Bush tax cuts for top earners should expire - says someone smarter than all of us!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
The rest of his points were irrelevant because it presented a false dichotomy. Raising the taxes on the extremely rich is not mutually exclusive of raising the taxes on the ultra extremely rich too.

I've seen it repeatedly claimed here that the richest 2% of income earners are merely 'upper middle class', and it's important to dispense with that outrageous distortion.

A household income of 250k is upper middle class in many parts of the country.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
I can't think of a single solitary issue where an individual in the top 2% of something would have his position referred to as being in the 'upper middle'.

Are students whose GPA's are in the top 2% of their graduating class called the 'upper middle'? No, actually as a general rule they would graduate summa cum laude, or 'with highest honors'. Maybe we should rename it the 'upper middle honor'.

Perhaps a chart would help you better:
marzano2001afig11.gif

I can't see your chart because I'm at work, but I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly. You think that being in the "middle class" is directly related to the average household income of this country?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
A household income of 250k is upper middle class in many parts of the country.

No it isn't.

In Manhattan, one of the wealthiest locations in the United States the median household income was $64,000 in 2007. $250,000 would be 400% of the median even in such an extreme example.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
I can't see your chart because I'm at work, but I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly. You think that being in the "middle class" is related to the average household income of this country?

To him $250k in SF/LA/NYC is the same as Iowa.

My wife and I are well over $250k in Los Angeles and we 1) still rent and 2) have no wealth built up. In a couple years of saving more money she will stop working because it's not worth the marginal 60c on the dollar and she will stay home and take care of the kids.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
No it isn't.

In Manhattan, one of the wealthiest locations in the United States the median household income was $64,000 in 2007. $250,000 would be 400% of the median even in such an extreme example.

Median and average household income is almost irrelevant. Using your logic, the middle class could never shrink or expand, it would always be the same perentage of people in the middle class. Every country in the world, no matter how impoverished, would have a middle class.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I can't think of a single solitary issue where an individual in the top 2% of something would have his position referred to as being in the 'upper middle'.

Are students whose GPA's are in the top 2% of their graduating class called the 'upper middle'? No, actually as a general rule they would graduate summa cum laude, or 'with highest honors'. Maybe we should rename it the 'upper middle honor'.

Perhaps a chart would help you better:
marzano2001afig11.gif
So what should the mean and standard deviation for the distribution of wealth be?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Median and average household income is almost irrelevant. Using your logic, the middle class could never shrink or expand, it would always be the same perentage of people in the middle class. Every country in the world, no matter how impoverished, would have a middle class.

Median household income is most certainly not irrelevant, it only means that more needs to be taken into account if you were to standardize the measure across all countries. Within a single country with a relatively standardized income structure however, median income isn't irrelevant in any way, shape, or form.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
To him $250k in SF/LA/NYC is the same as Iowa.

My wife and I are well over $250k in Los Angeles and we 1) still rent and 2) have no wealth built up. In a couple years of saving more money she will stop working because it's not worth the marginal 60c on the dollar and she will stay home and take care of the kids.

If you are making $250k in LA and you aren't accumulating wealth, your financial planning is pathetic. Go to your local community college, go see one of those guys on daytime TV who will help you get your bills in order, something.

I lived in San Diego for 10 years and I never made close to $250,000. San Diego is not quite as expensive as LA (about 20% cheaper), but I was able to accumulate plenty of wealth. I have lots of friends in LA who take home considerably less than $250k and own property. You are doing something wrong.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Estate taxes of 50%+ on people with $5m+ net worth when they die. Add clauses to prevent giving all of your estate away when you fall terminally ill. Alternatively, increase enforcement of the "gift tax" in the event that billionaires try to dodge the estate tax.

You could also write in provisions allowing them to donate it all to charities, etc, to avoid giving it to the feds. You just need to dilute the ridiculous mountain of wealth at the top.

You would likely need further action to get the gini index down under 40 again, but this would go a very long way.

However, I must comment on one thing said in this thread. Someone mentioned that CEO's getting paid in stock is a bad thing. I would argue the contrary. Paying CEO's in stock as a tax dodge would have benefits for corporations.

CEO's will no longer be looking at driving up quarterly profits for a giant bonus and will have to think about the long-term health of the company. This would be especially beneficial to the finance industry that makes headlines for excessive bonuses and excessive stupidity on a weekly basis.

I would even go further and reduce the "gambling" level of market volatility by forcing stock and bond purchases to be held for 24 hours before they can be resold, and stock earned as compensation should be held for 365 days before it can be sold.

Why stop there? If it's moral for us to organize into a government and hire armed men to rob those with more wealth, shouldn't it also be moral to just murder them? That way we get ALL their wealth, not some paltry 50 - 60%. If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. If you're going to rob someone just because they are wealthy - and let's face it, if you're willing to rob the rich, the only reason you won't rob the poor is that they don't have wealth - then rob them of everything. Be the best darned thief you can be.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Median household income is most certainly not irrelevant, it only means that more needs to be taken into account if you were to standardize the measure across all countries. Within a single country with a relatively standardized income structure however, median income isn't irrelevant in any way, shape, or form.

Every time someone talks about the "upper middle class" and "middle class" you bring up average and median household income. If you defined the middle class using that method then you will always have the same percentage of people in the middle class. Clearly that's not how the middle class, or any class really, should be defined.

Claiming that two software engineers, developers, etc... that make 125k each are "rich" is laughable, especially in places like DC, NYC, LA, etc... Upper middle class, yes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Every time someone talks about the "upper middle class" and "middle class" you bring up average and median household income. If you defined the middle class using that method then you will always have the same percentage of people in the middle class. Clearly that's not how the middle class, or any class really, should be defined.

Claiming that two software engineers, developers, etc... that make 125k each are "rich" is laughable, especially in places like DC, NYC, LA, etc... Upper middle class, yes.

I never said it was the only way that it should be defined, I took exception with your attempt to claim it was irrelevant. Nearly every definition of the middle class includes relative income as part of it. (well actually every definition that I'm aware of, but there could be a few that don't.) If all you're trying to say is that we should take MORE into account than income, that's fine. I would definitely say that it is by far the most important factor though.

As someone who has lived in both southern California and NYC, let me put your mind at ease. People in both those places who make $250,000 are quite rich. You can define it any way you want, but if you ask the average person here if someone making a quarter million dollars a year is rich, they will tell you yes.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
To him $250k in SF/LA/NYC is the same as Iowa.

My wife and I are well over $250k in Los Angeles and we 1) still rent and 2) have no wealth built up. In a couple years of saving more money she will stop working because it's not worth the marginal 60c on the dollar and she will stay home and take care of the kids.

Give me a fucking break, I live on the Gold Coast of CT (50 minutes from NYC), one of the most expensive areas of the country, make around 140K between me and my wife, we bought a house that's worth almost 500K on a 363K short sale recently and we have almost 100K in savings still (and that's NOT including our 401k/IRA). I live fairly close to asshole CEO's, wall street bankers, Athletes, Musicians and hollywood actors who raise my cost of living through the roof.

I can't imagine LA being all that different. Are you frigging renting the most expensive penthouse in LA or something? Yeah you have it so hard. Maybe you're just spending too much and don't save.

Edit: I re-read that, "WELL over 250K", you're either highly irresponsible with your spending or you're lying about something.
 
Last edited:

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Give me a fucking break, I live on the Gold Coast of CT (50 minutes from NYC), one of the most expensive areas of the country, make around 140K between me and my wife, we bought a house that's worth almost 500K on a 363K short sale recently and we have almost 100K in savings still (and that's NOT including our 401k/IRA). I live fairly close to asshole CEO's, wall street bankers, Athletes, Musicians and hollywood actors who raise my cost of living through the roof.

I can't imagine LA being all that different. Are you frigging renting the most expensive penthouse in LA or something? Yeah you have it so hard. Maybe you're just spending too much and don't save.

Edit: I re-read that, "WELL over 250K", you're either highly irresponsible with your spending or you're lying about something.

You make it sound like I've been making 250 my whole life. I'm still in my 20s.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
You make it sound like I've been making 250 my whole life. I'm still in my 20s.

Well for one thing, you said "Well over" 250K, which sounded to me close to 400K or more.

For another thing, it's a matter of cash flow. I cannot imagine how something like housing would be a problem for you, even in LA. I'm paying $1900 in PITI a month on my house in one of the most expensive areas in the country. 250K or over, you can afford a hell of a lot more than that for either rent or mortgage payments. In terms of cash flow, it just doesn't add up unless you're wasting money on crap you don't need. Edit: I mean REALLY wasteful now that i think of it. Even if you bought a couple luxury cars, took expensive vacations, bought very high end equipment, that wouldn't even be enough to complain about.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Also, it's progressive, so only income in excess $250K would be taxed at a higher bracket rate.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Well for one thing, you said "Well over" 250K, which sounded to me close to 400K or more.

For another thing, it's a matter of cash flow. I cannot imagine how something like housing would be a problem for you, even in LA. I'm paying $1900 in PITI a month on my house in one of the most expensive areas in the country. 250K or over, you can afford a hell of a lot more than that for either rent or mortgage payments. In terms of cash flow, it just doesn't add up unless you're wasting money on crap you don't need.

20% on a $2 million house is a lot of money. Plus the payments and property tax is high on a $1.6m mortgage. But who the fuck is going to give me a $1.6m mortgage?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Also, it's progressive, so only income in excess $250K would be taxed at a higher bracket rate.

Missed that as well, it's like consevatives don't understand how the tax system works. There was an article here a while back about these idiots trying to avoid making more than $250K because they think the higher tax rates would apply to their ENTIRE income, not realizing how progressive taxes work. One was a dentist who was trying to hit $249k and not go above.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
20% on a $2 million house is a lot of money. Plus the payments and property tax is high on a $1.6m mortgage. But who the fuck is going to give me a $1.6m mortgage?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? A $50 million dollar yacht is expensive to someone with a million dollar salary too.

Doesn't change the fact that $250K is a lot of money whether you live in SF/LA/NYC or Iowa.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
What the hell does that have to do with anything? A $50 million dollar yacht is expensive to someone with a million dollar salary too.

Doesn't change the fact that $250K is a lot of money whether you live in SF/LA/NYC or Iowa.

No it's not.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
You people are missing the point. It's not about tax cuts, it's about how the government uses those money.

If today US were invaded by some country and desperately needs money. I'd all for paying more tax. But if the government keep sending bailout money the wall st. way, keep paying ridiculous health care cost and try to cover every single person at that ridiculous rate, keep giving money to industries with big lobbyist, why the hell should anyone give the government more money, even if those people are loaded? Look at the 1+ trillion of deficit, where the hell is the government spending those money? Unless you can honestly say these spending are justified, why are we even talking about more taxes to pay for those deficit?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Give me a fucking break, I live on the Gold Coast of CT (50 minutes from NYC), one of the most expensive areas of the country, make around 140K between me and my wife, we bought a house that's worth almost 500K on a 363K short sale recently and we have almost 100K in savings still (and that's NOT including our 401k/IRA). I live fairly close to asshole CEO's, wall street bankers, Athletes, Musicians and hollywood actors who raise my cost of living through the roof.

I can't imagine LA being all that different. Are you frigging renting the most expensive penthouse in LA or something? Yeah you have it so hard. Maybe you're just spending too much and don't save.

Edit: I re-read that, "WELL over 250K", you're either highly irresponsible with your spending or you're lying about something.


Even at 250k I'm not sure how somebody can't be accumulating wealth. I am close to you (Stamford), pay over 2k for rent, have $1,400/mo for student loans, plus the cost to commute and work in the city, and I manage to fund my full 401k and save every month.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Even at 250k I'm not sure how somebody can't be accumulating wealth. I am close to you (Stamford), pay over 2k for rent, have $1,400/mo for student loans, plus the cost to commute and work in the city, and I manage to fund my full 401k and save every month.

Exactly, it really speaks to the insane greed of rightwingers here when they lament not being able to buy a 2 million dollar house a 250K salary.