DiscussMormonism.com

Must be middle income then.

WASHINGTON--U.S. Senate Democrats, responding to President Barack Obama's populist message, Wednesday voted to allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse for household income above $250,000, saying the rich should pay more to help control the deficit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120725-719796.html

No Republicans voted for it so the Democrats could have set any figure they wanted. They chose 250,000 so that must be the demarcation between rich and middle class to them? Surely merely $100,000 is a very pedestrian middle class figure to them. This was only a couple of months ago. Now they're complaining about Romney's definition which they themselves agree with. Hypocrites!

You're obviously confused. The citation you provided suggests anything above $250,000 should be considered rich, but it said nothing of "middle income" as Romney described it to be anything between $200,000 to $250,000. Why is this so hard to understand?

The median household income is just over $50,000. That's literally middle-class. I know several folks making roughly that amount who are living comfortably as middle class (own their home, two cars, boat, 3 kids, etc). This doesn't mean someone making $51,000 is "rich." Someone making $200-$250,000 should be, in my view, considered upper-middle class. "Rich" is pretty much a subjective judgment and it is really based on how responsible a person is with that kind of income. But he or she should be taxed accordingly whether that money is used responsibly or not.

On the whole, those making over $250 represent such a small fraction of the population that it is appropriate to classify them as the wealthy class for the purposes of political discourse.

You're obviously confused. The citation you provided suggests anything above $250,000 should be considered rich, but it said nothing of "middle income" as Romney described it to be anything between $200,000 to $250,000. Why is this so hard to understand?

There's nothing else to understand. The Democrats did not call on actual stats when they defined "rich" to be 250K. They said let the rich carry more of the burden and the action they took defines where they stand on what that is. It's as kindergarten logic as "the candy is sweet".

Notice that Romney's definition is far closer to reality.

Again, you cannot point to any where in that citation where "middle income" is defined. It is just something you assumed based on a black-white thought process. And how in the world is Romney's figure closer to reality? Do you seriously believe $250k is "middle income"? Romney makes a fool of himself with these kinds of statements, showing just how out of touch with reality he really is.

Kevin Graham wrote:Again, you cannot point to any where in that citation where "middle income" is defined. It is just something you assumed based on a black-white thought process. And how in the world is Romney's figure closer to reality? Do you seriously believe $250k is "middle income"? Romney makes a fool of himself with these kinds of statements, showing just how out of touch with reality he really is.

I think the misunderstanding is one's gross value. If one owns land, a house, car, furniture, clothes, books, art, appliances, tools, jewelry, pets, and has a checking account, savings account, 401K, Roth IRA, this could easily all add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if one dies and leaves an inheritance, well, one suddenly is at the center of attention for an Obama redistribution of wealth. The only fool is the one who thinks he has nothing when he has a whole lot more than he would even imagine...

LittleNipper wrote:I think the misunderstanding is one's gross value. If one owns land, a house, car, furniture, clothes, books, art, appliances, tools, jewelry, pets, and has a checking account, savings account, 401K, Roth IRA, this could easily all add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if one dies and leaves an inheritance, well, one suddenly is at the center of attention for an Obama redistribution of wealth. The only fool is the one who thinks he has nothing when he has a whole lot more than he would even imagine...

Obama was talking about people that EARN (repeat EARN) over $250,000 a YEAR. Yearly income, not net worth.

Quasimodo wrote:

LittleNipper wrote:I think the misunderstanding is one's gross value. If one owns land, a house, car, furniture, clothes, books, art, appliances, tools, jewelry, pets, and has a checking account, savings account, 401K, Roth IRA, this could easily all add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if one dies and leaves an inheritance, well, one suddenly is at the center of attention for an Obama redistribution of wealth. The only fool is the one who thinks he has nothing when he has a whole lot more than he would even imagine...

Obama was talking about people that EARN (repeat EARN) over $250,000 a YEAR. Yearly income, not net worth.

Believe you me, if you get an inheritance of 400,000 dollars, it WILL count as part of your earned income that year.

LittleNipper wrote:I think the misunderstanding is one's gross value. If one owns land, a house, car, furniture, clothes, books, art, appliances, tools, jewelry, pets, and has a checking account, savings account, 401K, Roth IRA, this could easily all add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if one dies and leaves an inheritance, well, one suddenly is at the center of attention for an Obama redistribution of wealth.

Yeah, if your estate is worth over $3.5 million. "Hundreds of thousands" won't be taxed at all. Obama's plan is to tax estates worth more than $3.5 million at regular income rates. Chances are probably good that your books and pets won't exceed that value.

Quasimodo wrote:

LittleNipper wrote:Obama was talking about people that EARN (repeat EARN) over $250,000 a YEAR. Yearly income, not net worth.

Believe you me, if you get an inheritance of 400,000 dollars, it WILL count as part of your earned income that year.

No. It won't.

There is currently no estate tax for anything under $5.12 million. That number will go down to $1 million on January 1 if Congress does nothing (unlikely). As I said above, Obama's proposal is for a tax-free threshold of $3.5 million. In other words, you get to leave your kids up to 3 1/2 million dollars worth without giving up a dime of it to "redistribution."



This brings up one of the great hypocrisies of the right. They go on and on about the value of making one's own way in life rather than being given anything, while fighting hard for the right of billionaires to legally pass their wealth to their offspring completely tax free. Because Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay a penny in taxes on those billions.

bcspace wrote:The Democrats did not call on actual stats when they defined "rich" to be 250K.

Hmm. That's strange.

If the Democrats believe in taxing the rich, and if they define $250K per year as "rich," I wonder why they don't propose to increase the taxes on someone who earns $250K per year? Sounds as if $250K is a boundary, not a definition of "rich."

What they actually propose is that income above $250K be taxed at a slightly higher rate. So if my AGI is $255,000, I would pay 3.9% more on the additional $5,000, which amounts to an increase of $195.