Please define rich (with a poll)

[Deudalus]

Effectively what I want to know is at what point of income for one year should someone be taxed in the upper most tax bracket.

I'm just curious what everyone considers rich.

There is a very popular thread here about "the angry rich" and I always find it curious to see what that point is where you are "rich".

 

[routan]

Effectively what I want to know is at what point should someone be taxed in the upper most tax bracket.

I'm just curious what everyone considers rich.

There is a very popular thread here about "the angry rich" and I always find it curious to see what that point is where you are "rich".

is this by wage?

 

[Deudalus]

is this by wage?

Yes

 

[soulcougher73]

I define it at $250,000. That amount of money would allow you to live comfortable pretty much anywhere in the U.S. Are their people who are "richer" then you? You bet, but there is a point of dimminishing returns. A guy making 10mil a years life style would not change much, if at all, if he was only making 5mil a year.

But that is just me, and i only making a bit above $50k/year and i get by.

 

[PeshakJang]

Income or wealth?

I could make $500,000 a year but have $50,000 net worth... conversely I could make $75,000 a year but have $500,000 in net worth.

Should we tax somebody by the money that they make, or by the money that they have?

 

[routan]

Yes

my wage lies in the second choice, but i am by no means "wealthy"

 

[Deudalus]

Guys lets try not to over think it.

I am talking about tax brackets here and you are taxed based on what you did that year.

 

[Atreus21]

Effectively what I want to know is at what point of income for one year should someone be taxed in the upper most tax bracket.

I'm just curious what everyone considers rich.

There is a very popular thread here about "the angry rich" and I always find it curious to see what that point is where you are "rich".

I selected Other.

In my cynical world, rich is no different than racist. It's a boogie/straw man. I'm sure most wealthy people don't consider themselves the satanic cult-members bent on world subjugation all in the name of greed that some posters here see them as.

 

[Deudalus]

I selected Other.

In my cynical word, rich is no different that racist. It's a boogie/straw man. I'm sure most wealthy people don't consider themselves the satanic cult-members bent on world subjugation all in the name of greed that some posters here see them as.

From a fellow New Orleanian I completely agree.

 

[nonlnear]

Where are the options below $100K? I don't much care about ridiculous labels like "rich" and "[insert] class", but if it's the tax bracket structure we're talking about I'd like to see the top income bracket threshold set pretty darn low. Maybe $30K. Then again I wouldn't push for that without some major changes to corporate taxes to eliminate a lot of bad subsidies and loopholes...

 

[Perknose]

The Rich: Those who could easily afford to bear a greater and fairer share of the burden of keeping our republic vigorous and afloat but who, under our current rules and procedures, can easily purchase such a disproportionate amount of "free speech" that they may never have to.

 

[rcpratt]

Where are the options below $100K? I don't much care about ridiculous labels like "rich" and "[insert] class", but if it's the tax bracket structure we're talking about I'd like to see the top income bracket threshold set pretty darn low. Maybe $30K.

Uh, what? Why?

 

[IronWing]

What I make + $1.
What I have + $1.

Oh, and Spidey. Don't know what he has or makes but I want to tax the shit out of him just because.

 

[PeshakJang]

The Rich: Those who could easily afford to bear a greater and fairer share of the burden of keeping our republic vigorous and afloat but who, under our current rules and procedures, can easily purchase such a disproportionate amount of "free speech" that they may never have to.

When did we start talking about politicians?

 

[Scotteq]

I selected Other.

In my cynical world, rich is no different than racist. It's a boogie/straw man. I'm sure most wealthy people don't consider themselves the satanic cult-members bent on world subjugation all in the name of greed that some posters here see them as.

Also "Other" - and I agree it's a straw man. Though the ultimate "answer" is going to be "A little Bit North Of Where Demographics Indicate That Enough Of The People Who Think They Are Exempt Will Continue To Vote For Us IN Sufficient NUmbers To Keep Us In Power. With the Caveat Given That Since This Country Has Been Bought And Paid For Generations Ago, The Real Influence Brokers Will Remain Essentially Unmolested"

Yeah - That.

 

[JeepinEd]

I selected Other.

In my cynical world, rich is no different than racist. It's a boogie/straw man. I'm sure most wealthy people don't consider themselves the satanic cult-members bent on world subjugation all in the name of greed that some posters here see them as.

Having grown up around plenty of wealthy people, it has been my experience that the majority of them are very generous. The left likes to associate them with the few bad apples so that they can demonize them all and justify their punishment through higher taxes. I'm sure jealousy also plays a role in some way.

 

[Atreus21]

Having grown up around plenty of wealthy people, it has been my experience that the majority of them are very generous. The left likes to associate them with the few bad apples so that they can demonize them all and justify their punishment through higher taxes. I'm sure jealousy also plays a role in some way.

Quite so.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The Rich: Those who could easily afford to bear a greater and fairer share of the burden of keeping our republic vigorous and afloat but who, under our current rules and procedures, can easily purchase such a disproportionate amount of "free speech" that they may never have to.

Well if there is any doubt that the progressive left wants to limit free speech and take all the money they deem you don't deserve, Perk pretty much sums it up for you. I'll play along as well though:

Poor: Those who could easily provide for themselves but deem it easier to simply vote Democrat and take what they feel they deserve from the "Rich" because under current rules and procedures its easier than getting a job, being responsible, and taking care of your family yourself. If anyone dares to question you immediately pull out the racist, bigot, or class warfare card.

 

[woolfe9999]

Effectively what I want to know is at what point of income for one year should someone be taxed in the upper most tax bracket.

I'm just curious what everyone considers rich.

There is a very popular thread here about "the angry rich" and I always find it curious to see what that point is where you are "rich".

You are asking for two different things here. One is what people consider "rich," another is where people think the uppermost tax bracket should be. For example, a given person might believe that $250K per year is "rich" but still think that people who make $500K or more should be in a higher bracket than those at $250K.

Also, "rich" is better defined in reference to total assets, not income.

It's tough to answer your poll as framed, but I guess the closest generalization I can make is that I would ordinarily consider someone who makes $500K+ as likely to be rich, and something at $250K as well off but not rich. It does depend heavily on where you live of course.

In terms of total net assets, to me "rich" is roughly about $5,000,000+.

- wolf

 

[spidey07]

I've made the point before that your income doesn't make you rich. Your ability to generate income and continue to grow wealth without actually working does. A net worth of over 5 million starts getting you into that category.

But I voted 1 million because you could become wealthy/rich with that kind of income and reach the networth of over 5 million in 15 years and retire by 40.

 

[Cogman]

I tried this once, never really got a straight answer (Which says a lot about the people that bitch and moan about "the rich").

IMO, rich is living within your means. If you are spending more than you make, then you are always poor. I can easily see someone making a million a year and not being able to hack it.

 

[BoberFett]

Income or wealth?

I could make $500,000 a year but have $50,000 net worth... conversely I could make $75,000 a year but have $500,000 in net worth.

Should we tax somebody by the money that they make, or by the money that they have?

This. Income is not wealth. Someone with income but no wealth could be living in a gutter tomorrow if they lose their job. People who define rich as a certain income level are ignorant.

 

[sandorski]

The more pertinent questions regarding Wealth are: What's not enough? What's enough? What's more than enough?

That said, they are rather relative definitions. For eg, "More than enough" is not wasted Wealth by any stretch, because that allows people to Invest in things that people with "Enough" or "Not Enough" simply can't afford. So the idea of Taxing back everything beyond "Enough" is foolish. However, Taxing more on "More than Enough" is perfectly fine when those in that Income Bracket have no problems Increasing their Wealth. Just don't Tax them at levels where they no longer can increase their Wealth.

 

[StageLeft]

It's really an impossible question because nobody defines being rich the same way. I said $5M but I meant to say $1M. $1M/year should give you enough money to have a real sports car as a toy, if that's important to you. So basically if you've got a ferarri in your garage and didn't bust your ass too hard for it you're rich.

 

[BoberFett]

The Rich: Those who could easily afford to bear a greater and fairer share of the burden of keeping our republic vigorous and afloat but who, under our current rules and procedures, can easily purchase such a disproportionate amount of "free speech" that they may never have to.

So everyone is rich. Even the poorest person in America could afford to give more than they do.