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

Conundrum wrote:

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

Yes. Since economic growth is the result of capital investment, it necessarily follows that any diminishment of the amount of capital available will arrest economic growth. The forgoing is true by definition. It can be known by anyone who is willing to know it. Your problem is that you refuse to see.

He earns his money people so get off his back. Those that can't read he said 5car insurances not cars. Is it not the American dream to be successful? You democrats have made financial success a thing to be scorned.

This cat is wrong. The US has a marginal tax system. Someone with a taxable income of 250,000 is in the marginal tax bracket of 33%. They don't pay 33% on the whole 250,000-only on the amount that exceeds the next lower tax bracket. For a married couple-they pay 10% on the first 17,400, 15% on the income from 17,400 to 70,700, 25% on the income from 70,700 to 142,700, 28% from 142,700 to 217,450 and 33% from 217,450 to 383,000. Above 383K, it's 35%.So, lets take the OP. Say he makes 250,000 and has 3 kids. Assume he has 400,000 mortgage, at 5%. That deducts 20 grand of interest. Then his state property tax is probably around $5000 per year-fully deductible. He and his wife are eligible to deduct 22,000 in 401k-since they are over 50-that's 44,000. The exemption for each family member is 3800-so thats another 19,000 off the top. So our friend's taxable income of the 250K easily could be 162,000. Using the marginal rates above-his tax bill is 33,139. That is 13.2 percent of 250,000. Something else to consider, if his kids are under 18, they give him a credit of 1000 each. That drops his bill to 30,139-that's 12%. And I am not even touching on the 10 grand worth of tax free medical insurance he is probably compensated with.I am in a similar situation-my wife and I make 160,000. My federal tax bill is about 10 grand a year. That's 6.25%-not anywhere near the 28% bracket my unadjusted income resides in. If ya'll want to bitch about tax rates-at least get the numbers correct within a factor of 4 or so.

Hipsterlosers wrote:

The gross tax liability for someone making $250,000 at 36% rate is $90,000 per year; at 33% it is $82,500 per year. .

And, this is before state and local taxes. In the midst of your 90 mile weeks, most of you letsrunners and google plus-ers forget that the real world runs on money, and it's the the higher earners in this country that carry us.

Not only do they provide the most jobs, but they pay for all your shit. I'm tired of seeing them demonized and their contributions discounted. This administration's victimization and entitlement mentality is a cancer that has swept the nation and is on course to erase much of the superior shit about America that you take for granted.

k24 wrote:

Wow you guys are really confirming my views on the middle lower class. Most of you (whether you'll admit it or not) are a bunch of whiny bitches who are jealous of those you make more than you. You think they are spoiled and should have to shoulder the burden of the country's enormous debt and when you see them driving a Lexus, you think they aren't paying enough taxes.

How about this. Did you ever consider that the wealthy are much smarter and/or hard working than you so maybe they deserve a nicer life style? The $250,000 - $400,000 tax bracket are the most taken advantage of people in the country. Many of them are like the op with huge tuition bills and zero help.

Accept your lifestyle and don't be jealous of those with better jobs.

Ding ding ding winnah!!!

Don't worry about losing too much money to Obama or trying to oppose Obama's political/social agendas by voting or other worldy means. Trying to fight Barack (Lighting) O(from)bamah (heaven/high places) by human means only strengthens him, but by prayer to the true God, the Lord Jesus Christ, we can save our souls and possibly those of others around us from the Enemy.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Since economic growth is the result of capital investment, it necessarily follows that any diminishment of the amount of capital available will arrest economic growth.

Economic growth is primarily the result of spending by consumers. If it was the result of available capital alone, the economy would be currently humming along quite nicely given the vast amounts of corporate capital now available.

I agree with the OP wrote:

I'll respectively disagree with you on that. If you're making $50k a year, you are NOT living in Manhattan.

There are 1.6 million people that live in Manhattan, and you're saying that all of the make well above $50,000 per year?

A quick reference guide states:

"The median income for a household in the county was $47,030, and the median income for a family was $50,229. Males had a median income of $51,856 versus $45,712 for females. The per capita income for the county was $42,922. About 17.6% of families and 20% of the population were below the poverty line, including 31.8% of those under age 18 and 18.9% of those age 65 or over."

Which suggests that there are plenty of people in Manhattan who make less than $50,000 per year.

This is terrible. I'll get back to you when I finish crying you a river...need to go to the pharmacy and buy another box of kleenex.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I agree with the OP wrote:

I'll respectively disagree with you on that. If you're making $50k a year, you are NOT living in Manhattan.

There are 1.6 million people that live in Manhattan, and you're saying that all of the make well above $50,000 per year?

A quick reference guide states:

"The median income for a household in the county was $47,030, and the median income for a family was $50,229. Males had a median income of $51,856 versus $45,712 for females. The per capita income for the county was $42,922. About 17.6% of families and 20% of the population were below the poverty line, including 31.8% of those under age 18 and 18.9% of those age 65 or over."

Which suggests that there are plenty of people in Manhattan who make less than $50,000 per year.

Yeah, they're living off the taxes on people over $250k. Living in Manhattan < $50k means that you're in the ghetto or subsidized housing if you have a family.

biologist, chemist, physicist, etc. are the smartest & hardest people I know and make the biggest contributions to bettering society. yet only a handful of them are making >250K...so you're assumption that the rich are "just smarter & work harder" is totally off base IMO.

k24 wrote:

Wow you guys are really confirming my views on the middle lower class. Most of you (whether you'll admit it or not) are a bunch of whiny bitches who are jealous of those you make more than you. You think they are spoiled and should have to shoulder the burden of the country's enormous debt and when you see them driving a Lexus, you think they aren't paying enough taxes.

How about this. Did you ever consider that the wealthy are much smarter and/or hard working than you so maybe they deserve a nicer life style? The $250,000 - $400,000 tax bracket are the most taken advantage of people in the country. Many of them are like the op with huge tuition bills and zero help.

Accept your lifestyle and don't be jealous of those with better jobs.

I agree with the OP wrote:

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.

I looked up some more stats.

Median Manhattan income, $64k. Mean Manhattan income, $121k.

No matter what stat you choose, a person making $250k has at least $129k more income than the average person in Manhattan.

$129k is a sh!tload of money. You could buy two Benz's outright, every year, and drive them into the Hudson.

If you make $250k anywhere, you are rich.

Yea dude im sure obama will hear you on the letsrun messageboard. IDIOT im pretty sure there are a ton of billionaires in the u.s. to tax and get our debt down.

Yea dude im sure obama will hear you on the letsrun messageboard. IDIOT im pretty sure there are a ton of billionaires in the u.s. to tax and get our debt down.

Forget the Kleenex, go straight to the Kotex aisle.

To the OP...you are rich. Quit complaining. You own your home, own numerous cars, are able to pay for your kids' college and can pay all your bills. You are the one who decided to have kids, give them each a car and pay for their college. That is being a good dad, so congrats, but you are also extremely wealthy. Go talk with people who make 1/4 of what you make and see how they are living, if they can buy their kids cars and if they can pay for their college. I know you don't want to give up more of your money, but shut up and start realizing how the vast majority of Americans live and what they can afford compared to your six figure income.

llort_vbo wrote:

Yeah, they're living off the taxes on people over $250k. Living in Manhattan < $50k means that you're in the ghetto or subsidized housing if you have a family.

Let's assume no public housing, and I'm making $50,000 and want to live in Manhattan. That's about $3000 per month after taxes.

$1200 - 1br apt rent in Washington Heights

$100 - electric (no gas)

$80 - internet

$100 - MTA monthly pass

That leaves $1500 for food, fun and savings. Very doable.

Or is Washington Heights too ghetto, since in 2011 there were only three Manhattan neighborhoods with better records on crime and personal safety?

Calvin Coolidge reduced the top tax rate from 77% to 7% and believed in minimum regulation. He sent up conditions for the great depression.As far as your explanation you are wrong. If an increase in taxes on the wealthy results in more money in the pockets of the middle class who will spend a high proportion of the money the economy is greatly enhanced. Currently we have companies with high profits and having cash but they are unsure of demand for services/goods because the middle class is not doing so well.Give more to the middle class companies will increase production, economy is greatly enhanced. Money to the middle class can can in a variety of forms.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

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

Yes. Since economic growth is the result of capital investment, it necessarily follows that any diminishment of the amount of capital available will arrest economic growth. The forgoing is true by definition. It can be known by anyone who is willing to know it. Your problem is that you refuse to see.

Ahhh college kids with Google machines, but no ability to think.

If I can support myself on 15,000 a year without any help from the government, the OP can support his family on $250,000 and not bitch about it.