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

History Buffy wrote:

There is no "illusion". Facts are facts.

The "eat the rich" crowd are using statistics to misrepresent the truth about the undeniably negative relationship between taxes and economic growth.

Everyone has a right to b*tch. Instead of calling the guy out, just simply state you don't agree with him. Don't bash the guy for supporting a family.

I, for one, understand where he's coming from.

There's nothing wrong with trying to pursue the American dream. But in today's world, it's getting harder and harder to achieve.

My parents were not rich. They never had any money. But were still able to put me and my brothers through college. They made decent money, not as much as the OP though. So I understand that he wants the dream and it's really not achievable for him unless he moves somewhere where living is cheap.

$250k in Chicago, LA, NYC is probably = to $75k in Iowa, ND, etc. It's all relative.

For real? Your choices have you where you are. My wife and I (and two children) are in a very similar situation, but do not live anywhere near our means. Yes, we have a nice life, but not excessive.

You chose to have children. You chose to take care of your mother-in-law. You chose to pay for your entire family's car insurance and whatever other expenses you have. You can also choose to take a job that pays less so that you don't pay more in taxes. Trust me, the only people who are going to empathize with you are those making as much or more than you. And that's only 1%, and not even all of us will agree with your complaining.

This isn't about judging you, this is about pointing out that you're whining b/c you make more than 99% of the people in this country. Suck it up and get your spending in control and stop looking for pity, especially on a running site.

Agree with the OP.

Also, please change the tax code to reflect regional cost of living differences.

Income of $250k in high cost areas is not nearly the same as in smaller cities or rural areas.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

The "eat the rich" crowd are using statistics to misrepresent the truth about the undeniably negative relationship between taxes and economic growth.

You sound like that Romney adviser who said they wouldn't let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

" Would you recommend purchasing an American card assembled in Mexico or Canada? "

Haven't bought any American cards lately so I couldn't tell ya.

As for American cars though, I'd suggest you buy one of the thousands built in MI, OH, and IL every year.

cut spending wrote:

2000 Revenues were buoyed by the massive dot.com stock market bubble.

two sides to the coin, baby:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

So Clinton's balanced budget didn't count, because of the dot com bubble, but Bush's feint positives, meek as they were, DID count, even though much of it was thanks to the real estate bubble.

Right. I hear you loud and clear.

I agree with the OP wrote:

$250k in Chicago, LA, NYC is probably = to $75k in Iowa, ND, etc. It's all relative.

Cost of living in Iowa vs Manhattan is about 2.25x. Not 3.3x. And if you're making $250k in Iowa or North Dakota, you are just richer.

I know people that make due with $50k income in NYC. $250k is still a buttload of money there.

Average income depending on sources in Manhattan, is $50-90k. So, if you're making $250k in Manhattan, you still have $160k more than the average joe. You tell me if having $160k laying around each year is "rich".

What could $160k each year buy. A fuggin Ferrari. A decent vacation home, paid in full EACH YEAR! If you make $250k anywhere in the US, you are rich!

michiganxcrunner wrote:

" Would you recommend purchasing an American card assembled in Mexico or Canada? "

Haven't bought any American cards lately so I couldn't tell ya.

As for American cars though, I'd suggest you buy one of the thousands built in MI, OH, and IL every year.

What's wrong with the ones assembled in Mexico and Canada?

You buy plenty of cars which cost less than a Prius perform betterm nore economical (diesel) and are less crap. I bet you bought it new as well

History Buffy wrote:

You sound like that Romney adviser who said they wouldn't let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

You sound like a liberal idiot who doesn't care to acknowledge that scientific theories are attempts to integrate facts and that the mere use of a fact within your argument doesn't validate its conclusion if you fail to follow the laws of logic.

History Buffy wrote:

You sound like that Romney adviser who said they wouldn't let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

Exactly.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

You sound like a liberal idiot who doesn't care to acknowledge that scientific theories are attempts to integrate facts and that the mere use of a fact within your argument doesn't validate its conclusion if you fail to follow the laws of logic.

Then folks like you who ignore facts AND logic are really screwed.

History Buffy wrote:

You sound like that Romney adviser who said they wouldn't let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

You sound like a liberal idiot who doesn't care to acknowledge that scientific theories are attempts to integrate facts and that the mere use of a fact within your argument doesn't validate its conclusion if you fail to follow the laws of logic.

I may sound like a liberal idiot, but I can assure you that I am neither. And I wasn't talking about any theories. I was referring to history. You cannot deny history. That is the epitome of logic.

"Undeniably negative relationship between taxes and econmoic growth" So you KNOW this to be true for every type of tax in every situation?? Really!

Smooth Daddy wrote:

History Buffy wrote:

There is no "illusion". Facts are facts.

The "eat the rich" crowd are using statistics to misrepresent the truth about the undeniably negative relationship between taxes and economic growth.

I'll respectively disagree with you on that. If you're making $50k a year, you are NOT living in Manhattan. A CHEAP studio in Manhattan is $2,200/mo. Think about having a place for a family of 5??? Has to be at LEAST $7,500/mo.

Also you have to realize that if you make $250k a year, you still have to pay taxes. So he wouldn't have $160k 'laying around'. He would have 160k - taxes.

And once you have a family, you have multiple extra expenses. There's no room to be buying vacation homes and ferrari's. That would be stupid/foolish expenses.

My point in all of this is that $250k a year is NOT rich everywhere. Sure, it can be. But for people living in certain areas, it definitely is not.

OP doesn't understand how a graduated tax system works. That, or he doesn't understand that taxable income is not what you gross, income tax is calculated net of adjustments and deductions. It's a mystery to me how people could file returns for decades and still not understand this.

If you made more - grossed $300-400k, you'd probably see a bit of an increase in taxes. It would be about $1000 bucks. You've just lived through a ten year period of some of the lowest tax rates ever seen. Suck it up and stop being such a whiny bitch. Think of what you'll children will pay some day because folks like yourself are reluctant to own all the shit we blew up the national debt with over the last 30yrs.

TLW wrote:

This has to be a troll.

If you made 500k you would have 8 cars, 6 kids and complain your poor.

You are the problem.

You're the problem. Remove yourself from life.

Nothing in OP's post is wrong. My parents had 5 kids and made half as much. You're the troll or you're just very jealous of success and an Obama supporter.

I rescind my earlier statement.

10/10.