adavydov7 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Biz: “his doesnt negate the fact that GS was paid > out on CDS with TAXPAYER money from AIG. And now > they want to put it in their pocket and say thanks > and he is asking for some give back, and he’s a > communist?” > > No this just makes him an idiot, if he wanted more > from the banks he should have negotiated a better > deal with GS (see Buffett), and others, when he > was in a position of power. Giving them free money > was D-U-M-B and it was only rational of them to > take it on those terms (especially since they were > badly in need and taking it on much worse terms, > again reference Buffett). I agree he should have gotten better terms. As long as he wouldnt be attacked by free marketers who pulled the “cram down grandma” BS when he circumvented some of the hedge fund debt holders of GM in favor of the Unions. Its a lose-lose so either way he was going to lose. He should have been more shrewed and given them a take it or leave it choice. I hope we all see now what Buffet was predicting about our “shadow banking system” and the derivatives that are so dangerous when no one knows who is holding what.
Re: Is making $250k+ a year wealthy? Using your own definition of “wealthy,” guess what percentage of people in the U.S. are “wealthy”. Then go look up the percentage of households that make $250k.
Just dawned on me, but wealth is a stock so why are we arguing wealth using a flow measure?
DarienHacker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, I’m not disagreeing that people who make >$250k can afford a tax increase. It’s just that people who make $200k can also afford a tax increase. So can people who make $150k and so can people who make $100k or less. Even middle class people in the US live better than almost everyone in the world.
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re: Is making $250k+ a year wealthy? > > Using your own definition of “wealthy,” guess what > percentage of people in the U.S. are “wealthy”. > > Then go look up the percentage of households that > make $250k. Wealth is not a 100% function of relative standing. The wealthiest 1% of people living in say Compton, California are not people I would consider well-off. So just because you’re among the top xxx% of earners doesn’t mean you’re wealthy.
I skipped a bunch of the middle pages of this post, so maybe this was discussed before. If I remember correctly. Census and IRS data says that just under 2% of families in the USA make more than $250k per year. It certainly isn’t more than 5%. So, just how small a fraction of the wealthiest (by income) segments of the population are we going to have to get before we decide, “ok, that sounds like they’re wealthy?” SMIRK talks about the top 1% of Compton CA as “obviously not wealthy.” I don’t know the stats on Compton, but I guess he chose a poor town and then chose the top 1% of that. This is a false distinction. Saying that the top of the bottom isn’t rich doesn’t mean that the top of the top isn’t rich. The US still has the largest number of millionaires in the world, the largest GDP in the world, close to the highest GDP/capita in the world. The richest 2% of the richest country is not wealthy? Then who is? You can make an argument about the distinction between wealth as income vs wealth as assets, but I don’t think it makes a large material difference to this particular point.
I know somebody who ~300k/yr pretty consistently. The dude drives an 02 honda accord, lives in a middle class neighborhood, and complains about he can’t afford to drive a luxury car, afford a country club membership, or live in a better neighborhood/house. I think he’s pretty rich imo.
Maybe we should just tax Bill Gates 90% of his income. He would still be considered “wealthy” by this definition.
It is most definitely possible to have 0% of an entire population be considered wealthy from an absolute perspective.
It depends on what the meaning of is is. I know that ideas can be wrong, therefore you are obviously wrong. Any other great feats of logic that you want to engage in? It is possible that there are no wealthy people in the United States. Therefore I want to keep all of my income because that means I can’t be wealthy. But, please, enforce any private contracts that I make, and have the police come and get rid of the guy who is trying to steal my Ferrari. And please make sure the government keeps the banking industry afloat so I can get a bonus this year. After all, I’m not wealthy. What is your definition of wealthy, and does anyone in the US count as wealthy by your definition? Is your definition of wealthy, just X+a little bit, where X is what you make/own?
I think everyone agrees that any definition of “wealthy” is arbitrary.
My question: why do so many people who have annual incomes of less than $250k rush to the defense of people who make more than $250k per year? There’s a massive national debt. Yearly deficits are adding to it. Taxes need to be paid, and I’m happy that taxes could go up on people who make a lot more money than me. I can act in my self-interest too.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DarienHacker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Well, I’m not disagreeing that people who make > >$250k can afford a tax increase. It’s just that > people who make $200k can also afford a tax > increase. So can people who make $150k and so can > people who make $100k or less. Even middle class > people in the US live better than almost everyone > in the world. That’s why people love the US. The only place where a small store manager with a high school diploma has the same buying power as a heart surgeon in a less fortunate country.
frisian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My question: why do so many people who have annual > incomes of less than $250k rush to the defense of > people who make more than $250k per year? > > There’s a massive national debt. Yearly deficits > are adding to it. Taxes need to be paid, and I’m > happy that taxes could go up on people who make a > lot more money than me. I can act in my > self-interest too. Probably b/c many of the people on this board making comments in defense of the wealthy hope to find themselves in that >$250k bucket in the not too distant future. So they are really looking out for themselves.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well generally these people underpaid their share > during the Bush years, so this is just catch-up. Actually, during the Bush period, the top earners and corporations paid a larger portion of the total tax revenues collected than any other prior period.
Even if Bush had tax cuts for higher-earners, this does not mean that they were “under paying” their share of taxes. Even with the tax cuts, tax rates were still very progressive.
RIGWDL3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well generally these people underpaid their > share > > during the Bush years, so this is just > catch-up. > > > Actually, during the Bush period, the top earners > and corporations paid a larger portion of the > total tax revenues collected than any other prior > period. Once again this is because of an increase in wealth disparity.
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RIGWDL3 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > NakedPuts Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Well generally these people underpaid their > > share > > > during the Bush years, so this is just > > catch-up. > > > > > > Actually, during the Bush period, the top > earners > > and corporations paid a larger portion of the > > total tax revenues collected than any other > prior > > period. > > Once again this is because of an increase in > wealth disparity. Wouldn’t greater dispartiy mean the poor get poorer and the rich get richer? The number of people in the US below the poverty level has remained pretty level over the last 20 years. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
Disparity: the gap between the top and the bottom. Poor relatively constant; Rich raking it in; Disparity up.