Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney: Reduce taxes on middle-income people. You know, the ones making $250,000 (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  expensive schools? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, VClib, mattc129

    My kids go to public school.  

    I'm not complaining about my income.  I know I have it easier than most when it comes to paying my bills and putting food on the table.  I also have the ability to save for my kids college education and my retirement...something that many cannot do any more. So yeah, I know I have it good.

    My point in my comment above is that those of us at the upper end of the middle class pay a very high marginal tax rate as compared to the real rich (the ones who make their money not from wages and salary, but from capital gains).  I don't think it is fair to lump us in with the guys at the very top who are making Fuck You money.

    How do I define the rich?  Rich is not having to care how much a car costs, or the cost of gas.  Rich is not caring how much health insurance costs, or the yearly tuition at Stanford.  Rich is being able to send your kids to private school without a thought, or going blowing $1000 at French Laundry and considering it just a nice dinner.

    There is no reason to vilify those of us in the 200 to 250k range, we pay our fair share of taxes.  The guys that need to pay more are the ones making $1m or more a year...that's the real rich.  

    •  I was responding (0+ / 0-)

      to somebody saying that you probably paid a bunch for schools.

      and if you are making $200,000, there's no way you should have any problems whatsoever owning a car. go get one for 15k and be done with it.

      I'm NOT "villifying" somebody making more than $200k. they are rich though.

      I'm really not sure what it is that you spend your money on, but at $200k, you are buying better or more stuff or saving a lot more than the vast majority of families can afford. that makes you rich, whether you enjoy those things or not.

      •  And this is the problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, mattc129

        because you think we're rich you don't think we have the same worries and concerns that you do.  We still worry about keeping our job.  We still worry about providing for our retirement.  We still worry about our public schools and our public school teachers.  We still worry about paying for our kids college.  We still worry about the student debt bubble.

        I don't have a new car because we don't need a new car...and I would rather put that money away so my kids can graduate college debt free.

        And that's another problem...with as much money as my family earns, and how much we pay in taxes, I shouldn't have to save the majority of my paycheck just to make sure I won't lose my house if I lose my job, Or to make sure my kids can go to college debt free, or to make sure I won't have to declare bankruptcy if I or my wife gets ill.

        Being rich means you don't have to worry about any of the above.

        •  i never said you don't have worries (0+ / 0-)

          I think bill freakin gates has worries.

          there is a hiarchy of needs, but that doesn't keep nearly everybody from worrying.

          good for you to spend your wealth on your kids. very laudable. I'm sure there are lots of people who are not rich would would love to do the same thing but can't.  but that is a choice for you, because you make so much. it's not a choice for many, even most, people. having a big family is your choice. owning a home big enough for a large family is a choice. all choices to spend lots and lots of money, and something many/most cannot do. that you stiock a way money because you wish to be able to maintain your lifestyle does not mean that you don't make more than most people.

          take 4 "normal" (median-earning) families. you make 4x-5x that much. that's rich.

      •  You make a lot of assumptions (0+ / 0-)

        about how $200k income families of 5 should simply have no "problems whatsoever owning a car."

        I don't know what it costs in the Bay Area (probably more), but I pay $1500 for a 350 square foot STUDIO in Brooklyn, which is actually a little under market for my neighborhood. I fully acknowledge that I choose to live alone and could save with roommates.

        A family of 5 requires would be mildly comfortable with three bedrooms: couple, two children share a room, and 1 child gets the final room. No idea what that would cost in the Bay Area, but in NYC, a 3 bedroom apartment easily costs $4000-$5000 per month, if not more. Remember, I pay $1500 and I don't even have a real bedroom!

        Let's take the low end, $4000 x 12 = $48,000 per year just in rent. I don't know the effective tax rate of Fall line, but still you see how that adds up.

        So to just "have money for a car" assumes a lot about Fall line's family expenses that neither you nor I know anything about.

        •  it's (0+ / 0-)

          a CHOICE to have a family of 5.
          you don't get to make a choice to have a bunch of kids, and then claim that you are not rich because you spend a ton of your huge income on them. you are rich whether you choose to spend it on those choices or other choices.

          and just to show how BS your point is, the median household income is about $50k/year. if a person can pay about $50k year just in rent, then they are choosing to spend about the median income to live somewhere that most people cannot live. do you understand that?

          I might as well say that Romney isn't rich because he spends so much money on his car elevators. sorry, but it's a choice. you don't stop being rich because you spend it all on stuff other people can't buy.

          •  High salaries are typically attached to big cities (0+ / 0-)

            So, his family would likely not make $200k per year in, say Kansas City where the cost of living is far less. Therefore, it's sorta relative.

            Yes, having 3 children is a choice. But placement because of jobs is often not a choice.

            As I've said in other comments above, rich to me means not having to worry about anything or can live off their liquid assets without a care in the world. I would place Fall Line's situation as having a high paying job, a job which affords his family luxuries that many others cannot obtain. But it's a far cry from being a millionnaire.

            Also, I think age is a huge factor in associating oneself as rich. I'm 25, and if you gave me $1 million dollars, no strings attached, I would not feel rich because I would not be able to live off that for the rest of my life. I'd have a tremendous head start to invest, buy property, save for future kids' college, but you'd be naive to think someone can live the rest of their life off $1 million if they acquire it at 25.

            •  arrgg, (0+ / 0-)

              repeating myself too much.

              i know big families in the Bay Area that make median wage and live somehow. they don't live in the same place or have as much room as somebody making $200k. somebody spending that money on children and housing IS CHOOSING TO SPEND THEIR MONEY THAT WAY RATHER THAN BUYING EXPENSIVE TRIPS. THEY ARE NO LESS RICH BECAUSE THEY SPEND IT DIFFERENTLY.

              i'm getting really sick of this "yes, we buy stuff the vast majority of Americans can;t...but because we spend it, we aren't rich. what an "let them eat cake" attitude.

    •  To me rich is not flying commercial airlines (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fall line, mattc129

      People who are actually rich don't fly on United, and arrive two hours early, and go through TSA security, or are limited to bags that weigh 50 lbs or less.  They fly on planes they own, lease or rent. The plane leaves at their convenience.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:10:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (76)
  • 2016 (49)
  • Environment (48)
  • Elections (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Culture (41)
  • Republicans (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Education (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Labor (28)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Congress (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Spam (24)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site