+- Riesentöter Forums (https://rtr-pca.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+--- Thread: Financial Shakeup this weekend (/showthread.php?tid=1090)
- Ccns23 - 04-15-2008
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:Think about it. $80-90K is not rich.
It's an experienced teacher, it's a real estate agent, it's someone in IT, an engineer... it's most jobs that require a college degree.
Just because you're a dual income family doesn't make you rich - it makes you hard working and taxed.
If you think that this kind of income is rich, then you need to look at the job market some more, because a lot of people out there are earning those kinds of salaries fresh out of a college degree.
OK, I'm game. In your opinion, at what income level are you considered "rich"? And not everyone comes out of college making that kind of $$$. I think you'll find a lot make <$30,000 to start, depending on the degree. My opinion is once you have two people making over $50K/year each, you should be able to live a comfortable lifestyle. At $80-90K/year you are definitly in the upper middle class and at that point I would consider you "rich". Again, that's my opinion.
The problem with people who make that kind of $$ is that many try to live outside their means. Again, if you can't live a very, and I mean VERY, comfortable life making over $150K combined, you are really doing something wrong.
- Ccns23 - 04-15-2008
And I have to say, I love these types of discussions. Everyone has great opinions AND no one is being hostile. We're actually talking to each other like adults. It is refreshing.
- emayer - 04-15-2008
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:Think about it. $80-90K is not rich.
It's an experienced teacher, it's a real estate agent, it's someone in IT, an engineer... it's most jobs that require a college degree.
Just because you're a dual income family doesn't make you rich - it makes you hard working and taxed.
If you think that this kind of income is rich, then you need to look at the job market some more, because a lot of people out there are earning those kinds of salaries fresh out of a college degree.
Absolutely right. The so called rich amount to the present day middle class, especially if living on the east or west coasts. As for other industrialized countries paying more in taxes- true, but they also have socialized medicine and a better infrastructure included. If we add our health care costs to our current tax bill I am not convinced the difference would be that great.
Just a few factual points:
Tax code- 67,000 pages long (not a typo)
Those in the top 20% income bracket pay a total of 83% of all federal taxes
Does this sound fair and American? I agree with the flat tax- let all of us contribute an equal proportion and incentivize people to do better rather than discouraging prosperity.
- Ccns23 - 04-15-2008
I see what your saying. My perspective is if you are a dual income household making $160K plus, IMO that's on the rich side of things. But, as an individual only making let's say $80-100K, I would consider that mid to upper middle class.
To me, $160K+ per year is a lot o' scratch. I do like what your definition of "rich" is. It does make a whole lot of sense.
- Ccns23 - 04-15-2008
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:McCain talked about his tax proposals today... I've got to admit that I like this side of him.The only thing here I don't quite understand is how is lowering the tax rate on corporations from 35% to 25% beneficial to us?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/15/news/economy/mccain_economic_plan/index.htm?cnn=yes
His ideas for tax reform are good and lowering the corporate tax rate will be good for the economy.
- ccm911 - 04-16-2008
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:It works like this - lower tax rate for corporations means more money for them to invest in the business and employees. This means more spending into the economy and we all do well.Now that sounds all well and good on paper, but really, now. Come on. Years and years of "Corporate Welfare" have given us nothing other than an oligopoly. Those funds don't trickle back down. They only serve to enrichen the "chosen few". Or should I say, the buddies of Bush and Cheyney.
- Ccns23 - 04-16-2008
The CEO of my company got $14.5 million last year, which equates to an 18% increase in salary from the year prior. I got a smidge over 4% in my raise. Oh, did I mention that our revenue is down 42% from the year prior and our stock was 11% lower than the year prior? So basically, as usual, our CEO is rewarded for subpar performance.
But I'm sure if we got a tax cut it would go to the employees and infrastructure, and not into the pockets of executives...
- Ccns23 - 04-16-2008
Wellardmac wrote:
Think about it, even if you win the Powerball it really doesn't buy you into the super-rich club like it used to. I think the Powerball record was around $365 million - sure that will allow most to retire on a comfortable living, but it won't buy you a mansion, a yacht, or a plane. You could buy a nice car or two, but what's that worth unless you're living in a $5 million dollar house to keep all your expensive stuff in? Don't even start talking about upkeep on that lifestyle. $365 million certainly wouldn't allow an extravagant lifestyle for life. MC Hammer was worth $30 million at his peak - he spent it all and ended up in bankruptcy. Britney Spears is on the same path and look at how much money she has (I could argue that she also has no class, even at a net worth of $150 million). Even those numbers do not buy financial independence.
Do you really think this way? I don't know, but last I checked $365 million buys a few mansions, yachts, and maybe a nice plane or 2. If you can't live a very extravigant life on that much money than the problem lies in the individual. I could lead a very very comfortable life on probably $3 million. Will that buy me a mansion? No. But I don't need one. And that's the point. Too many times we see people buying things because they think they can afford it or they are trying to keep up with the Jones'. Me, I could care less about the Jones'. s[p
- emayer - 04-17-2008
I can see the frustration on both sides of this argument.
On the one hand, as Wayne and I have pointed out, that which the politicians define as "rich" actually encompasses a large proportion of middle/ upper middle class incomes.
On the flip side, while I believe that reducing corporate taxes will stimulate economic growth and additional jobs, I agree that corporate CEO salaries need closer scrutiny. In my field there is a push for "pay for perfomance" which means that reimbursement is based on quality outcomes. CEOs should have a similar mechanism (perhaps some do). Company sales and share price in the toilet? Sorry dude, no raise or bonus this year....
Part of the issues raised in respect to the tax code also applies to industry. Just as we are promoting a flat tax for individuals, we need to eliminate the loopholes and have the same process for corporations. I think that this is one area where public sentiment is in near total agreement.
- Ccns23 - 04-17-2008
I think we all can agree that we really need to completely overhaul the current tax code. The problem is, who can actually step up and accomplish it?