i hope you are!
Long shot or not, its the only logical option.
Otherwise population & resources kill us.
Which is why I cross my fingers on Polywell fusion. The Navy funds Polywell, they think Polywell can replace fission nukes on Navy ships.
The upside of Polywell: No thermal plant=small=35x35x35 ft building=1000Mw No nuclear waste. Direct conversion to electricity. Aneutronic fusion=fusion creates no neutrons=1 million times less radioactivity than fission. Polywell technology can be used to propel space ship to Mars in 37 days, Saturn in 76 days. Fuel is Hydrogen and Boron11, common stuff.
We need an industrial infrastructure off planet, fed by orbital resources.
no problem - either way the masses are getting screwed - not sure if there will be anything done about it. i think leeb is right in that if we get the economy on track, resource scarcity will wreck our society - sooner rather than later!
Energy, Resources, Population growth and productivity are the 4 major variables in GDP growth.
Right now, since oil is a component of Energy, oil depletion can be a concern. Resource depletion is also a concern. Population growth is slowing, so thats a concern, the days of 6-8% growth are in the past, but expectations 3-3.5% growth is certainly reasonable.
Within the Energy Sector, if we expand renewable electricity and de-emphasize oil, we can turn this sector around so that it is not a concern.
I look to R&D projects like Polywell Fusion as a wildcard. Cheap practical fusion will give us the energy and the resources in the solar system.
Leeb has a point, but thats only one scenario. And getting off planet Earth makes Leeb's point 100% moot.
i respectfully disagree - still time (barely) to implement bucky fullers "spaceship earth" thinking - good luck - seems to me we are screwed - land with acres of trees and a wood burning stove is my spaceship
it's all relative.
hard to disagree - from the point of view of a chinese peasant the poor in this country look well off but is that the point?
yes - that is the point. the poor in the US have had it better than the poor at any time in history. If that is not enough for you - you will never be satisfied. you are only headed to absolute communism soviet style. the key is to set an environment where people who want to work hard can get ahead. Insisting on equality is the wrong approach because you will always have lazy people tainting the well.
no that is not enough for me - you can have your opinion - it is all relative - from the point of view of buffent i am very poor - i do not agree with your whole world view - enough said?
so it's all about comparision to who has the most? class warfare - class envy?
no - some form of equality is not class warfare - basic fairness as far as i am concerned
define fair?
well i will quote black elk on the lack of fairness "it is obvious that white people do not care about each other , since some have more than ever use and others are starving" - he said that in the early 1900's i think - still true today. that didn't quite answer your question but no point in continuing - right? why aren't you working - or are you. why do you spout your right wing silliness here
who is starving?
Working from home today
been to nyc lately - see anyone on the street? you should be working - shouldn't be on ows on the company dime
I work in NYC actually there were a lot more people panhandling on the street in the 1970s not many now. besides - dont they qualify for food stamps & public housing?
i doubt ows thinks about you - some on this forum maybe but they are not ows - ows is at work right now somewhere you can't see - trying to undermine the system - i hope they do - as to your nice job and lots of time off - come on - this is your job - there are no jobs with lots of time off in the usa - work - hard work - that's what makes money for the rich man - not much of a response about your gov't handouts - so easy to blow up your thinking -well thinking is kind but we true believers are kind - don't you think?
hahaha ! undermine the system. how do you think that will help you hahaha! you think you will be better off lol?
seems to me you are here often - lots of time off - torment ows - you are not doing a very good job of it - well maybe practice makes perfect - counting your handout? driving on gov't roads doing your errands
nice having a good job. I have plenty of time off. But the OWS seem to think I am a slave to the 1% lol!
not many now! - i walk by them all the time. you must work or wall street - shouldn't you be working? isn't what you are doing stealing?
actually I work in Brooklyn lol! I am off today tending to some errands while I torment OWS LOL!
Oh, yeah, I think it would be sweet to make $150k a year. The median income in America is around $24,000. But, I'm still skeptical that the average American thinks $150k is rich. Hell, I could spend that in one day.
yes we could all spend that easily - one really nice car! not sure what the average american thinks but for sure someone making 25k would think 150 k is a shit load of money
Median income 26k for all workers. Per the 2010 Census report
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016909/-Income-disparity-run-rampant-median-income-for-males:-lower-than-in-1970?via=blog_694100
I knew it was somewhere around the mid-20's. Thanks for the link.
You probably read the same info, and it half slipped your mind. But your memory is fairly good. Unlike some others here. LOL
Link is to an article I wrote, which includes a link to the 2010 census report. I believe in providing the best in authoritative citations in support of what I write.
Note Median of 26k is for all workers, part time, seasonal, temp, male female.
Your link shows median income of $36K. Although that is still a low number, 36 is a good deal more than 26.
47k Is median males working full time year round. 36k is median for males working part time, full time, temp. 26k is median for all workers. Part time, full time, seasonal, male female etc.
After all I wrote the article.
150k doesn't look so nice once it's cut by 50% by taxes to give to the guy earning 30k.
retard - and what comes out of the 30k paycheck - you think they take home 30k? come up with some numbers or do not respond! and what is he given from the poor guy who makes 150k - nothing - in this country (land of the free, home of the brave?? hannity) you have no right to live - make enough to survive or crawl under a bridge and die. and people like you try to support that position- you are a fool or a quisling - look it up since i know you don't know the term. elpino - sounds italian - you are a disgrace if that is true - the italians understand something about the world - that's why they won't put up with the shit that americans do! get off this site - go to glen beck
They get to take back more than 30k, in the form of foodstamps, unemployment benefits, welfare, medicaid, public schools, public transport, public housing, emergency rooms - which are not used by the rich but all paid for by the rich by the way.
"better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and dispel all doubt." - can you name the author - you should be able to because he was giving advice to you! it would be a good idea to to a bit of research before you dispel all doubt. i would think that the vast (but shrinking middle class would disagree about using those public systems you pointed out - try taking them away - then go away. quilsing!
I was talking about the Rich not using those resources, but having to pay disproportionately for them.
i understood - disagree completely. the rich use the school system even if they send their kids to private school - think about it! think man! they use the roads and fire dept, air traffic control and the water system - should i go on? if you like the world where the rich wall themselves off from the rest and have servants change their kids diapers - great - i do not! you have a sick world view - not sure if you have money but i doubt it (real money i mean). "we all do better when we all do better" - very obvious to anyone with open eyes. the rich get rich because the exploit someones labor - they use someone to do something worth $100 and pay them 50 - think about it before you respond - don't say some dumb ass thing that will annoy me - think about it - stanley starr has 1200 employees - he pays them $100 per day and they make juice products that are worth $150 per day - he makes very good money sitting in his office - he can afford to pay high taxes - my vote would be that after 500k you pay 80% - we would all live better. you don't like that system - hoping to be rich or confused by the propaganda or some such nonsense - fine - let's have a vote and see who wins
Rob from the rich to give to the poor? Stupid and unfair. A flat tax is fair.
If you don't like what you're getting paid, find the guts to build your own 1200 employee company. If you do not have the vision and work ethic to do it, that's not my fault.
robin hood was right and a hero for most when i was a young boy. you forgot daddies money as the way to start a business - you can have your opinion - just don't pretend that you have god on your side. don't agree on flat tax or any of your thinking. i notice you do not respond to what i said about how taxes are spent or how to get rich. just more tea party ranting about some imagined world of an imagined adam smith (i am sure you have not read him - at most you have read about him - you do read don't you?). of course it is because you have no good answer. why do you do this nonsense - if you are being paid to do this i understand - we all have to make a living. shouldn't you be at work though - working hard - making yourself or someone else rich - or are you at work - stealing don't you think?
Problem is most's understanding of what is rich is horribly flawed.
Nothing wrong with working for 30 years like an animal to become a millionaire.
you two are good for each other - and why aren't you working like an animal now? i notice elpinio can never respond to anything other than to do what you just did - do you get the same talking points or something
Im at work right now, and this OWS thing has really taken a toll on my productivity.
Your post doesnt really give any way to discuss anything, there is no topic. Its just take money from people. What would you like to discuss?
What would you like to discuss? I work for myself moron. - ok so why engage - work for your self my ass, koch brothers or some such - Im at work right now, and this OWS thing has really taken a toll on my productivity. - oh, yea we all believe that one - what a creep - go back to what you did before ows - having a play date wit the other quisling elpinio?
Actually Ive been at this longer than OWS, and was happy to see it arrive.
Not much to hide here, Im sorry you are so doubtful. I suppose I have no way of proving it, but oh well.
You're at work????
You should be docked for every minute you spend here.
Personally? I'd fire you for lost productivity.
I work for myself moron. Way to forward think...
not relevant - i thought you might respond to what i said - every country has murder rape etc (well maybe not nations a long time ago were very egalitarian and with no real crime - indian societies etc but that was a different place and time) - does that mean it is right - i am not against some people being more wealthy than others (if they work longer or take the time to become more educated etc) - it is a question of degree - how much is enough - open question no doubt - should be settled democratically i think
And thats why no one will ever elect you. They dont want you deciding how much they can make.
thanks for asking but i don't think there is much to discuss. first of all are you self employed (i am - but watching the grandchildren at the moment) - shouldn't you be slaving for the boss? you think it is better for society to have super rich - i do not. i can make a very good case for what i think but for most here there is no point in the debate - it becomes what used be called a religious argument - you think that your religion is best and i think mine is best - i am bored by that. there is much to be understood about how the world works etc and some people want to figure it out and others just want a good rant (not that i have figured it all out - no one has). we are living through a time similar to the great depression or the populist era (the real one where the poorest farmers educated themselves about hard money and fiat currency and how debt worked - since hard money and debt were killing them - literally). we are facing the same choices faced by fdr - some capitalists wanted to let it all go to hell and build from the ashes and others (keynes and fdr said they were trying to save capitalism!) wanted to save the system from itself. respond if you like but i have been through this with you before -no?
Every country has really rich people in it. Name me one that doesnt.
Exactly.
so they shouldn't get a public education for the kids anymore. that will make a real equal playing field for the little ones whose parents don't make a decent wage. My daughter, a single mom unfortunately, makes about $10 an hour, part time, and she has a AA in social work. she gets no food stamps, pub. transport, or housing.
Which do they get medicaid or emergency rooms? or nothing. Going to the hospital for just 2 hours may costs around $5,000.00,for the basic tests, without insurance, or if you misplaced your medical insurance card. My wife took a 10 min. ambulence ride from her job, as a middle school recess supervisor, cause she was feeling dizzy and the principal didn't want her to be having a heart attack or something right there, where she only makes $10.oo an hour, (she likes the work). We all pay into the system based on what we can afford for the common good. Not just the rich. If they don't have a base level of service and food, I can imagine the results would be like in Mexico, where the kids are recruited by the mafias as hitmen and such, because it looks like good, when you come from nothing but a tin shack.
Sorry, what specifically are you complaining about? I can't tell from your rambling.
OWS seems to me a voice for those also upset at politicians of both parties, who take the money (or campaign contributions) or who act on inside-trader information and make side deals, from which they are immune from insider-trade law, or rotate out of government to become high-paid lobbyists who influence paid-for politicos to write law that favors corporate welfare, and corporations who don't have to pay taxes, cause they have hundreds of lawyers, and send the profit oversees, along with jobs, so as there is no money left in the system for the rest of us to divy up....the top 1 percent income has risen over 240 percent in 30 years, while the majority has declined. Both sides of the political game are playing us like fools, and taking our and our children and grandchildren's future, and I, personally, am fed up with it, and if it does not change, I plan to head south of the border, purchase a small plot for cash, build my simple self-built home, and grow/fish my own food. I've worked 23 years, trying to "buy my house", after putting my small inheritance and 23 years work, the bank has been "renting" it to me, taking my interest payments, and then they have the audacity to sell a whole bunch of bad product-loans, and repackage them multiple times the worthless junk mortgages and sell them as AAA rated goods, and crash the economy as they enrich themselves. I've been playing by the rules, but can't seem to get ahead, and it is much worse for the younger generation, cause they're stuck with the debt from unpaid for wars and tax-breaks for the rich. So I am mad at both politicians, and unethical corporations. So I agree, we're mad at both government, for allowing them and profiting from the corporations, and the corporations. Sorry if it comes accross as hostile, but yea, I'm upset that they all keep doing the same crap, and the citizens keep playing the same game, sending them back, taking sides, pointing fingers, and not solving problems. They are the welfare queens which the republicans should be attacking, not abetting.
Sounds like you don't think there are opportunities. I disagree. I am relatively young and opportunities abound right now for me.
real wages have regressed since 1973, except for the rich, because they have managed to suck all the surplus money from the average joe, ship his job overseas, and leave Wall-Mart level jobs that pay minimum wage. The rich have been successful, and we've allowed them to siphon all the capital from the system, and send it overseas, or into their portfolios. There may be some opportunity for some at entry-level jobs and part-time work, but the young and minorities are facing great competition from all the experienced down-sized workers, for few jobs. Th
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016909/-Income-disparity-run-rampant-median-income-for-males:-lower-than-in-1970?via=blog_694100
For me I have had opportunity, by going to college 7 years, working through it with only $10,000 in loans at graduate level, public colleges and being fortunate in my career, employed 23 years in my field.
For my kids ages 16, 18, 21. With all the debt and austerity they'll be faced with, when the $15 trillion comes due, and the bozos in WA can't figure out how to pay for it, I am very worried for their future. More so for those who are less fortunate, and hence for all of us.
The system as it exists seems very broken. The fish in the ocean are being depleted, and continue getting overfished, by huge operations that drag-net all they can take, to make a buck for today, and ignore the future. Then algae blooms, and ecosystems get messed up, but the corporations with no ethics but profit, are polluting the drinking water throughout the world, through extraction of minerals and pollution. It does not seem very sustainable, when the oceans rise 20 feet due to climate warming, and displaced people start wandering the earth seeking survival, is that when there will be increased opportunity. You have hope and opportunity cause you are young, and have had good fortune. If our government can work together and confront the problems we are facing, then there is hope. If they just throw crap at each other and profit while doing it at our expense, then I am less hopeful. It seems many politicians are going against even issues they supported a short while ago, because they are now being supported by democrats, such as the individual mandate for health insurance, like people should have car insurance (Gingrich Romney); and courts allowing for unlimited SuperPac campaign financing, no limits. For those with little conscience and thought for how their actions are impacting others, they have opportunity in the short term. For others who can profit from such a system, there is opportunity. For the people in the world who are dying in wars of profiteering industrial war machines and those who think might makes right, they do not enjoy such opportunities. My brother in law who lives in another country said our country was at war, and I didn't understand, (this was before Sept 11): Now I kind of get it...we've been at war against many populations, for oil, to keep drugs ileagle, and therefore a profitable business for those who traffic for or against, and just to project our economic and political interests throughout the world There are many issues, and little common sense. So many issues, that I hope there is opportunity to address the needs of the people, but for me, there seems not a true debate, because the Congress has bogged down in finger-pointing. So yes there is opportunity in crises. If we can as a country focus our attention long enough to see this opportunity exists.
You seem like a respectable person who's paid his dues and have some legitimate concerns.
But my reaction is that you (or rather your children) shouldn't worry about things they can't control. And instead focus on things they can control.
Washington is going to be messed up. That's reality. Vote in an attempt to change things, but there's not much you can do to affect things there that will have a direct impact on your kids.
But what your kids do is focus on their education. My dad always told me that 1 hour of hard work in school is worth 100 hours of hard work later in life. That has been true for me. A miner might work very very hard. But no matter how hard he works, he won't make much more money. However, if had worked hard in school and excelled, that would have made a huge difference.
Also, tell your kids not to focus on useless degrees such as art history, English, psychology. They teach no useful skills and anyone can get those degrees. Does it surprise anyone that a college graduate with a degree in history can't find a good job?
Your kids need to aim for something harder, that others have a harder time mastering. For example, a degree in science, mathematics, computer or electrical engineering. It is all about supply and demand. Mastering math and science is no fun... it requires hours of hard work and repetition, but that also dissuades others and lessens competition. That is why there is a shortage of engineers in American and we have to import them. That is why they are in great demand in Silicon Valley even today, in this poor economy.
We have too many kids that don't work hard. It is a global economy. For 50 years, every American was guaranteed a sweet life just because they were born in America. The biggest determining factor for a person's standard of living was where he was born. No longer, and rightfully so. You have to work for it now.
Methodology: Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 28 to Dec. 1, 2011, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states
Then consider me rich!!! I just got a raise today that goes into effect the day after tomorrow that pushes me up past 150k!!!! Damn, to think I was only making 40k a little more than a year ago.
I wouldn't go around here saying things like that...The OWS'ers will have your head.
150k a year is top 91.6%- clearly a 99%er.
With that mentality, a 1%er is determined by a single dollar.
The top 1% earns $343,927 and above.
Those making $343,926 and below are welcome in the club?
If Warren Buffet is down with Occupy, does he get welcomed?
Not easy answers.
@ theaveng....Politicians are not uninformed people..they know the definition of rich. Get real will you.
If your single and bringing home 150K, then yeah I'd have to say that would qualify as rich.
Now if you are a family with a combined income of 150K, I would say that you are well off though not necessarily rich.
Lets see... so 30k (before ANY taxes) puts me where?
top 8%
150,000 is not rich maybe in some parts of the country that will buy you some beans but where I live that is upper middle class. My bro was making 250,000 with a 150,000 bonus from a prominent bank. He does not do that anymore but he rents and drives a used car and alway has, and he still did not consider himself rich nor do I consider him rich. Rich is clearly a million a year Gallup is a fucking fake propaganda agency, obviously.
No one deserves to make that sort of money as an employee of a bank. People used to be satisfied making $30,000 or $40,000 per annum, which is reasonable. Even air force pilots were making around that, and they are highly skilled, risking their lives. The sheer greed of people, yes, like your brother, has gotten way out of hand.
Don't worry he got laid off like millions of other people three years ago and he never went back into finance. But I personally believe that 40,000 does not buy you much in certain parts of the country. And most people that I know that make what my brother was making where I live t do not live high on the hog. Life is still expensive and getting very expensive as we speak.
Some are never satisfied. .
its to hard to make such an assessment, a person could be earning 150,000 but they could have spent 20 years earning 20'000 a year of less whilst establishing a business which employs multiple people, If we have to pay tax at all then I think we should meet with the tax person and agree on what is a reasonable contribution...I understand this happens in Switzerland
I am not against businessmen who own their own business earning any amount - over a million or more, if they like. I object to bank employees earning large sums, as they risk nothing. They have not built a business, merely plunder the money that is already in the business.
Wrong. The six children of the WalMart family have more wealth than all of the bottom 30% of the US population.
This is what we are talking about. We are not talking income.
lol poor people.
$$$$$250,000 is abetter round number in my opinion if we're looking for nice round numbers that is. It's relative to diverse perceptions individuals may or may not have.
It is all about the money after all. How quint.
THE PUZZLER
You are what should be called "middle class" where most Americans should be. Our economy would be much healthier for everyone if your income level was the median income; as long as the inflation process doesn't rise to take it all away from you and others.
jeez.. that's crazy. Someone should investigate those polling places. For example, do they call cell phones? Most of the people I know do not have a land line anymore.
What news do you watch? The only talk of raising taxes on the rich has been on those who earn (have income, not net worth) over $1 million per year. And, the Dems just caved on that anyway so what are you worried about?
Everyone not on welfare will eventually be considered "rich". Look up the French Revolution and the Bolsheviks.
I hadn't heard that. I thought that the meme "millionaires and billionaires" referred to individuals making over 200K, couples making over $250K.
No, millionaires and billionaires are people who have millions and billions of dollars respectively. How they got their money does't matter. Some have never worked and have become rich with inheritance.
$1 and no bombs on your head is rich.
If you earn $150K a year, then you pay federal income taxes.
If you are an OWSer, then you don't:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/51-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/238329/
150.000$ is rich.
making a 100,000 a year is rich when others are getting by on 12,000 dont be so naive as to think 100,000 is not really well off.................and that they should pay higher taxes
150,000 is by no means bad money but it is not "rich". For anyone who is wondering the highest tax bracket is $500,000 a year or more.
WOW.... 150 g's is nothing! That doesn't even put you in a very high tax bracket i don't think lol
That's how I feel about it.
No doubt, if that is the standard of rich, I must have missed the memo and the invites to the E True Hollywood party.
Nothing new. I've been saying all along that raising taxes on the rich will just mean the middle class gets screwed.
You mean because the tax rate will be pretty much flat? Yea that would definitely hurt us. I am no economist or mathematician, but it should be common sense the tax rate should not be based on how much money you make...(the % tax rate increases based on income) Also I am sure that there is a name for that kind of tax system so could someone tell me what it is called?
OWS is all about capitalism, take from the rich to give to the druggies that like to set in parks and pout, because they are broke