Anyone else on the definition of rich? I'm talking purely monetary here, not family life, love life, etc. I personally don't know what makes one rich, the cut-off that is. Some folks make a meager income but have saved or invest over the years and have good money put away for retirement. Others make a good living with high pay, maybe a lawyer, save and invest over time. It might certainly depend on where one lives. I know someone making $200K in San Diego with a house payment, car payment, kid at college shouldn't be considered rich. Maybe upper middle class to lower wealthy class. My mother makes $50k a year and has done so for the last 10 years but due to some good real estate investments, has $500K in savings with another $75k in a 401k (it was higher not so long ago ). She certainly is not rich or wealthy but well off with her savings. I know a few wealthy folks, from a doctor making $250K to an owner to a franchise making $600K a year. From what I've seen of his lifestyle ($600K), I would say he falls in the rich, or extremely well off category. Of course his boss, who makes about $18 million a year, he is no doubt, RICH. Filthy rich actually. My old CO is a SouthWest Captain, makes on average about $220K plus his $50K retirement from the military. His wife is a Navy doctor on the bonus, making around $160K a year on top of his pay. They live in San Diego, same house they bought in 1985. I would say they aren't rich but are extremely well off. Anyway, enough rambling, any thoughts?
__________________
There are only three things the copilot should ever say:
1. Nice landing, Sir.
2. I'll buy the first round.
3. I'll take the ugly one.
I make 50K. I am not rich. I live in Los Angeles County, more expensive than San Diego. I have one kid in college, and my daughter and grandson living with me (because his deadbeat Dad is living off the U.S. Army). In fact, only the Bay Area is more expensive than L.A. County (very general statement here). If I made 250K, the REAL number, I would very well off and more than willing to pay higher taxes. Before I got laid off and my job sent to China (thanks Bush and Cheney) I made over 120K a year. My kids were all home then and I still did VERY WELL. My taxes were much higher, and I still did VERY WELL.
Don't be fooled by the bullshytt of the right wing. Vote Democrat
I make 50K. I am not rich. I live in Los Angeles County, more expensive than San Diego. I have one kid in college, and my daughter and grandson living with me (because his deadbeat Dad is living off the U.S. Army). In fact, only the Bay Area is more expensive than L.A. County (very general statement here). If I made 250K, the REAL number, I would very well off and more than willing to pay higher taxes. Before I got laid off and my job sent to China (thanks Bush and Cheney) I made over 120K a year. My kids were all home then and I still did VERY WELL. My taxes were much higher, and I still did VERY WELL.
Don't be fooled by the bullshytt of the right wing. Vote Democrat
I grew up in Los Angeles..well, closer to Riverside... and stationed twice in San Diego, I know very well how expensive it is in those areas. Just sold my house in San Dog as well after taking a huge loss. No false talking points here...the point of the video was definition of rich. It has gone from $250k to $200k to $150K through Biden. Whatever it ends up being according to the new President and Congress, it will affect certain folks...those considered to be "rich". Just because you don't like what was posted doesn't make it wrong. You sound a bit, shall we say, angry. Life's a ***** I guess.
You never said what rich was by the way. You said $250K is well off. Okay, but is that rich?
I'm no one's fool, thus not voting Democratic
__________________
There are only three things the copilot should ever say:
1. Nice landing, Sir.
2. I'll buy the first round.
3. I'll take the ugly one.
Vote Democrat because their plans for Socialism have done so very well in the past. The GOP and 'neo-conservatives' followed in the DNC's footprints of tax and spend governing and it's not done much better. However, they've not laid any plans for the blatant, unabashed and UNCONSTITUTIONAL Social engineering that we're facing under an Obama administration.
Screw 'em both, vote Libertarian. But if you can't vote Libertarian, vote Republican so we'll at least have a speed bump to slow down the liberals in Congress.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
Vote Democrat because their plans for Socialism have done so very well in the past. The GOP and 'neo-conservatives' followed in the DNC's footprints of tax and spend governing and it's not done much better. However, they've not laid any plans for the blatant, unabashed and UNCONSTITUTIONAL Social engineering that we're facing under an Obama administration.
Screw 'em both, vote Libertarian. But if you can't vote Libertarian, vote Republican so we'll at least have a speed bump to slow down the liberals in Congress.
If only we had a Libertarian candidate that had a chance to win. Otherwise, IMO, a wasted vote. With all the resources in this country, the leaders, educators, those in the know, these two candidates were the best we could come up with Now rich folks make $250K
__________________
There are only three things the copilot should ever say:
1. Nice landing, Sir.
2. I'll buy the first round.
3. I'll take the ugly one.
I've heard the term 'wasted vote' so many times in past elections that I really want to sit back and ask everyone who has used it this question.
What good has your vote up until now done? How many times has the candidate that you voted for done what they said they would do and how many times have they let you down?
I agree completely that the candidates in the major 2 parties aren't even close to what the country needs right now. Do we really think that they'll produce better candidates in 4 more years?
Now sit back and think about how many wasted votes we've all cast in the past and then ask yourself when is enough going to be enough.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
i dont know about the actual cut off for rich is, but i know that a year or two ago my father was making about 160k and my mom was making 120k so combined they were pulling in 280k without taxes obviously and that didnt include benefits stock options etc. but i know for a fact we could not have been classified as rich. we had a house payment that sucked us dry two car payments and made donations towards their retirement. we could afford to go out to eat and buy some nice stuff from nordstrom every now and then so i would have classified us as well off (i live in Mission Viejo, CA btw) i think they should take the defenition of "rich" by condition because obviously if we lived in the country and made that much we could be rich but our location drained my parents money. and im not a fan of spreading the wealth that my parents worked hard to earn just so we could pass by in this city just because some people arent pulling the same cash flow. so i vote republican. but i do agree both candidates are rather poor for what we need.
That's another major problem with the tax system as it is right now. Areas with a higher cost of living are not recognised as such by the IRS. I had a mortgage and 2 car payments living in Va Beach. My ex wife and I had an income of ~130K a year combined while I was in the USN and we lived way high on the hog. We bought whatever we wanted and never thought twice about it.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
I do think if you vote Libertarian this time around it is a wasted vote. Sorry.
But I think if we start NOW to make the Libertarian party a viable answer for NEXT election, we have a shot.
As for the other stuff.... if you want to vote Democrat, fine. But that only shows that you don't think that those who earn wealth deserve to keep it. You think that because you have more you need to PAY more, not in percentages but in HIGHER percentages.
I am sorry, but what is "fair" about that? Should the rich pay more? YES. But they ALREADY DO. They not only pay more in ACTUAL money, but also in the percentage of what they earn. That my friends is NOT American. That my friends is NOT fair. That my friends does not promote excellence or striving for more. It breeds a society that thinks it is OWED something simply because they exist. That is pathetic, and as UnAmerican as you can get.
__________________
- Sam
The shackles of opression and dependence are most easily slipped on with a smile and kind words of hope.
But I think if we start NOW to make the Libertarian party a viable answer for NEXT election, we have a shot.
I'm pretty sure the idea engines are already turning on that issue.
I still refuse to expend another vote on a candidate that I'm not happy with and a platform that I see major holes in.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
I make 50K. I am not rich. I live in Los Angeles County, more expensive than San Diego. I have one kid in college, and my daughter and grandson living with me (because his deadbeat Dad is living off the U.S. Army). In fact, only the Bay Area is more expensive than L.A. County (very general statement here). If I made 250K, the REAL number, I would very well off and more than willing to pay higher taxes. Before I got laid off and my job sent to China (thanks Bush and Cheney) I made over 120K a year. My kids were all home then and I still did VERY WELL. My taxes were much higher, and I still did VERY WELL.
Don't be fooled by the bullshytt of the right wing. Vote Democrat
MOVE!!!!
Or do you Dimacraps have any common sense left?
Bush and Cheney moved your job to China? You gotta explain that one.
They probably got the hell out of this country because of the high taxes and unions.
__________________
06' GT Tungsten gray,seq. turn sigs. no spoiler.
XM,
An armed man is called a citizen.A disarmed man is called a subject.
Below is everything I could find on the subject on Obama's campaign site. Pretty vague and incomplete. My take, item by item:
1. 95% of workers do not PAY Income Taxes. About 50% do (net after earned income tax credits, and all the various other credits). The other 50% (all of which are obviously included in Obama's "Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan") don't get a "tax cut", they get a welfare payment. Re-defining and conflating "tax cuts" and "welfare handouts" is an astonishing abuse of the English language.
For the 45 points of the remaining 50% Obama is talking about, $500 per worker as a one-time check or tax credit is NOT a "tax cut" - there is no change to the underlying income tax rate structure - no permanent change to anything. Its a bribe, meant to purchase your vote. AND a further abuse of the meaning of the phrase "tax cut".
2. "Generous tax cuts" for low/medium income seniors, etc, etc. Define "Generous". Note that this is probably just referring to #1 above, though it might well be interpreted by the unwary reader as a promise of MORE tax cuts! Vague and misleading.
3. "Eliminate capital gains for small businesses". LOL, small businesses don't GENERATE capital gains for the most part - over 90% file their taxes as self-employed individuals, sub S corporations, professional corporations, etc, etc. They are not structured to capitalize on capital gains, and usually consume capital rather than create it within their business operations. Cutting the capital gains for them would only have meaning IF they are selling the family farm or business - which of course WOULD be a problem since Obama intends to re-instate the Death Tax and increase it's rate far above its prior confiscatory bite! LOL, what a trojan horse gift! No capital gains selling the farm, but the government takes 80% via the Death Tax!
More vague vapor about encouraging investment (alternative energy, "green" technology, and set-asides for socilized medicine/insurance. The small businesses will be "allowed" to write off PART of the huge increases in their costs from government mandates and changes to things like health insurance requirements and the Family Leave Act. Of course, all this is guesswork, given that NO details are supplied.
4. LOL, "consolidating existing tax credits". You know, this SOUNDS good, but consider... One way to "consolidate" tax credits is to ELIMINATE them, thus yielding a tax INCREASE! Let's see, is there a promise in there somewhere that this "consolidation" will result in lower taxes on those involved... Nope. I believe him when he tells us he plans to pare more millions of people from the Federal Income Tax roles - this will result in even MORE millions of citizens becoming dependent on government and supported by the shrinking pool of the productive. Look for the 50/50 split between Federal Income Tax payers and those who pay nothing to shift, with perhaps 55/45 the next stop. And when the majority of voters discover they can control the flow and quantity of goodies flowing from government by "voting the right way", we are in trouble.
5. I notice they still have the "$250,000" number up here. Note that "family" has been substituted for "individual". That's a change from the original idea, of course. This would be $125,000 each for a married couple. Given that the new number is either $200,000 or $150,000 (depending on who you believe between Obama and Biden), this entry is obviously obsolete. Note once again the reference to the Family getting $1000 - back to the original offer of a tax credit or rebate check for that amount. They are hanging a LOT of ornaments on that spindly little Christmas tree! Also note that there is NO MENTION of the Bush tax cuts (which I have detailed elsewhere in this Forum) which affect the top 60% of wage earners. So Obama is mutating the concept of a "tax cut", while at the same time pretending that adding back in all the Bush tax cuts (which WERE actual tax cuts) is NOT a "tax increase". ROTFL, this is rich! DO NOT BE fooled by the cute verbiage: "Lower than the 90's" is, of course, PRE-Bush tax cuts! And tax rates during the Reagan years were HIGHER than they are right now! What a deceptive way to promise a large TAX INCREASE!
And of course, the obligatory prediction that jacking up taxes will reduce the Budget Deficit, whereas history has shown that the two work in OPPOSITE directions.
Raise taxes, and REDUCE government revenues - reduce growth - reduce job formation, etc. Just another dumb plan working inside a fake zero sum game.
Of course, there are all the promised goodies:
Free college, free health care, etc, etc, etc.
"Free".
ROTFL. I would NOT bet the farm on those promises, gang.
[quote: Barrack Obama] Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit. [quote]
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
With a little luck I'll be able to claim student on my taxes next year. I wonder if he plans on taxing GI Bill payments also. Afterall, it was an 'investment' of $1200 I made 10 years ago that I'll be 'withdrawing' next year.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
i dont know about the actual cut off for rich is, but i know that a year or two ago my father was making about 160k and my mom was making 120k so combined they were pulling in 280k without taxes obviously and that didnt include benefits stock options etc. but i know for a fact we could not have been classified as rich. we had a house payment that sucked us dry two car payments and made donations towards their retirement. we could afford to go out to eat and buy some nice stuff from nordstrom every now and then so i would have classified us as well off (i live in Mission Viejo, CA btw) i think they should take the defenition of "rich" by condition because obviously if we lived in the country and made that much we could be rich but our location drained my parents money. and im not a fan of spreading the wealth that my parents worked hard to earn just so we could pass by in this city just because some people arent pulling the same cash flow. so i vote republican. but i do agree both candidates are rather poor for what we need.
If you live in Mission Viejo on a income of $280K, your parents certainly are not rich...at least judging soley by their combined yearly income. Nice area, just very expensive. You know what? The money your parents made is their money, their hard work and shouldn't be taxed more than neede be. If Obabma reverts to the Clinton years, they will get taxed something like 39% of their income, then the Republic of Kalifornia's State tax, social security, etc. That's crap IMHO.
__________________
There are only three things the copilot should ever say:
1. Nice landing, Sir.
2. I'll buy the first round.
3. I'll take the ugly one.
MOVE!!!!
Or do you Dimacraps have any common sense left?
Bush and Cheney moved your job to China? You gotta explain that one.
They probably got the hell out of this country because of the high taxes and unions.
I didn't catch that one...it's Bush and Cheney's fault You know, I just lost quite a bit of money in the real estate market in San Diego. On paper, lost around $200K and about $80K of my own hard cash. I know about lenders, the bad loans, etc. Went through it all but in the end, I only blame one person...just one. That person is me. I gambled, hoping to score on the market, get in, get out, make $100K+. I blew it. Whatever ever happened to accountable for one's own actions. If a company closes its doors, move on, make things happen. Bad things happen and life sucks at times. My mom lost her job of 22 years a few years ago. They gave her a severence package and she tried not to let the door hit her in the ass on the way out. She didn't blame anyone, found a new job, luckily made some money in the realestate market before its collapse and has moved on.
__________________
There are only three things the copilot should ever say:
1. Nice landing, Sir.
2. I'll buy the first round.
3. I'll take the ugly one.
Definition of Rich 
). She certainly is not rich or wealthy but well off with her savings. I know a few wealthy folks, from a doctor making $250K to an owner to a franchise making $600K a year. From what I've seen of his lifestyle ($600K), I would say he falls in the rich, or extremely well off category. Of course his boss, who makes about $18 million a year, he is no doubt, RICH. Filthy rich actually. My old CO is a SouthWest Captain, makes on average about $220K plus his $50K retirement from the military. His wife is a Navy doctor on the bonus, making around $160K a year on top of his pay. They live in San Diego, same house they bought in 1985. I would say they aren't rich but are extremely well off. Anyway, enough rambling, any thoughts?
Now rich folks make $250K 
