Is $200,000.00 an excessive income?

We always hear about increasing taxes on the rich, rich usually being defined as people making more than $200,000/yr. Now I am not in that income bracket, although I wish I was, but my question is;

Is that an excessive income, and does $200,000 make you "RICH"?

Consider that if you live in NYC and make $200,000 you lose 50% of it to taxes. Consider that a 700 sq.ft. 2 bedroom apartment in NYC runs around $5,000/mo. If you own a car you will pay $500/mo. for a parking space in a parking garage.

However if you live in Arkansas, $200,000 is a fortune. Isn't income relative to where you live?

No income level is excessive. Having said that, 200,000 with kids is different than without, and means a lot less in NYC than Arkansas.

I believe in progressive taxation, and I would say that the 200,000 income category should be in the second highest category.

itemized deductions above and beyond the standard deduction, which is essentially based on what anyone living anywhere would be expected to have in ordinary living expenses.

TG

Companies usually factor cost-of-living into setting salaries. If you're making $200K in NYC, your counterpart in Bumfuck Cheapistan is probably making a lot less. Why should others subsidize your desire to live in NYC?

I pity those that have to exist there. BTDT without an exorbitant amount of bodies left behind.

I was pointing out to the poster that higher cost of living areas do not get increased deductions

The low wage workers who do the service jobs in those communities ride the bus or subway for 2 hours to get to their jobs. But even they make more than their counterparts in outlying areas.

What about people who were born in NYC? I live in San francisco, which is pretty pricey. I'd save money by moving down to LA, where I'd make more (because I work in film) and pay less, not to mention having nicer weather. But my other half is really reluctant to leave SF because she grew up here and is close to her family. Should people be penalized for that?

You are CHOOSING to live in SF, which is expensive because it's a great and highly desirable place to live. Why do you think you deserve to have your choice subsidized?

I gave you a perfectly straightforward explanation of how place of residency is not always a free economic choice. I guess you prefer not to address that point and opt for straw man arguments instead.

My bad. :eyes:

New York is a net loser stare when it comes to federal tax dollars

It's not the other way around.

What a great place!

Everyone upstate of NYC pays taxes that go to support NYC...

the itemized deduction table, for example allows you to deduct MORTGAGE interest, but only above a certain deductable. If you are renting an apartment in NYC, you are spending $60,000/yr. that the IRS does not recognize.

$200,000 tax bracket means you most likely gross 300k or more.

If you GROSS $200,000. You get tax withheld based upon your w-4, or if you are self employed, you have to pay even more in quarterly tax estimates, including mandatory self employment tax.

When you do your 1040, you get to claim deductions and exemptions from that $200,000 GROSS.

So While you may have only taken home $100,000 as in our NYC example, and 60% of that is rent alone. Your taxes are based on the ENTIRE $200,000

I suppose if you didn't bother doing your taxes you'd just be paying whatever your W4 or quarterly self employment tax dictates. But you'd be a moron, too.

some of these thresholds are also historical. In 1965, the top marginal tax bracket was ">= 200,000". (which was taxed at 70%).

In 1965, $200K had a lot more buying power than it does now. If you were pulling down $200K/year, you were pretty rich.

unless in obtaining that income, you're screwing your employees or demanding tax money / corporate welfare.

if you're a CEO acting like a robber baron, outsourcing jobs, and screwing up peoples' lives for money, then your millions are "excessive."

if you've come up with a good idea, working hard on your business, and you end up making a ton of money, good for you.

So Who gets to judge the morality of your life's work? And determine how much you should have to pay to support your fellow man?

because the robber baron CEOs are beholden to all three for their livelihood.

It's called civilization. And civilized societies form governments and legal systems to enforce the standards of the community.

get to decide how much you should make, and how much you should give to charity? Really? how?

Other people get to decide what you make, be they your employer, customers, or even the government at times. And yeah, they get to tell you how to spend at least some of your money. I know it's not that way in Libertarian Magic Land but that place is a figment of Ayn Rand's overheated imagination and that of her mostly teenage boy fan club.

But the discussion was about other people in my community getting to decide how much I make, and how much I have to donate to charity.

My customers get to decide whether or not to spend their money with my company, but they do not get to decide how much I make. If I lose a customer, I can advertise or offer incentives to gain new customers, I can find ways to reduce my costs, thereby increasing my profit, but NO ONE else in my community gets to tell me how much I can make.

Further I CHOOSE to spend some of my earnings on charity, church, even buying lunch for the homeless guy with the sign on the Corner in front of Shaw's supermarket, but NO ONE gets to DECIDE how much of my earnings I WILL spend on these items.

It is solely my choice.

You can try to find new customers, but no one has to be a customer. The community makes up the market you are offering your goods/services to. So if they don't want what you have to offer, or want it less, it forces you to lower your prices.

It's not the money, it how you earn it.

i make 1/4 of that and pay plenty of taxes to boot. i don't think it's rich, but i would be living quite well on that much even if 50% was skimmed off the top.

think that was a bit over the top. If I ever came close to such a number I would pass out with glee. Ain't gonna happen unless someone buys me a lucky lotto ticket. Welcome to DU btw.

if you have even a rented roof over your head. Although most DUers are unlikely to see their own income as excessive as the comparison is usually not to the homeless.

:banghead:

I mean, the average HOTEL room is about 300-400 sq. ft., 700 sq. ft. would be a nice hotel suite...

I'm sure Madison Ave., Central Park, etc. locations are extremely expensive, but damn, $5,000/month should at least get you 1,250 sq. ft. of living, no?...

Perhaps I'm out of the loop on Manhattan, maybe it is that costily....

I guess its because so many can't afford condos or houses so instead you purchase a small apartment. So it is actually cheaper than Manhattan - I'm in Westchester County. Its tough to save 60,000 for a 20% downpayment for an apartment on a single income.

I have a decent deal renting an apartment since I only pay 1400 per month which is twice what I've paid for more in the midwest.

OCT 2009 Studios Most expensive, least expensive
Doorman: TriBeCa, $3119 Harlem, $1262
No Doorman: TriBeCa, $2777 Harlem, $1294

My three bedroom was about 900 sq. ft.

No matter where you live it is a lot of money. What kind of lifestyle you live with that income probably determines whether you think it is a lot of money or not. Also, not everyone in NYC makes $200,000 dollars or more. Plenty of people live on a lot less than that and with families to take care of. NYC is larger than just Manhattan (which is what I think you meant when you gave your example) and even then, there are those who live there that make much less.

Can those that make that much money afford higher taxes? Yes, though some by choice would argue, but, again I think depends on the lifestyle they feel entitled to. Are they paying a fair share of taxes? I'm inclined to believe they got some very good tax reductions under Bush, so I feel they aren't.

Unfortunately almost no one who makes that is rational or frugal. But it's hardly a fortune, and it won't even buy you a house. People have got to understand that housing that costs $150 K in St. Louis would cost 14 or 20 million in Manhattan and at least a million in other boroughs.

Nevertheless, life in this extremely expensive city forces most of its residents to get by on 50 K or less in household income.

If you got it without externalizing the costs of what you do, no it's not.

:thumbsup:
There's $200,000.00 income and then there is $200,000.00 EARNED. They are not always the same.

My friend just graduated Law School, and is employed by an big Wall st. Law Firm. He is making $200,000/yr. Does he earn it? Is he an evil rich person, or a working stiff?

or is he just siphoning fees off transactions other people created the funds for?

If the company that's paying him thinks what he does is worth $200,000 to them, then he's earning the money. It's about the skills and value that an employee brings to the table for the employer, not the amount of physcial labor or what's produced.

Every week. Most week nights he sleeps in the office. Yes he is probably on the fast track to make partner, but he is definitely working his ass off for what he is getting paid.

I don't think the issue is if he "creates" anything. A lot of jobs are honorable work, but create nothing. Again, someone is willing to pay him that amount of money for that amount of work, and he is willing to work that hard for that money, which among us has the right to decide that someone else's work is not deserving of what someone is willing to pay them for it?

why don't these evil firms employ two lawyers at half price so they can live a life? In a way, what's the point? he never gets to enjoy it.

Nobody is saying $200k is "excessive--" depending on what you do to earn it. There are things I wouldn't do for $200k a year.

I think what you're getting at is whether people who make a lot of money should pay more taxes. That is a complicated issue. First, recognize that people who make, say, $200k a year pay the same rate as everyone else on the first $50, 100, 150k of taxable income. If a new higher tax bracket is placed at $200k, only that portion of his total income above $200k is taxed at the higher rate.

And recognize that we are only talking about income tax here. In today's system, someone who makes $100k pays the same amount into Social Security as does that $200k guy. They both pay the same sales tax on a tube of tooth paste. They both pay the same amount of property tax per dollar of assessed valuation.

And third, take note of the fact that the rich guy is likely to make more use of government services than the poor guy. Not only do the courts devote 90% of their resources to settling disputes among businesses, but the fire departments and police forces are primarily concerned with protecting the property of the rich. Even the streets in the rich part of town are likely to have fewer potholes than in the working-class neighborhoods so those Bentleys and Ferraris ride smoother and retain their resale value a bit better.

I think if you make that much you should have to give a lot of it away to help the poor. I have struggled all my life and I will never earn that much...probably not even in my entire lifetime.

I have been playing the lottery though.

Disability? Chose a field--like teaching--that while rewarding doesn't pay all that well? Discriminated against? Unable to get a good education?

Again, I'm not judging, but I'm curious why you would say you would never make that much in your entire life.

I did well in school but was unable to afford to go to college, and with one child of myself and bills to pay I cannot afford to go now. I am working hard to keep my apartment, vehicle and utilities connected and also provide for my child.

Around me I see everyone that has stuff but me and I think its unfair. I try so hard and get nowhere...why is it so easy for others? There has got to be a better way. Is there some kind of govt program that I could get that would assist in paying all or part of my bills? I also need some kind of access to childcare.

I was joking about not being able to make 200K in a lifetime, but that does not change the fact I am struggling.

So it's not easy for others.

Your profile doesn't say where you live, but I'd say if you are serious about getting an education, check with your local community college; they can also be a gateway to a host of social services.

Depending on what those bills are and where you live, probably. There are also many charitable organizations and state and local resources that can provide assistance.

Heating bill assistance programs:
http://www.helpwithheatingbills.com/html/heating_bill_assistance_progra.html

Other utilities:
http://www.utilitybillassistance.com/html/utility_bill_assistance_progra.html

Medical bills assistance programs:
http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/help_with_medical_bills.html

Credit card debt:
http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/help_paying_debt.html

State and local assistance programs:
http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/state_aid_and_assistance_progr.html

sued for divorce and asked for something like $40,000 a month-for clothing!

It depends on how you want to live, etc.

I'd probably have trouble spending it all.


but I'd give it a try.......


mark

It is far more than the average.

Do I think those making $200,000 a year should pay a higher percentage of taxes than I do? Yes, I do. Do I think they should pay the same percentage as those making $500,000? No.

...the stunning fact is that, as rich as the wealthy are, short of confiscating the bulk of their estates and capturing 95% of their income, they aren't rich enough to close the deficit and debt gaps soon enough. After all, it took 30 yrs of simpleton republican trickledown voodoo economics to dig the hole so deep.

But, several graduated increasing tiers would be helpful. IMHO, they should mimic the wealth/income curves:

150K
250K
350K
500K
1,000K

Anything after 500K should be approaching 80% taxation. With IRS penalties for cheating being total confiscation and life imprisonment. The 15,000 bush-era tax cheats should be naming their children Obama out of gratitude...

where you live. Living in NYC is expensive as are some other cities and their surrounding areas.

The word excessive pretty much has to be attached to a standard or a purpose. Compared to what, or excessive for what purpose? It's excessive to pay someone who's not worth that much. It's not excessive to pay someone who is worth that much.

If this is a taxation question, words like excessive and rich don't matter. People who are rewarded the most by society are required (or should be) to pay the most back to society, relevant to regional adjustments (which is why state and federal income taxes are based on such adjustments). It's a pay-what-you-eat restaurant, not a one-price-fits-all-buffet.

Other than that, you need to know why you are attaching adjectives to income levels to answer.

If it is a question about income taxes, then there's no simple formula or classification. Taxes aren't based on value judgements like "excessive" or "rich," they are based on the needs of society and the role of society in helping create that 200K income, as well as on the rights of the individual to keep what they earn. No one wants to tax anyone to punish anyone for "excessive" wealth, taxes are simply society's way of paying for the world around us. We want bridges and roads and a military, we have to collect the money to get them. We want an educated work force to not only help create the jobs that pay 200K a year but also to provide a customer base for the jobs that pay 200K a year, that money comes from somewhere. A rich economy like ours takes a lot of investment, and the investment costs money.

Republicans believe you can cut taxes on the 200K income and that the person making 200K will have more money in his or her pocket, and will spend that money to boost the economy. Democrats (and economists) know that if you cut taxes you have to cut spending (or as the Republicans do, run up an immense deficit, which eventually raises taxes or cuts spending), and those cuts weaken the economy and weaken the actual value of that 200K. You ever notice how every time the Republicans pass one of their tax cut packages the economy falls? That's why. They don't invest in the economy. A person may still make 200K after the tax cuts, but the value of that money is less, and the entire economy stumbles as it adjusts to the investment shortage. The 200K is also more in danger of becoming 0K as people lose their jobs. Government spending, remember, is still spending. It still stimulates the economy (in addition to providing the necessary elements to creating the economy), so cutting government spending puts someone out of work directly, as well as taking away the long-term investment in the economy. If you cut education spending, for instance, as Reagan did, you not only harm our future ability to compete on the world market, you also put teachers, textbook printers, crayola makers, and a number of other people out of work immediately.

Anyway, that's my short answer. A bit random, but I have to go buy donuts for the kids.

:thumbsup::applause:

And neither are excessive.

Excessive is making > 10 million a year as a health insurance exec. You do nothing to improve care, you simply try to figure out how to provide the least amount of care possible as to improve your profits. That is excessive.

In terms of income and what is rich I prefer wealth based charity systems over income based tax systems.

A health exec's JOB isnt to improve care. He/She can't provide or deny care. They can only decide what they will pay for based upon a contract agreed upon between the insured and the insurance co.

Have I missed something here?

If they are the ones deciding what to cover and what not to cover, they are responsible for whether the patient gets health care. And many of the decisions they make aren't based upon iron-clad terms in a contract. Contracts often exclude experimental operations, for instance, but it's up the insurance provider to decide on the spot whether an operation is experimental of not. Even beyond that, some companies reject claims they know fit the terms of the contract because they know they can get away with it in today's unregulated insurance industry. I had a friend who worked in insurance who said that often they were instructed to automatically reject some types of claims on the first try, and only to approve them on the second attempt, or sometimes only if contacted by a lawyer. Far from anecdotal, that formula has been demonstrated as fairly widespread. Some insurance companies calculate whether the legal fees for rejecting certain claims is less than or greater than actually just paying the claim, since a high percentage of claimants won't ask a second or third time, or won't contact a lawyer.

Health execs justify their large salary by finding ways to avoid paying insurance claims, because the current system is based not on concern for the patient but the profit. The essence of insurance--the only justification for it--is that a person pays for it assuming that it will cover most normal costs spelled out in a contract should they need it. Otherwise they would simply keep their money instead of giving it to an insurance company. When an insurance company refuses to pay, the refusal being based not on the spirit of the contract but on pure profitability, the insurance company and the exec responsible has committed fraud, but they are rarely prosecuted or made to pay for it. And if the Republicans got their way, they would put "tort reform" caps on even that minor degree of accountability.

If you buy a car you expect to get a car, and if you don't, you can sue and file charges. Same with any product. But when you buy insurance you don't expect to get just a piece of paper, you expect to get the product the insurance company offers. When a claim is denied without just reason, you haven't gotten what you paid for or contracted for, and yet Republicans--until they are the ones getting robbed, that is--feel that no one should force the company to pay. They act as the the product insurance is selling is just the insurance policy, not the actual honoring of that policy.

That's really not related to how much is excessive, it's just about your post about health executives. I don't care how much someone makes. If someone wants to pay them $10 million, then they deserve $10 million. As long as they don't come to us as a society (meaning, government) and ask for a bailout so they can meet their salary when they haven't done the job they needed to do to earn it, it's no one's business but theirs and their boss's (whether a CEO, a board, or whatever makes that decision). But if an insurance executive is operating in bad faith with their customers and blocking claims based only on profitability, they should be jailed and fined, and our government should step up its duty to promote the general welfare by enforcing tighter regulations on the industry. If the insurance companies are honest, they have no reason to fear tighter regulations. If they are corrupt, they should be made to quake in their boots at the very thought of defrauding us.

My Mom lives in one now, but I live in the DC area and used to live in NYC.

Chicago isn't cheap. Check out the Tribune ads. Housing in the crashed areas has gone down in price, particularly in Detroit.

Minneapolis is in better shape, as are some of the college towns. Ann Arbor isn't cheap even though it is close to Detroit, for example.

And $250,000.00 for those filing jointly.

Is that a lot? I guess everything is relative. But I never made more than $100,000.00 in a year before I retired. And I thought that was a lot of money. Enough to not have to do without any necessities in life and to keep myself out of debt. No trips to Europe or second houses in Florida or anything, but I lived pretty darn good on that.

Qualifier: That is with good medical insurance included.

Don

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

By most Americans' standards, probably not.

"Where you live" doesn't really fly as a factor for me. If you're wealthy enough to live somewhere where costs are high, that doesn't somehow magically make you non-wealthy. People who are actually non-wealthy don't have the option to live in such places to begin with.

as most people don't move very far from where they were born what would you have them do? Move away from their family and support systems to move to a strange town where they know no one?

K&U

:kick:

Just trying to get a feel for where you are coming from. Does the issue of whether or not money comes from "hard work" and "earnings" have something to do with whether or not it is "excessive?" If so, how?

So is setting an arbitrary amount of income and calling it "excessive".

The entire discussion is bullshit from the get-go, in my highly subjective opinion.

for mortgage interest on the NYC home, and then the 50% is only applied to the upper portion of income. Lower portions of the income are taxed at a lower rate.

You may want to review the IRS's very own tax tables so you can see how this works.

But no, $200,000 is neither excessive nor egregious for, say, NYC. Though that depends in part on the job being performed.

than 20K.

Presumably that's where you are going with this.

No income is "excessive", however there is hard-earned income and not so hard-earned. Then there is accumulated and inherited wealth to consider. A 22 year old who gets paid 200K for doing literally nothing in Daddy's corporation and has a huge trust fund, is a lot different than a 57 year old executive who puts in 10-12 hour days every day and put himself through college while taking care of his aging parents. (As a shareholder of the corporation I probably would consider the 22 year old's "salary" top be excessive, in that example. But as an uninvolved person it's probably not my concern.)

lol

My instinct is to shout, HELL YEAH IT IS! But by that estimate, I'd say it's not excessive at all. Just glad I don't need to make anything near that to be very :)


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html

will clear that. Happy is important. Income and happiness are not always correlated.

The problem is those who are worth hundreds of millions or more and who own vast amounts of land, media, and other business empires. They are the ones that need to be taxed down to the point where control of America's resources is better distributed.

We need to raise the "death tax" preferably to more than 50%, on those folks.

:yourock:

We need to make it more common for families to earn 200K

:hi: How are ya, pp?




I know folks who work here in the tech/software industry, and they make very good money for this area - probably a couple here would make 180,000 on average, or so. And housing here is cheap, so they probably do pretty well. However, they would pay a fair amount of tax and probably have a more expensive house than someone making 50,000. So it's kind of relative. I'm not really sure that 200,000 is really excessive, given inflation.

However, working for non-profits myself- I can't quite imagine making $200,000. :rofl:

I think we also have a pretty screwed up sense of national priorities too. The guy who is about to discover fusion, solve the energy crisis and usher in a new era of global peace and prosperity is a G-13 who makes about $115,000 a year.

Is it any wonder we're in the state we're in when the hedge fund managers who wrecked our economy and sent hundreds of thousands of Americans spiraling into poverty spends that on silk toilet paper each year?

I think what really needs looking at is the corporate tax structure. Any business that can afford to pay it's CEO $20 million+ and give out $5 million+ in bonuses probably is not paying its fair share in taxes relative to its impact on society.

Keep the peasants fighting each other, middle peasant against lower peasant. Meanwhile tax the hell out of all of them and use those taxes to keep the oligarchs floating in a river of cash. Goldman Sachs is handing out bonuses in the millions using our fucking tax dollars and we are fighting over declaring a family living on 200k 'rich'. This thread needs to step back and get some perspective on how this planet is being run, by who and for whom. 700B a year to the MIC and we cannot afford universal healthcare? WTF?

We are pitting a $50K accountant against a $200K dentist.
That does not take an accurate view of wealth distribution in this country.

Let's take another example, other than the dentist or lawyer.

John Paulson is a hedge fund manager who "earned" $3 billion last year.
That's $1.4 million an hour.
The top 100 hedge fund managers pocketed $30 billion.
Goldman Sachs alone is about to distribute $30 billion in bonuses next month.
The richest 400 individuals in this country have $1.25 trillion.

Forget the dentist, the accountant or the lawyer making $200K

If this guy paid 66% tax, he'd still have a billion a year to live on:

I don't like the slippery slope of allowing the government to tax the same dollar more than once. And yes I know that they do that now, but it still isn't right!

We've had enough decades of "I've got mine, and screw you." It's time for us all to get better. Together.

Windows. and you build a company that employs 35,000 people worldwide, And you conduct your business, you make yourself exceedingly wealthy, you have faithfully paid your taxes every year, and paid your taxes on your puchases, and on your investments, and on your gas, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

And over a lifetime of working very hard to create all of this, you have amassed a fortune. The amount is immaterial for this discussion, You would feel that the government, having already taxed every one of those dollars that you have amassed at least 2 or 3 times, has the right to come and take 50% of your life's work?

Even if they do take it, your children, grandchildren, and maybe great-grandchildren will most likely never have to work a day in their lives. Meanwhile 1 in ~8 American children goes hungry, and you're complaining about someone (hypothetically) having to pay, say, $100 million on a $200 million dollar estate? That doesn't seem the *slightest bit* out of whack to you?

This leads to the wealth concentrating at the top while those below them struggle. BTW, "death tax" for estate tax is a RW talking point.

Death Tax, I merely responded using his own term or art. But thank you for pointing that out.

It's generally put in quotes that way to suggest the author doesn't really believe the term is an accurate description of the situation. And in this case, was likely used to indicate the author knows it is a RW meme.

Are you in the right place?

So just who pays the "death tax"?

The tax is levied against the person who got all the unearned money. This don't tax money more than once is complete and utter nonsense. If the money was only taxed once then it wouldn't be moving in the economy.

You're taxed when you make money, taxed at the point of sales when you spend it. You think the merchant who sells you an item isn't paying tax on the money he or she makes from selling you goods? (After it's already been taxed when you made it?) Taxes is what makes the government possible. You can't expect police protection, fire protection (and in civilized countries health care) and not pay for these things. And the idea of people getting sums of money merely for being winners in the lucky vagina lottery is obscene. They damn sure ought to pay taxes on this windfall they've gotten. That's how you avoid having families so powerful they can thwart democracy by means of money.

Already happens. So why give the rich an additional break?

not be worth that.

To raise the rent, there must be someone willing to pay that price.

and how "rich" are the people who own the property you are paying $5000 per month for? are they rich?

A 700 sf apartment in NYC rents for about $2,300, not $5,000.

If you're so stupid that you kick in half your gross to local, state, and federal governments, you need someone to help you hide it.

THIS is why tax increases probably won't work.

For a person making $200k a year, the deductions available to you are perfectly legal. Your biggest risk is being hit with the AMT which still wouldn't have you anywhere near 50% of your income.

As AMT and caps on everything else on Sched A reduce your deductions. NYC's highest marginal rate on income is around 50%, which is probably what the OP meant.

Your accountant is an idiot. When upper middle class and affluent people cry "woe is me I pay xx% of my income in taxes!" they are talking about what they pay on what is left AFTER they write off 401k contributions, medical expenses, capital losses, the plethora of "business expenses" you are entitled to, and yes, mortgage interest. If after all that you still have $200k left, boo fucking hoo, pay your taxes and STFU.

Even if we were able to "write off" our exorbitant health insurance costs (hubby and I are up to about $12,000 a year now), we still have to PAY those premiums. Plus whatever out-of-pocket medical expenses we pay because of our $5,000 deductible. It's not like it all magically gets "taken off our taxes."

I don't know what your personal situation is but you may be missing out on some deductions you could be taking. From the IRS website: Medical expenses include the premiums you pay for insurance that covers the expenses of medical care, and the amounts you pay for transportation to get medical care. Medical expenses also include amounts paid for qualified long-term care services and limited amounts paid for any qualified long-term care insurance contract.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p502/ar02.html#en_US_publink100014757

Now, if you are netting $200K a year after all your write-offs and boo-hooing because your health insurance premiums and other expenses are high, let me just repeat: Pay your taxes and STFU.

Please don't tell me to STFU. I'm just pointing out the fact that deducting one's health costs is not an option for most people. How is that so offensive that you'd resort to telling people to shut the fuck up?

You need to fire your accountant. You're going to sit there and tell me you take no deductions and do no tax planning whatsoever?

I most certainly paid 50% of my gross income under Clinton. I own my house outright, so have no mortgage deductions. Where else should I take my deductions? You tell me.

Those of us who get paid high wages (and don't earn our income as capital gains) really don't have that many options for deductions.

Accountants can't work miracles. You have to work within the law -- or at least, we do. As our accountant always tells us, "when you get too creative or skirt too close to the edge, you'll get into trouble."

Now you're telling me that being too ethical and law-abiding makes us morons?

do not generally have " medical expenses, capital losses, the plethora of "business expenses" " that they can write off. The cap on medical expenses is 7.5% of income, and you cannot deduct insurance premiums. Only self employed people have business expenses, and for many self employed people those expenses are quite limited and are more than offset by the employer side of the FICA tax. Capital losses could factor in, but if they do in any significant manner that implies a significant loss of wealth, so I am not quite sure what your point is there. The one shelter that the upper middle class has that is significant is tax deferred savings - but perhaps you do not quite get the concept there either? That money will be taxed on withdrawal. 401Ks defer taxes, they do not avoid them. At best you will be paying a reduced rate, but inflation may render even that a non advantage.

You have, as many do, mistaken the upper peasants for the nobility. The solution is to toss the aristocracy out. Their solution is to keep us fighting each other.

Glad you had more courage than I did, and you're right. This attitude is why America is the way it is.

I'm calling bullshit on the myth that people making $200k are paying 50% and 60% in taxes. They aren't. And the deductions I'm talking about are perfectly legal. I'm not making a comment on whether or not they should be. They just are.

Than someone who makes less than a fourth of that.
An income of $200,000 gives a person many more options, including the option of living somewhere expensive.

Sure, its not much for quality living in Manhatten, but virtually no one who earns 200k has to live in Manhatten.

If you're making $200,000 you can afford to pay more in taxes.

Yes certain parts of the country cost more, but you also make those choices. You don't NEED to live in the city in that 2 bedroom apartment. You can live out in New Jersey or on Long Island 40 minutes by commuter rail. Heck I know people who live in Easton, PA and commute to NYC daily. You can buy a 3 bedroom house there for under $100,000. It's all choices. When I was young and single and silly I decided I wanted to live in the city, and I paid through the nose for it (and more for parking) but it was MY choice. I didn't have to live there. I could have lived further out and had more of a commute.

Either way though, these questions come up "What is rich?" "What is enough to pay more taxes?" and 200k is enough to pay more taxes easily. Nobody, no matter where you're living, can honestly say that they can't afford to pay more taxes when they make that much money. They're not "Rich" but they certainly are comfortable enough to help out with more of a contribution.

we want to not increase taxes on people making 200K or less, but to start to increase taxes on people making more than 200K.

...given geographic location. It's understandable in a few locations on the coast, but for the overwhelming part of the country, that's SOLIDLY in the upper middle class. Of course, they're living the life MOST could until raygun took over.

Since then, wages have stagnated, both partners usually work -and all the OT they can- and are STILL poorer than a single wage-earner was back until raygun.

Sadly for those 200,000 folks, the middleclass has so atrophied that they're probably closer to lower upper-class, rather than middleclass any more.

on what you are doing to earn it. If you are being paid $200000 for flipping burgers it would be excessive. If you make $200000 as doctor or NFL player it would not be excessive.

than I would think you feel an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than myself, through taxes or charity. How much money does one need to spend to live well? After a point, it becomes wasteful spending.

I'd add an extra tax bracket on the top to begin paying down the nat'l debt. They're the one's who benefited from the tax giveaways that caused it.

(Of course, in a just world, there'd be a special Stupidity-Tax (eg:REPUBLICAN PATRIOT TAX) to repay the 5 Trillion they added onto the debt).

but it does it make you more comfortable financially than a lot of people, unless, of course, you're paying off monstrous student loan debt like my lawyer daughter.

Wouldn't it also be great to see some geographical leveling of those brackets?

Further, what I wouldn't give to find some sources for what the median/mean/avg incomes were -by state- once the top 1/5/10%'ers were removed from the calculations. As it stands, that's just an inaccurate description on what the REAL avg wage is for REAL Americans who aren't rich.

My guess is that instead of 50,000/yr, the number would fall between 20-30K/yr: IOW, $10-$15/hr.

From the factcheck link:

"Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures"

Under raygun, the top income tax rates dropped from 70% down to 28%. Capgains dropped from 28% down to 20% (then to 15%). Those taxes NEVER paid for themselves.

Worse, payroll taxes essentially DOUBLED (to "save" SSecurity).

Worst, they jacked excise taxes by $50 Billion.

So the wealthy -who made most of the income and virtually ALL of the capgains- made out like bandits!

The middleclass and poor got screwed!

Given my druthers, I'd restore those pre-raygun rates TOMORROW. Then I'd raise the estate tax to 80% (the $5 million floor levels should take care of any REAL family farms, small businesses, etc). AND add a war tax to PAY for the chickenhawks' excellent military adventures.

But that's just me.

should go up by 10% does not mean we feel their income is 'excessive'. It just means we feel they can pay a little bit more in taxes. That's a long way from 'putting them up against the wall when the revolution comes'.

One fact you may not be aware of. In Kansas people with incomes of $30,000 pay about 12% of their income in taxes whereas people with incomes of $200,000 only pay about 9%. All I am saying is that I'd like to see those percentages reversed or bumped up to 15% for the wealthier. If people making $30,000 can live on 88% of their income then people making $200,000 should be able to do that too.

What's needed is economic figures on the TOTAL tax burden (Income, SS, Medicare, Sales, Property, Excise taxes).

The poor and middleclass pay WAY more than the wealthy.

The rich are always whining about "everyone deserves equal opportunity, not equal results". The corollary would be "a progressive tax system means that the poor/middleclass don't pay MORE than the wealthy".

working adults?" ...then I'd be able to answer.

They're part-timers, multiple part-time job holders, as well as full time workers.

Moreover, I'd be itnerested in further factoring in the overtime virtually everyone I know works when they can get it.

Yep, I think 20-35,000/yr would be closer to the REAL avg earnings (recall that the top 10% earn @ 1/2 the income).

I really think that people who make $25,000 or
less should pay NO taxes, and that those making
$30,000 and above should pay taxes on a progressive
scale.

Maybe 12% over 30,000; up to 90% for those making
BILLIONS.

Adjustments SHOULD be made in consideration of
cost-of-living. You have to spend a certain amount
of money JUST TO LIVE. Just to buy or rent standard housing,
heat, food, transportation and medical insurance/care.
If you are using ALL the money you
make just to LIVE, you should NOT be taxed.

I think college tuition should be FULLY tax-deductible.

now if you have an irregular income and $200K is just the one big year you finally cashed in something (such as publishing a book) that's different

you may thank ronald reagan for taking away your right to income average in that circumstance

but yah $200K is so far beyond the median/average income in the usa that it's just shit-stirring to pretend it isn't rich

and how much work goes into it.
as well as the geographic location.

figuring out why anyone would want to live someplace that a 700 sq ft apartment cost $5,000 a month to rent.

Of course, I live rurally in the west.

That aside, cost of living matters, in my opinion.

I don't gross enough each month to pay rent on that 700 sq ft apartment.

unless you live in Mexico.

Yet it is.
Nobody should make more than $100k

right?

the person whose errors at the dry cleaners ruins your shirt, an MD error kills you or your child. Average MD has lots of debt from loans and starts practice around 30. While in school they are paid effectively nothing to work residency.

How about a 20 year old little girl whose comment on the flight deck of a dash8 is "wow i have never seen that much ice" before killing everyone, vs a Sullenburger with more than 15,000 hours?

You get what you pay for, I like the option to upgrade.

Do you know what university executives earn? At public universities?

I'm not suggesting a dropout should earn the same as a graduate but there comes a point where it's like comparing a factory worker in China to someone on the Forbes richest list.

the actual effort should be in increasing the median income for the majority of americans. An MD may earn 10 times more than an unskilled laborer. A good machinist will earn more than a good public school teacher. I have no problem with the bracket on the wealthy going up but steps need to be made to improve education and opportunities in the middle class. However it is defined in a given geographic area. IE middle class income in NYC is not the same as it would be in Birmingham Alabama.

I live in Georgia and earn shit.
What if I wanted to move to California or New York?
It's like how it is for poor immigrants to come into the US from some 3rd world country.
It's literally like going to another country.
That's messed up and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately it's going to take some radical changes to repair it and the super rich will never let them happen.

and go to a higher cost area, presumably your pay for the same work you do know will also go up, assuming that your work isn't something that is only done in Georgia. It's not like your pay scale goes with you when you move. If we left the DC area for Alabama, I would receive much less pay than I do now, but my cost of living would be less as well, so I'd be no better or worse off.

My $200k house here would cost literally $3 million in one of those other states. I could save up for a lifetime to move to a blue state and still never be able to afford it.

If folks in those states are content with the disgusting costs of housing then yall need to just form a new country and use a different currency.

"If folks in those states are content with the disgusting costs of housing then yall need to just form a new country and use a different currency."

Virtually every red state receive more back from the govn than they contribute through income taxes.

I'd suggest that it's not the blue state's happiness with their real estate prices, but leftover consequences dating back to the civil war and the South's agrarian template. Postwar, the northern blue states had developed their industrial base, and consequently their cities and populations grew more than the South's. Which means more folks in less area, which leads to higher taxes, etc.

Believe me, you don't want the north to form the UnitedStatesofNorthAmerica. The southern remnants of Jesusland would soon fester and implode, turning Survivor into a live cannibalism channel.

...lest we begin to hammer the Unions benefits that are still left.

Teachers, Profs, govn workers, cops, firemen, nurses, even the apprenticed trades are about the only ones still holding on to what USED TO BE the norm: decent wages and benefits, often with pensions.

Raygunomics, ie: bumpersticker slogans to get the more dimwitted (read republican base) to slash their own economic wrists are the problem here. Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas" lays it out quite well.

Moreover, the Billionaire trustfund brigades, who largely fund the rightwing media (besides their antitax lobbyists, faux-populist front groups, and bumpersticker "think"tanks) are at the root of this ongoing and worsening problem. Thom Hartmann laid it out plainly in his piece (which can be found at SmirkingChimp.com under his name/columns).

Nope. I have NO problem rescinding their taxcut welfare to preraygun levels, and then some.

but don't try to limit my lifestyle either.

I agree 100%

n/t

If you live in a really expensive city, like NYC or Los Angeles, definitely not. If you live in an expensive city, like DC, Boston, San Francisco, etc., probably not. If you live in economically depressed areas, definitely.

I live in the DC area. My husband and I combined make about $175K a year. I make more than he does, but that's because I have 20+ years of Federal Service. We live comfortably, but not ostentatiously.

And I agree 100% with what you're saying.

We lived in Alabama previously, and we could live like royalty there on the income we have here.

For example 200 K is in the range of what a lot of pimps, spooks and second-tier PR consultants and lobbyists for companies like Chevron, Monsanto, Halliburton and Blackwater make.

I consider these to be very destructive professions that a civilized society would seek to de-incentivize.

But as for your question, I'd start lower income taxes for almost everyone, and start with a 50 percent marginal tax rate for all income over 250,000. (You can put a COLA on that.)

The really rich, those who actually exercise control over the institutions of power through the ownership (or at least management) of large pools of mobile capital, are up in the tens of millions to billions range.

Did you ever see the L-curve? Very educational.

Stack up everyone's income in hundred-dollar bills along a football field, with each income percentile being a yard. In the first yard you've got practically nothing. From there a few bills are stacked pretty flat on the floor, and although the bills stack up as you proceed, it stays flat for most of the field.

What will it look like at the beginning of yard 99? A few inches high, maybe even a foot and a half.

What happens by the end of yard 99?

The L-Curve: A Graph of the US Income Distribution
www.lcurve.org/



That thing rising up to the stratosphere is what we have to confront.

American politics is very much about getting the middle class to despise the working poor and the "elitist" upper middles, the poor to be jealous and resentful of the "rich" middles, and everyone to fear and hate the underclass.

Capitalism's other PR feat is as much as possible to obscure a coherent view of the concentration of wealth and power in the top 1 percent range, to hide wealth offshore, in holding companies and in "philanthropy," and to keep as much of the instruments of power opaque (as with the banks and Fed) and even covert (as with the parapolitical actors and national security agencies). Add some gossip for spice and people end up thinking the super-rich consist of Hollywood celebrities, a handful of software moguls and a few royal families.

I don't have the solution to this problem.
What I do know is that there is a mass exodus from the State of Florida on account of the middle class getting squeezed out by excessive cost of living from the top earners.

I'd love to have the government step in and cap salaries and regulate the cost of housing to make it a level playing field.

Take a look at california for example. Where a basic 3br house costs $1.1mil. They should have another separate currency over there. That's a serious problem.

You advocate a peculiar kind of intervention.

Truth is, the government intervenes constantly and very dramatically in the economy. For example, every year for the last fifty they've stepped in and spent something like $800 billion in current dollars on maintaining a military empire around the world, invading countries, buying weapons no one dare use, waging covert wars that actually create the enemies who are then invaded 10 years down the line, etc. etc. This insanity is called "national security."

In the last year, as you know, they've put up trillions from the Treasury and from possibly the most important, private branch of the government (the Federal Reserve) to benefit the very same banks who engaged in worldwide fraud in a fashion they knew would destroy the entire financial system, but who always knew once that happened that they'd be able to extort and bribe their way to a bailout.

These funds could have been invested in rational economic activity, like converting the infrastructure for alternative energy, or building railroads and mass transit. They could have been put into education, health care, relief for the lower classes, relief for the indebted states of the union, and, of course, creating a public banking sector that puts the capital into people before corporate profits.

Do you think maybe this different allocation of capital should be tried, before you start capping salaries at 100,000, as you propose?

If the median salary were rising, if the poor had jobs and incomes, if we weren't burning the majority of surplus wealth for the benefit of bankers and warriors, if we were moving the majority of investment into the true industries of the future (the necessary ecological conversion), then the world would sure look different.

Doesn't that make a loooooot more sense than turning to measures that, instead of acknowledging the class war waged by the rich on everyone else, actually encourage a pointless class war among the lower classes? Because that's what you're describing.

To the ruling class, a hard-working professional or small businessperson scratching out $100,000 for 60 hours a week work is inherently as worthless as a Peruvian peasant. They don't give a shit about that person, except for the cut they can get out of him/her. All they care about is to how get a cut out of everyone, small or median. The ruling class is not the only problem in the world, but they are the first that must be confronted.

wish I had one, but then I decide I'm just fine in the lower bracket.

It is relative in many ways. What one's occupation is. What one's investment of personal capital is. Where one lives. Etc.

I don't begrudge anyone being wealthy as long as they aren't stomping on others to attain that wealth. Many wealthy individuals are compassionate and caring people who contribute heavily to the common good.

And then there are the Republicans.

Kidding about that to a degree. There are actually some wealthy Republicans who are decent folks, but they seem to be a minority.

with doorman bldgs etc. its not like you cant get a 2 bedroom under that amt.

and yes, income is relative to where you live

what we are talking about. Income doesn't really determine your wealth anyway. Assets do and assets can create income.

that is the bulk of the difference between living in NY or in Arkansas , that seems fair to me .

People seem to think high earners can find deductions here, there, everywhere. For most wage-earners, even high income ones, it's not that easy. Other than mortgage interest and business-related expenses (if you have them), you just have to suck it up and pay the 40-50% federal and state taxes.

That is, if you want to stay within the law.

about your question about the deductibility of rent.

Massachusetts for one. Other states have rental credits.

Even without these if a person uses part of a rented residence for business purposes it's sometimes possible to deduction a portion of the rent as a business expense.

didn't know that.about MA .

Medical is only deductible over 7.5% of your AGI and those miscellaneous allowable deductibles has to be over 2% of your AGI.

You can't deduct your rent any more than you can deduct your food.

It is a lot of money, but not enough to carry undue influence.

It is relative to where you live. In my neck of the woods 200,000.00 would equal a pretty rich person.

I wonder why that is? :sarcasm:

Whoever thinks $200K isn't unreasonable should be OUTRAGED at what the bottom makes.

Nobody is worth $1 mil in EARNED INCOME per year. I don't care who it is, or what they do. The cost of these exhorbitant salaries drives up the cost of everything. I'd tax that and above at 99% and use it to make a lot of basic essentials free for the bottom 1/3 - including the "working poor" (which would compensate for the ridiculously low wages we insist are so necessary). There should be no such thing as that term, the "working poor". (Or "the homeless", for that matter.) It's unconscionable on the face of it.

We have a 2-tiered society. The "market" blackballs and persecutes the "have nots", who already have enough of a problem just BEING among the have nots. The additional burdens placed on them by "the system" we have, makes sure that the have nots can never recover from any setbacks of life and never advance.

The system itself is entirely broken, but nobody ever deals with that fact. I'd start with some hefty LAWS about credit reporting and civil collections restraints, including bankruptcy overhaul.

The bottom can't survive anymore, and that's what's hurting our consumer economy. Too many people are shut out of it. THEY are the ones who would spend more if they could - with years' worth of pent-up umnet needs to pay for, if they had more to spend.

Until this reckoning comes... the "rich" need to be reigned in, yes. But it should be from the top down, not starting in the middle of the scale, as $200K would be. Start at the top first, with the "million plus club". We should have a global treaty on that, so the argument about needing to pay the top sharks "blackmail salaries/bonuses" to keep them would be unnecessary. As far as I know, the US is the only country not pushing for that. It's a no-brainer.

We should have a minimum wage which is based on the reality of the actual minimal cost of living. As is, we're expecting people to live a fiction. It simply can't be done. Fixing that, might have a big impact on crime too - which is the only alternative too many people have.

It's stupid beyond belief.

I pay my taxes and earn a fair living. If my skills are worth a dollar amount and someone pays that, I dont see the problem. Two people can easily tip 200k if they are both working white collar jobs.

If a person generates multiples of their salary for a company then they should be paid in kind.

This does not mean we should actively work to help those who earn the lease.

You would not be "rich" where I come from, but pretty well off.

And one that should allow the lucky recipient to give back a bit more to the society that provided his/her luck.

If you're a senior manager in a major company, an established doctor, senior engineer or accountant - basically in the upper levels of a professional field, $200K isn't unreasonable at all. If you're a successful small business owner, that's not unreasonable. In fact, if you are a smaller/mid-sized company VP or board member, that could very well be the lower levels of executive income (total income - salary, bonuses, bennies).
If you're not a CEO or President of a major company, it starts getting looking wiggy above $500K.

Nothing wrong with making a wage in line with reasonable cost of living, your work and responsibilities, or even making a profit, it's when you're a profiteer that the line gets crossed. If your salary and bonuses are more important than your customer or product (not to mention your workforce), then there's really is a problem. If your company is having problems, you don't loot it or play at cost-cutting smoke and mirror games to the detriment of your product and employees,just to pretend that everything is okay so long as you still get your paycheck and bonuses.

This is my opinion at least.

Haele

200K is definitely a good salary, but I do not believe it is excessive. The multi-million dollar base pay, plus benies, and bonuses etc gets the label excessive in my books.... especially if the person has not contributed anything positive to the company. (CEOs that run their company into the ground and eject with a golden parachute, for example)

For me, a "rich" person doesn't get the qualifier about where they live. They can live anywhere. If you are still having to use some location qualifier, the person in question is not in that top5% pay bracket.

Tax hikes on the wealthy start at $200-250k, they don't end there.

I think Obama's tax proposals (at least when he was running) involved something like an extra 3% of gross income going to taxes on income above 250k. So for every 100k you pay an extra 3k in taxes.

So an individual making 450k might pay an extra 7.5k in taxes. Hardly excessive.

My younger brother lives in San Diego (one of the most expensive cities in the US) and gets by fine on about $1000/month net income. He has a roommate and his car is paid off though, but he doesn't have problems. I was out there recently and spent 6 weeks, and my living expenses only came to about $1200/month as well.

out of me. Is $200K (gross) excessive? Probably not, certainly not in many parts of Manhattan. Is $200K (net - after taxes, rent, insurance) excessive? Arguably so, when a person making the federal minimum wage would take in less $15K (gross) a year.

But really, I've seen the "wealthy" = "hardworking $200K businessman" trope so much that it almost seems to me like a deliberate red herring. It completely ignores the actual concentration of wealth in this country, and the astronomical sums "earned" by the top 1% - see post #90 for a real eye-opener.

As someone said upthread, $200K may not be excessive, but $200 million certainly is.

If $200k, or $300k, or $10000k is earned, then it is not excessive. It is money earned by a person due to work. Aside from concern for externalities like the environment, how can someone have too much of an income?

On the other hand, people call rentier expropriation - rent, interest, profit - "income". It is not income, it is expropriation of wealth from those who create it by those who do not. In this case, not only is $200k excessive, $200, $20, $2, 20 cents or even 2 cents is excessive.

Excessive income is qualitative, not quantitative. The excess is from whether it is earned by ones one work, or whether it is expropriated from someone else's work, not what the dollar amount is.

After all you don't want to see these people at the club...next thing there will be TVs and line dancing in the bar and (shudder) fish fry in the dining room...