We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

Seriously, you would be surprised to know how hard it is these days in the $150k - $200k range if you are supporting a family.

I am not inherently against paying slightly higher taxes. The problem is that the govt seems to think that higher taxes is always the solution. When was the last time the govt cut any spending? The govt creates a problem by taking taxes (i.e. people can no longer afford to send their kids to college). Then they "solve" the problem by creating a wasteful govt program (subsidized student loans). Then when the program is totally mismanaged like they all are, they accrue more national debt which leads to future higher taxes. How about cutting down all these wasteful programs, lowering taxes, and let me pay for my kids tuition by myself?

I work in the defense sector. You may be surprised to know that I think defense needs to take a big cut. There is a huge amount of waste in defense. I don't think that we should shrink our military power however. That may seem contradictory. Let me just give you a couple examples. While I think we need to keep building advanced aircraft and ships, etc I do not think that the chow hall needs to have their menu on a plasma TV. How about a piece of paper instead? The office I work in has 5 people sitting in it. There are 6 nonsecure computers all with dual monitor setups for our "business only" use. The only business purpose I have for that machine is to enter my timecard (which I can do with our company computer or at home). To maintain those machines (and the many other wasteful internet connected time-sucks in the building) there is a staff of IT contractors. It goes on and on. All govt agencies are like this.

When the defense cuts come, most likely my salary will stagnate or be severely cut (or I will get laid off). But the military will go on purchasing new computers every 2 years, plasma TVs to use as menu displays, etc. This is where our tax dollars are going and why I don't want to pay any more taxes.

The government spent a trillion dollars on stimulus. Did you see anything in your community change (roads, infrastructure, etc)?

My recent experiences with govt have been DMV and INS (my wife attained US citizenship). Have you seen the buildings they work in? Brand new giant buildings with nice architecture and large office spaces. The company I work for (a Fortune 500 company) has shitty little cubicles and bad parking. Why does the govt lavish itself with these new buildings?

Many of us who earn what should be a good living are getting tired of this crap and that's why we don't want to pay more. Cut down the govt spending first and then I would be happy to pitch in a few extra percent to help pay down the debt those drunken fools ran up.

Another very interesting thing i've noticed in this thread.

Every single person calling out the OP in this thread is telling him that he needs to SPEND LESS money. Not one single person has advocated that he go out and make more.

If so many people realize that SPENDING LESS is the solution for families with tight budgets, then why can we not agree that cutting the federal budget has to be the main way of solving the debt crisis?

The question isn't whether someone making $250k has as much money as a billionaire - they obviously do not. The question is whether those making $250k and up can afford to pay the same level of tax as they did under Clinton in order to make sure that our country can lower the deficit.

If you are truly a patriot - you would have no problem with paying a few percentage points more in taxes.

Smooth Daddy you are either a TROLL or dumber than dirt or both.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

No one has any business passing judgment on how much money anyone else should need.

When someone in this thread states the OP is spending beyond his means, this is a fact born out by what little info we have - this isn't a judgement.

When someone in this thread states that unhappy people at all SES levels complain about the wealth of the people just above them on the rung of the ladder, this is a fact born out of much research evidence, but it is not a judgement on the OP.

When the OP supporters claim that anyone that disagrees with them are stupid, lazy, and jealous. These are judgements.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

I'll bet most of you would LOVE to have more money.

What part of "many people simply do not strive to be wealthy - that just simply isn't a priority" did you not understand? If we LOVED to make more money, we would. But we chose to employ our intelligence and hard work in a career that we find intellectually or socially or emotionally satisfying in regions of the country that have a high quality of life. I know, I just spoke Chinese to you and I cannot expect you to understand.

That and you, the OP, and all the OP's supporters on this thread are the biggest bunch of nancy boy pussie whiners in the long history of nancy boy pussie whiners on the LRC threads. You well deserve all the verbal abuse that posters have given you and more.

$250k/year not rich? Tell that to a cop, a fireman, a teacher.

20 Trillion wrote:

There is an idealogical split in this argument that is never going to be resolved.

The true progressives in this thread clearly have a problem with the OP and others with similar incomes passing their wealth on to their children. They whine about how he has too many kids, he is spoiling them, and that he doesn't need to pay for all of their college educations. These progressives would like to see the OP taxed to the point that he can provide very little advantages for his children compared to an "average" family. The progressives think its wrong for privilege to be passed from generation to generation.

NO THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. You make 250 grand, great, you can do a lot with that money. If you want to buy 5 new cars, put your kids through college, support your mother in law, go ahead. HOWEVER, that's a choice you're making. You are free to spend your money however you want, but don't go and complain about how tough you have it. You don't have it tough, you just lack good personal finance skills.

And no, to the other people, household finance is not analogous to national finance. If I cut my spending, for instance, I don't have to worry about creating a recession within my household.

The economy thrived under Clinton-era taxation rates; federal taxes are at their lowest since the 1950s; a mixture of increased revenue and spending cuts is required to reform the budget; OP will only pay a few hundred more in taxes under the Clinton rates and is the beneficiary of all sorts of tax breaks not available to the lower middle class; he needs some serious help to get his own budget under control; and very few feel particularly sorry for him.

End of thread

meatandveggies wrote:

My wife and I make a combined $220K annually. With kids in college and supporting my aging father, there's not a lot extra around here. I also am sick and tired of the "class warfare" mentality that permeates our country. So what if I make more than you? Perhaps it is because I studied my a$$ off in JuCo, then transfered to state school on a scholarship, still racked up student debt, studied while you partied, and worked some stinking long hours to get ahead while you ran your 100 mile weeks. We all make choices. You are where you are because of your choices; I am where I am because of mine. So don't be jealous of my success if you didn't put in the work that I did.

No one, or very few, begrudge you for your success (I know I don't). But you can't talk about putting kids through college and supporting your aging father and act as if you don't make a lot because of those expenses. "You are where you are because of your choices." Damn straight. You're choosing to send you kids to college (I doubt in-state schools) and you're choosing to support your father (who incidentally chose to be irresponsible and not save up for later in life).

Yikes, there's a lot of vitriol on this thread.

Look, OP, I make a little more than 1/10th what you make. I'm young and single and my income is only going to go up, in all likelihood.

I'm not jealous of you. I'm glad you make a good living. I confess to being a little confused about how you make that kind of income without apparently having any idea how deductions and marginal rates work (unless of course your 250k quoted earnings refers to your income post-deductions). Nonetheless, I bear you no ill will.

However, I think it's abject nonsense that returning to highest marginal rate under Clinton is somehow an inconceivable act of class warfare. As several have pointed out, for every 1000 dollars you earn at the highest marginal rate, the expiration of the Bush/Obama tax cut (Bush's idea, Obama extended 'em) will cost you an additional 46 dollars. Regardless of what you're spending, an additional $46 dollars above what you pay now on income above the threshold for the highest marginal rate should not be breaking your bank.

That being said, of course the US needs to reduce spending. Any person being intellectually honest could tell you the mess we're in is going to require additional revenue and lower spending.

At the same time, the top earners in this country pay less in taxes than at almost any other time in US history. We have a more lopsided income distribution than is ideal for economic growth. Absolutely, some inequality is necessary. Yet, social mobility in the US is now lower than Sweden. I don't think this is good for America's long-term economic stability. I don't like the demonization of the poor any better than I like the demonization of the rich, either. There are tons of hard-working people who love their jobs and are never going to make 250k a year. Most of these people have no problem with that, but there's no need for the top earners to sneer at these people, either.

If tax rates and revenue as a percentage of GDP were at all time highs and America still had high degrees of social mobility, I would not support higher marginal tax rates, even though my income is way, way less than the OP's. But the fact of the matter is that tax rates are near their lowest points historically and the capacity of a hard-workin' average Joe to rise up a statistically significant amount in the income distribution is below that same capacity for an average Sven in Sweden.

Yes, we need to cut spending. But yes- we need to raise revenues. Since middle- and lower-class incomes have stagnated and upper-class incomes have skyrocketed in the last few decades, well, you can understand why the tax cut expiration is going to impact top earners more than middle and bottom earners.

attack of the zombie fetuses wrote:

How do you transfer wealth from the bottom? There's no wealth to xfer.

..

Because there are so many more people on the bottom.

To use a democratic party example - how much money do you think has been transfered to John Kerry's wife from poor people buying Heinz ketchup?

20 Trillion wrote:

Another very interesting thing i've noticed in this thread.

Every single person calling out the OP in this thread is telling him that he needs to SPEND LESS money. Not one single person has advocated that he go out and make more.

If so many people realize that SPENDING LESS is the solution for families with tight budgets, then why can we not agree that cutting the federal budget has to be the main way of solving the debt crisis?

No, because the people who elect the government desire government services.

No Taxes wrote:

I do not wish to work for the benefit of a society that regards me as a slave.

Let the country go bankrupt. See what I care.

If you think that paying a 39% marginal tax rate is the same as being a slave - you need to do a little reading up on slavery.

[quote]20 Trillion wrote:

There is an idealogical split in this argument that is never going to be resolved.

The true progressives in this thread clearly have a problem with the OP and others with similar incomes passing their wealth on to their children. They whine about how he has too many kids, he is spoiling them, and that he doesn't need to pay for all of their college educations. These progressives would like to see the OP taxed to the point that he can provide very little advantages for his children compared to an "average" family. The progressives think its wrong for privilege to be passed from generation to generation./quote]

How many posters have done this on this thread? Please show me where.

[quote]michael t. smith wrote:

$250k/year not rich? Tell that to a cop, a fireman, a teacher.

[quote]

Oddly enough, a couple years ago I was looking for a home in Las Vegas. Having not understood how far the market had fallen, I was looking in the $350-500k range (I was coming from VA). At that time the houses in that range were all houses that had previously been in the $1 million range. Very nice homes...5000 sq ft with immaculate interiors, large yards, beautiful landscaping, etc.

Almost every home I looked at had been owned by a fireman or policeman. My realtor told me those guys (once they get their overtime in) are making very big annual salaries. Probably only a little north of $100k per year, but I guess these guys thought they could afford million dollar houses.

These homes were far beyond what I needed. I adjusted my price range down significantly.

I don't feel sorry for cops and firemen who thought they should live like millionaires, many of whom now want a taxpayer bailout for their poor financial choices.

$250K/year is rich, period. Plenty of people are supporting parents and kids in college off of fractions of what you make. You have been "successful" in life and absolutely deserve to do whatever you would like with your money (honestly, no grudge here), but please don't say that you're not rich. Try having all of those responsibilities making $100,000/year, and that salary is even quite a bit higher than average.

A SEPARATE argument from that is whether we should increase taxes on amounts over $250K/year, and there are smart economists who say yes and smart economists who say no.

Yeah dude, the reason America is f'd up right now is because of people like you, not Barack Obama. You live n'r rich. End of story. You're the kind of dude who would end up with a big fat $0.00 in savings at the end of the month whether you made 40K or 400K a year. Plain and simple. You're not rich or a billionaire... you just can't manage your money.

Since nobody seems to be reading anyone else's arguments on this thread I suggest you check this out. It is the most logical, moderate, fair points on this entire thread. It's not class warfare - it's sound economic policy.

Why not? Because the federal budget is nothing like a family budget. The government has to spend to keep the economy going, and when its spending creates jobs, those jobs create tax revenue, paying the government back for its original investment (while also giving people a bit more dignity that some shrill call to just SPEND LESS). And, anyhow, when's the last time some family in your neighborhood repaved the streets or bought new textbooks for the local school?