Originally posted by zeeblebotI think this is true. Plus many have a belief (reasonable or not) that someday they might make big money too. They don't want high tax rates ruining their fantasy.
BUT, the middle class know that "taxing the rich" is more likely to become "taxing the middle class", given that there aren't enough golden gooses around to squeeze the needed shekels from.
Originally posted by telerionI suppose your latter point hits the nail on the head. People tend to overestimate the impact of acquiring more wealth.
I think this is true. Plus many have a belief (reasonable or not) that someday they might make big money too. They don't want high tax rates ruining their fantasy.
Originally posted by telerionI am definitely not rich nor at 46 can foresee anything amazing happening anytime soon wealth wise.
I think this is true. Plus many have a belief (reasonable or not) that someday they might make big money too. They don't want high tax rates ruining their fantasy.
The reason to oppose graduated tax systems is it is just wrong, it is immoral to whip someone just because you think they can handle it, that is no reason. On a flat tax rate a person on 200K already pays 4 times the tax of someone on 50K and they are far less likely to make the same demand on public services like health and education.
There's no fantasy there, just ice cold hard logic.
(KN, please do not mention the PD)
Originally posted by Wajoma"It is just wrong" is "ice cold hard logic". Hahaha.
I am definitely not rich nor at 46 can foresee anything amazing happening anytime soon wealth wise.
The reason to oppose graduated tax systems is it is just wrong, it is immoral to whip someone just because you think they can handle it, that is no reason. On a flat tax rate a person on 200K already pays 4 times the tax of someone on 50K and they are far l ...[text shortened]... .
There's no fantasy there, just ice cold hard logic.
(KN, please do not mention the PD)
Originally posted by zeeblebotlet's just say that if your income is 200k, you're making more money than the great majority of Americans. So if you don't think that's "rich", what do you make of the terrible plight facing those who have to find a way to feed their families on a mere 100k?
$200K isn't rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class#Income
Income
While many Americans cite income as the prime determinant of class, occupational status, educational attainment, and value systems are equally important variables. Income is in part determined by the scarcity of certain skill sets.[1] As a result an occupation that req ...[text shortened]... r difference in real income may be smaller than what the differences in nominal income suggest.
Not to mention the entire populations of India and China that almost all make 5k or (usually) a lot less?
Originally posted by Melanerpes3x income means he could afford a $600K 1- or 2-bedroom condo out here, making him middle class.
let's just say that if your income is 200k, you're making more money than the great majority of Americans. So if you don't think that's "rich", what do you make of the terrible plight facing those who have to find a way to feed their families on a mere 100k?
Not to mention the entire populations of India and China that almost all make 5k or (usually) a lot less?
http://activerain.com/blogsview/565841/rule-of-thumb-says-3-times-income
Originally posted by zeeblebotI guarantee you that many of those households that own a $600K property where you live make less than $200K/year. The reason they can buy a that kind of home though is because they saved for 10 or 20 years do make the down payment.
3x income means he could afford a $600K 1- or 2-bedroom condo out here, making him middle class.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/565841/rule-of-thumb-says-3-times-income
How many people in their 20's or even early 30's are purchasing $600K homes for their first place? That's very uncommon and anything but middle class.
As for your link, you picked a very high cost of living area (suburbs of DC) and the article only says that 123K is average income. The mean average is considerably greater than the median both in the US in general and particularly in a place like DC.
Originally posted by MelanerpesExactly. And 100K/year puts a household well inside the the top 20% of households.
let's just say that if your income is 200k, you're making more money than the great majority of Americans. So if you don't think that's "rich", what do you make of the terrible plight facing those who have to find a way to feed their families on a mere 100k?
Not to mention the entire populations of India and China that almost all make 5k or (usually) a lot less?
There are many families living on so little in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth#Sociological_view
Sociological view
“Wealth provides an important mechanism in the intergenerational transmission of inequality.”[7] Approximately one half of the wealthiest people in America inherited family fortunes. But the effect of inherited wealth can also be seen on a more modest level. For example, a couple that buys a house with the financial help from their parents or a student that has his or her college education paid for; in both scenarios the participants are benefiting directly from the accumulated wealth of previous generations. [7]
As a result of different economic conditions of life, members of different social classes have different value systems and view the world in different ways. As such, there exist different “conceptions of social reality, different aspirations and hopes and fears, different conceptions of the desirable.” [8] The way the various social classes in society view wealth vary and these diverse characteristics are a fundamental dividing line among the classes. Currently, the concentration of wealth in America is inequitably distributed. [9] In 1996 the Fed survey reported that the net worth of the top 1 percent was approximately equal to that of the bottom 90 percent. [7]
[edit] The upper class
Upper class values include higher education, the accumulation and maintenance of wealth, the maintenance of social networks and the power that accompanies such networks. Children of the upper class are typically schooled on how to manage this power and channel this privilege in different forms. It is in large part by accessing various edifices of information, associates, procedures and auspices that the upper class are able to maintain their wealth and pass it to future generations. [10]
[edit] The middle class
The middle class places a greater emphasis on income. The middle class views wealth as something for emergencies and it is seen as more of a cushion. This class comprises people that were raised with families that typically owned their own home, planned ahead and stressed the importance of education and achievement. They earn a significant amount of income and also have significant amounts of consumption. However there is very limited savings (deferred consumption) or investments, besides retirement pensions and homeownership. They have been socialized to accumulate wealth through structured, institutionalized arrangements. Without this set structure, asset accumulation would likely not occur. [10]
[edit] The welfare class
Those with the least amount of wealth are the welfare poor. Wealth accumulation for this class is to some extent prohibited. People that receive AFDC transfers cannot own more than a trivial amount of assets, in order to be eligible and remain qualified for income transfers. Most of the institutions that the welfare poor encounter discourage any accumulation of assets. [10]
Originally posted by zeeblebotWait. Did wiki say that? Well, that settles it I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth#Sociological_view
Sociological view
“Wealth provides an important mechanism in the intergenerational transmission of inequality.”[7] Approximately one half of the wealthiest people in America inherited family fortunes. But the effect of inherited wealth can also be seen on a more modest level. For example, a couple ...[text shortened]... of the institutions that the welfare poor encounter discourage any accumulation of assets. [10]
Originally posted by telerionit's the media's fantasy that people react more strongly to fantasies than to their bottom lines.
I think this is true. Plus many have a belief (reasonable or not) that someday they might make big money too. They don't want high tax rates ruining their fantasy.
their bottom lines are always in play. their daydreams are in play once in a while.