Rich on 200K a year?

[tabs]

Your not Rich if you make 200K a year it just means you have cash flow....

Wealth is having assets...RE, Stocks, Bonds, other hard assets, a business or Cash....

That theoretically produce some kind of return or income.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping Money Moving...-

Everyone is aware of Business cycles.....there has been speculation that the Government/Fed manipulate the ownership of various classes of assets over a period of years....so that money eg Capital Gains are taken and money doesn't become stagant in that asset class....the goal is to enable the Government to tax the Gains to creat revenue....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW: It was JFK in the early 1960's that passed legislation to start TAXING SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST as Income....This in effect penalized people who saved their money...

[mikester]

Correctamundo

[Bleyseng]

Depends on where you are at on the scale. If you are a bottom feeder, $200k looks pretty effin good. If you are a wage earner making $200k that doesn't seem like a whole heckva lot due to taxes.
Whats the median income in the USA?
Seattle's is about $50k so that's four times the median income. If you were smart you would live like you were making 50k and invest the rest instead of buying a new Escalde every year....


Geoff

[island911]

"cash flow" !? . . .oh, that can't be good. We need someone with a tax-plan to stifle that. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Seriously, those who see a huge downside to "outsourcing . ..sending jobs overseas" ought to think hard about what Kerrys tax hike will do to this economy.

People with money have the resources to PICK UP AND MOVE. And, they also have the resources to simply STOP PRODUCTION and retire early.

Ya know it's great that a lot of businesses hang around, they work withing the cloud of federal bureaucracy, and keep on chugging away. But what happens to this economy if say 10% of them say "fcuk-it" ?

[tabs]

And those 10% are most likely Baby Boomers who are gettin close to retirment anyway...so they might just say well it ain't worth it anymore I here Nevada is a good place to retire to....cause they got Buffets...

[island911]

....cause they got Buffets...

and I hear free trailer-hookup in most places.

[tabs]

Yep...you've seen my palace.....

[cegerer]

John F. Kerry ........ has "a plan" for those of us earning over $200K and it doesn't involve taxes -

[billwagnon]

I believe US annual median income is $43k.

And it makes me laugh when people say how hard it is to live on $100k a year.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by billwagnon
And it makes me laugh when people say how hard it is to live on $100k a year.

After you take a look at housing, rent, vehicle registration, and local Mello-Roos tax amounts in Northern CA, you won't laugh. You'll cry.

Making four or five time the "average" US income around here puts you solidly in the middle-middle class. It's a big country that should be counted as four or five countries for statistical and accounting purposes

[nostatic]

location, location, location. If I were making what I make in the middle of the country, I'd be living large. As it stands, it is pretty much month to month. Any my property tax bill came last week. Ouch. Gotta get reimbursed from my child care and health pretax accounts to make that nut. And that is just the first half payment.

But...today Calvin and I headed out to Zuma at 2pm today for sun and surf...no wind, no crowds. Everything has a price...

[911pcars]

That's $200K taxable income. That means you gross a lot more. That means after deductions for real estate taxes and business expenses and whatever other deductions your tax accountant can muster. $200K looks more like at least $300,000 gross income. I don't know. I'm not rich. What do rich guys make to end up with $200k taxable? Go on. I wouldn't be surprised.

Sherwood

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by 911pcars

What do rich guys make to end up with $200k taxable? Go on. I wouldn't be surprised.

Routine NYC white collar, married w/kids, house, etc., Not including 401k, needs 400k to clear 200k is my best estimate

[on-ramp]

test

[island911]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Routine NYC white collar, married w/kids, house, etc., Not including 401k, needs 400k to clear 200k is my best estimate

So again, why the hell would NewYorkers vote for this scum?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Working in NYC != living in NYC. I bet the daytime population of NYC is 200% the nighttime population.

[turbo6bar]

First, we'll raise taxes on those making $200k/yr. Then, we'll raise taxes on those making $150k/yr. And last, we'll....

The ones with real money, though, aren't worried, because there is always a way to reduce or eliminate taxable income. The average Joe is the real sucker. Tell yourselves Kerry will cut your taxes. If you repeat it often, it will become true.

[jyl]

Don't live in NYC and only visit on business, so this is just speculation, but . . .

Very few New Yorkers have taxable income >$200K. Same as any US city.

Those that are above $200K, are (I'd think) disproportionately in Wall Street.

And, of course, people's votes are influenced by lots of things, not just their pocketbook.

[A Quiet Boom]

Here's the fundamental problem with taxing the rich but first a show of hands, who here wants to become rich? Okay if you do manage to get rich do you want to pay a higher percentage of your income than you do now?

I am not rich but I do aspire to become rich someday and I'm working toward that goal on many fronts, taxing the rich would effectively punish me for building wealth and working hard. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity for all and punishing success doesn't fit with that belief.

I live in the midwest and consider $200k to be well off but certainly not rich, $500k-1m is rich. Anything above that with a lot of assets would be wealthy in my opinion. That's an important point BTW. There is a difference between rich and wealthy. Example Shaq is not wealthy, he is rich. The man who signs his paycheck is wealthy. At $200k income people can seriously begin to invest in assets such that they will eventually become wealthy, others invest in luxuries and never become wealthy. Why should we increase taxes on a group that either invests or spends a lot of money inot this economy? Here's an idea how about a flat tax, you know so my next raise actually results in a larger paycheck since last year I was at the top of my tax bracket if I remember right.

[911pcars]

If you're making $200K and being taxed on $200K, you need to see those tax guys on TV. Buy a shack on some swamp land in Florida. Ouila, you're now under $200K.

If you're making $400K in any part of this country (perhaps outside of NYC), you're doing pretty good. If you need more, I'd suggest adjusting your life style or move to Arkansas.

Shaq is not wealthy? He makes $25 million/year (or thereabouts). BTW, he's wealthy and rich, though from where I'm looking, I can't hardly see the difference. Can he afford a few million in taxes? Yeah, I think so, but I doubt his accountant will let him.

I admire a person's motiviation to be rich. However, let's not screw the people who aren't just because you may one day meet that goal. People tend not to be concerned about corporations making tons of tax-exempt profits (ordinary civilians pay the difference) because they think they're going to be in that position someday and want those perks as well. That ain't going to happen for a lot of us overachievers, so how about let's making taxation fair (whatever that is for whoever) and then live with it, okay? No unfair advantage for anyone.

If taxes are too high for everyone, then let's do something about it like they did in Boston Harbor some years ago (not exactly the same situation, but it's good for effect). Paying heavy taxes is not the same issue as one group having a disproportionate advantage over another group (e.g. capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income).

Sherwood