Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: bozack

As someone who lives near Boston I can say for certain that 250K/year for a family is not "upper class".....that kind of income barely supports two kids in a semi decent town let alone Milton Academy and a Bentley....even with the housing slump condos in less than great neighborhoods cost upwards of $300K. To be wealthy here you have to at least double that figure.

Yep. You can just see the jealousy and envy in any thread that has to do with "kill the rich!" And by rich, I mean "people that can provide adequately for their family".

But Obama has followed his training. Sadly people are eating it up.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Yep. You can just see the jealousy and envy in any thread that has to do with "kill the rich!"

But Obama has followed his training. Sadly people are eating it up.

Yeah but the irony is that now the "rich" really aren't that rich....it isn't like we are talking the monarchs of olden days...instead we are fleecing those who barely make it into the category of "upper income earner"....

To anyone who says 250K is "rich", I emplore you to go to any major metropolitan area and live a luxurious life on that....maybe if your taste is simple it is "enough"...but it isn't MTV cribs, no solid gold ST Dupont lighters, $250 hand made hair or tooth brushes, or collection of high end swiss watches (and I am not talking the pedestrian Rolex here...think Lange, Patek, F.P. Journe), no $500 Brigg umbrellas...or elite bording school for your kids, no silver tip badger hair shaving brushes...no no

With 250K household income your still shopping at the stop and shop...your still getting your dunks in the morning, and maybe stopping at the golden arches at night..heck you really shouldn't even be buying a second hand 911 with that much income and instead just drive around in an Accord EXL...maybe you could splurge for a CTS-V....your kids are still in public school, and your house should cost less than a million, so no martini shaped pool or gated entryway....

 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: bozack
To anyone who says 250K is "rich", I emplore you to go to any major metropolitan area and live a luxurious life on that....maybe if your taste is simple it is "enough"...but it isn't MTV cribs, no solid gold lighters or collection of Rolex watches...heck you really shouldn't even be buying a second hand 911 with that much income.

Yep again.

"Go to college! Produce! Earn that money before you have a family!"

Obama - SMACK DOWN!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Too much ignorant BS and FUD in this thread from people who don't make anywhere near $250k.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,156
136
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: spidey07
Yep. You can just see the jealousy and envy in any thread that has to do with "kill the rich!"

But Obama has followed his training. Sadly people are eating it up.

Yeah but the irony is that now the "rich" really aren't that rich....it isn't like we are talking the monarchs of olden days...instead we are fleecing those who barely make it into the category of "upper income earner"....

To anyone who says 250K is "rich", I emplore you to go to any major metropolitan area and live a luxurious life on that....maybe if your taste is simple it is "enough"...but it isn't MTV cribs, no solid gold ST Dupont lighters, $250 hand made hair or tooth brushes, or collection of high end swiss watches (and I am not talking the pedestrian Rolex here...think Lange, Patek, F.P. Journe), no $500 Brigg umbrellas...or elite bording school for your kids, no silver tip badger hair shaving brushes...no no

With 250K household income your still shopping at the stop and shop...your still getting your dunks in the morning, and maybe stopping at the golden arches at night..heck you really shouldn't even be buying a second hand 911 with that much income and instead just drive around in an Accord EXL...maybe you could splurge for a CTS-V....your kids are still in public school, and your house should cost less than a million, so no martini shaped pool or gated entryway....

The median household income for Boston is about $47,000 a year.

If you are making $250,000, you are making 500% of what the average person is making, but you want to claim that you're middle class. Suuuuuure you are. Furthermore, the top 20% make approximately $175,000 a year. If we're just going to go on a rough estimate of that, $250,000 probably puts you somewhere around the top 15-10% of all income earners for the area. So yes, even in one of the wealthiest areas in the entire country $250,000 is still pretty damn rich.

I won't even get into the fact that high housing costs and high income aren't really a problem as you are building equity that you could take to a lower cost place in the future... etc... etc. For some reason people don't want to admit they are rich. They should be happy, shouldn't they? They make more money than NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of all Americans. That's something to be proud of.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The median household income for Boston is about $47,000 a year.

If you are making $250,000, you are making 500% of what the average person is making, but you want to claim that you're middle class. Suuuuuure you are. Furthermore, the top 20% make approximately $175,000 a year. If we're just going to go on a rough estimate of that, $250,000 probably puts you somewhere around the top 15-10% of all income earners for the area. So yes, even in one of the wealthiest areas in the entire country $250,000 is still pretty damn rich.

I won't even get into the fact that high housing costs and high income aren't really a problem as you are building equity that you could take to a lower cost place in the future... etc... etc. For some reason people don't want to admit they are rich. They should be happy, shouldn't they? They make more money than NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of all Americans. That's something to be proud of.

Even with the median being around 50K the reality is $200K wouldn't be "rich" unless your just talking a statistic...like I said $250K doesn't buy you shit in this town...you couldn't even consider a beacon hill brownstone with that little income, maybe you could get an apartment in the back bay and drive a five series...but you're certainly not "rolling in it"

The term rich is used far to liberally here....these people might be better off than most, but they are not at all rich...heck technically my wife and I are considered upper middle but in this state we are anything but unless we moved to somewhere like Springfield and then our pay would go down...

And given the state of the housing market I think many bought into the whole equity shell game only to have it kick them in the ass...and who really wants to move to a lower cost place in the future unless you are near death?

Personally I wouldn't be proud of that at all...well maybe if I was making only $249K but that would be more about squeaking past the Obama penalty :)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
For the millionth time, rich isn't income. It's assets. So that argument is stupid and pointless.

And houses are pretty cheap in Boston now. I'm writing up short sales there almost daily. I'm certain you could live just fine there on $250k/yr.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I'm shedding a lot of croc tears lately.

For $250k/year earners.

For assault weapon owners.

For Republicans.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, rich isn't income. It's assets. So that argument is stupid and pointless.

And houses are pretty cheap in Boston now. I'm writing up short sales there almost daily. I'm certain you could live just fine there on $250k/yr.

You could live fine but still does not make you rich. Unless you think 250k a year for a family lets your drive a Ferrari and own a plane. Rich is someone worth millions of dollars like your buddy Al Gore. A family of 4 I say 250k is not rich.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,156
136
Originally posted by: bozack

Even with the median being around 50K the reality is $200K wouldn't be "rich" unless your just talking a statistic...like I said $250K doesn't buy you shit in this town...you couldn't even consider a beacon hill brownstone with that little income, maybe you could get an apartment in the back bay and drive a five series...but you're certainly not "rolling in it"

The term rich is used far to liberally here....these people might be better off than most, but they are not at all rich...heck technically my wife and I are considered upper middle but in this state we are anything but unless we moved to somewhere like Springfield and then our pay would go down...

And given the state of the housing market I think many bought into the whole equity shell game only to have it kick them in the ass...and who really wants to move to a lower cost place in the future unless you are near death?

Personally I wouldn't be proud of that at all...well maybe if I was making only $249K but that would be more about squeaking past the Obama penalty :)

Wow, if $250,000 doesn't buy you shit in that town, all those people at the median income must be living in boxes, clubbing rats in order to survive with 1/5th the money. Studies have frequently shown that people almost never consider themselves rich, they always think that in order to be rich they must be approximately twice as wealthy as they actually are.

And yes, those people are better off than most. To be more precise, in terms of income they are better off than 98 out of 100 people.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, rich isn't income. It's assets. So that argument is stupid and pointless.

And houses are pretty cheap in Boston now. I'm writing up short sales there almost daily. I'm certain you could live just fine there on $250k/yr.

Yet everyone loves to point out just how rich people are who make X amount of dollars per year....

Bet you will be writing up more as time goes on with the foreclosure rates rising...if Obama does pass his prescription bill and it hurts biotech there will be even more people out of work in this area.

And sure, and individual at 250K/year in this area is doing well...family of four I would argue is still pretty broke
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Wow, if $250,000 doesn't buy you shit in that town, all those people at the median income must be living in boxes, clubbing rats in order to survive with 1/5th the money. Studies have frequently shown that people almost never consider themselves rich, they always think that in order to be rich they must be approximately twice as wealthy as they actually are.

And yes, those people are better off than most. To be more precise, in terms of income they are better off than 98 out of 100 people.

Like I said, you're not owning any notable real estate in boston proper for that little income...and most of the ppl making 40K don't live in any great shakes in Boston, they live in Somerville, Dorchester, Southie, or one of the burbs and typically in either a two, three family or apartment that is on the border of being run down.

And I would say that rich is all about perception...and until one owns their own jet, has a castle, or a fleet of ferrari's I am hard pressed to consider them "rich"....anyone working for a paycheck to pay their bills IMHO is anything but rich.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, rich isn't income. It's assets. So that argument is stupid and pointless.

And houses are pretty cheap in Boston now. I'm writing up short sales there almost daily. I'm certain you could live just fine there on $250k/yr.

You could live fine but still does not make you rich. Unless you think 250k a year for a family lets your drive a Ferrari and own a plane. Rich is someone worth millions of dollars like your buddy Al Gore. A family of 4 I say 250k is not rich.

There's something weird about being insulted and called wrong by someone who is too stupid to realize they were agreeing with you.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, rich isn't income. It's assets. So that argument is stupid and pointless.

And houses are pretty cheap in Boston now. I'm writing up short sales there almost daily. I'm certain you could live just fine there on $250k/yr.

You could live fine but still does not make you rich. Unless you think 250k a year for a family lets your drive a Ferrari and own a plane. Rich is someone worth millions of dollars like your buddy Al Gore. A family of 4 I say 250k is not rich.

There's something weird about being insulted and called wrong by someone who is too stupid to realize they were agreeing with you.

Yep my bad I quoted the wrong post.

 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
It's also hiding a "marriage penalty".

I for one love the marriage penalty in his plan.
For someone like me who's single and falls in the $125-200k range, it doesn't affect me.

If his plan cut off at $125k instead of $200k, I'd owe more taxes and lose many deductions.

Looks like I'll be postponing getting married for the next 10 years. I don't have a girlfriend so it doesn't matter anyway.
I figure my dad married my mom at the age of 32, so there's no need for me to hurry into it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,156
136
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: spidey07
It's also hiding a "marriage penalty".

I for one love the marriage penalty in his plan.
For someone like me who's single and falls in the $125-200k range, it doesn't affect me.

If his plan cut off at $125k instead of $200k, I'd owe more taxes and lose many deductions.

Looks like I'll be postponing getting married for the next 10 years. I don't have a girlfriend so it doesn't matter anyway.
I figure my dad married my mom at the age of 32, so there's no need for me to hurry into it.

The fact that you're basing your decision to get married on the associated tax benefits might have more to do with why you don't have a girlfriend than you think.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Obama does have little guys talking to ground, I witness it. But it's more a function of rabid ideology and current market reality. To claim a rational person will not make 1 million and rather scale down to 250K because the 750K gain they ordinarily would have made is going to be taxed 6% higher is just lunacy and a partisan piece..
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: spidey07
It's also hiding a "marriage penalty".

I for one love the marriage penalty in his plan.
For someone like me who's single and falls in the $125-200k range, it doesn't affect me.

If his plan cut off at $125k instead of $200k, I'd owe more taxes and lose many deductions.

Looks like I'll be postponing getting married for the next 10 years. I don't have a girlfriend so it doesn't matter anyway.
I figure my dad married my mom at the age of 32, so there's no need for me to hurry into it.

The fact that you're basing your decision to get married on the associated tax benefits might have more to do with why you don't have a girlfriend than you think.

Who says I was ever looking for one?
I'm only 23 and have a decade to find one.

Sorry if I'm not joining the latest bandwagon of getting a shotgun marriage at the age of 20-22 that most people seem to be doing nowadays.
It just doesn't make any sense.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Obama does have little guys talking to ground, I witness it. But it's more a function of rabid ideology and current market reality. To claim a rational person will not make 1 million and rather scale down to 250K because the 750K gain they ordinarily would have made is going to be taxed 6% higher is just lunacy and a partisan piece..

I agree.

The quote by Rainsford(one of the most intelligent posters on P&N) applies here.
And yet despite how oppressed the rich folks are, being rich remains a popular activity. And I bet you could search the rest of your life and not find a poor person who's staying poor because the tax breaks are so excellent.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: winnar111
I am talking about you need to relax and stop the panicking, "the end of the world" threads. your cowardice is sickening.

And the economy under Clinton? What are you talking about? Say what you want but it was good. We actually balanced the budget, had low unemployment, growth all over the place. Where were you, hiding out in your back woods cabin ?

I have no idea why you are bringing up the economy of the 90s and crediting it to the government of the 90s, when we're not following the government of the 90s at all.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I have no idea what specifically has been written in this big thread, but I get the sense that the moron "rich person" cited in the OP doesn't realize that it's CERTAIN that someone with a taxable income over $250k will retain more after-tax dollars than if that same person had taxable income of less than $250k So why on earth would someone strive to have a lower income? Are they suicidal?

The ONLY circumstance where having a dollar more of taxable income can cost you more than a dollar of extra tax is when you're looking up your tax in the tax table (which anyone with taxable income above $100,000 does NOT do) and an extra dollar of income throws you into the next-higher interval. For example, the tax on $999 is $99, whereas the tax on $1000 is $101.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Obama does have little guys talking to ground, I witness it. But it's more a function of rabid ideology and current market reality. To claim a rational person will not make 1 million and rather scale down to 250K because the 750K gain they ordinarily would have made is going to be taxed 6% higher is just lunacy and a partisan piece..

If you actually bothered to read the article you will see that this isn't about those making upwards of $300,000.....rather it deals with those whose income is just about at the threshold....so families who might make $255-$260 a year....these are the people who might opt to change their lifestyle for a better quality (as in CPA's case one spouse stopps working) instead of being as productive...and personally if I were in their boat I would consider much the same and commend those that do this...

With regards to those making upwards of 300K, as Eskimo loves to point out they are in the vast minority...Obama was targeting the bulk of the so called wealthy with the 250K figure, my guess is that if everyone or alot start working less or using ways to account differently that puts them under the mark his plan won't rake in nearly as much as he was hoping for.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: alchemize
The truth is that if Obama really wants to get after the "wealth" of this country and pass it on to the poor downtrodden masses, it doesn't happen on income tax.

Super-rich people are completely sheltered. Their income comes from a) tax free funds like muni bonds b) capital gains from the assets they own. They don't draw a salary or a paycheck.

truely this.

it isn't the people earning 500k a year that is throw off the economy, is these sort of people that cause the havoc, pay shit for taxes, and reap all the benefits.

The Kennedy's Trust comes to mind... Ted has no clue what money is.
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
http://abcnews.go.com/Business...tory?id=6975547&page=1

President Barack Obama's tax proposal ? which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

So far, Obama's tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

"We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

"This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."

Obama's budget proposal calls for $989 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, most of which will be earned from increased taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 and from families who make more than $250,000.
The expiration of the Bush administration's tax cuts at the end of 2010 would garner an estimated $338 billion, $179 billion would come from the elimination of some itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers and $118 billion would be brought in from a hike in the capital gains tax. The remaining $353 billion would come from taxes on businesses.

Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.

"I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."

"Generally it means being less productive," she said.

"The motivation for a lot of people like me ? dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers ? is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."

Gary Schatsky, a financial adviser and the president of N.Y.-based Objectiveadvice.com, said that it is possible to successfully remove yourself from the bracket Obama plans to target in his new plan.

"It's very possible that there are plenty of things you can do with general tax planning techniques ? attempting to recognizes loses, pushing gains to years when your income is lower and increasing retirement plan contributions ? to come below $250,000," said Schatsky.

"If the value of all your itemized deductions goes from a 33 percent level to a 28 percent level than there would be a reason for people to do dramatic things to reduce their incomes," said Schatsky.

But Colorado dentist Poczatek says those who support the increase in taxes misunderstand what it means for those who will end up paying more.

"I'd like these people to know that we pay a lot of taxes, and have been paying a lot of taxes through the past administration," said Pcozatek.

"We make a lot of money, it's true, but we also already pay a lot of taxes," she said.

"So maybe we got a little bit successful but we worked very hard," she said. "It's taken us over 30 years and it didn't happen overnight. Every day is a lot of work.

"We're working for it and we're still overtaxed."



Welcome to the new USA: Where hard work only matters to a limit and it makes more sense to work less and/or have a spouse quit work than it does to be a 'maker of things'. Instead you can be a maker of less things.

I know numerous 2 income families in this ballpark. They're certainly preparing for the class war Zero has declared.

Good for these people; they are preserving the American dream.

Please, tell them to ask the 50,000 UBS clients how to sidestep taxes.