I was thinking about the word "rich" this morning
By dragon54u
@dragon54u (31634)
United States
December 7, 2010 7:23am CST
considering the class warfare going on today and our politicians' drive to make us resent "rich" people and penalize them more than the average wage earner if they make, as a couple, over $250,000. That seems to be the magic number where resentment kicks in.
The average Joe making $30-40,000 per year rents his house or apartment and has a car worth about $4,000 and maybe some credit card debt but not much because his earning to debt ratio means he doesn't have very high debt limits. He pays cash or check for most stuff, his kids attend public school and what's in his bank account is pretty much what he's worth.
The "rich" couple making $250K has a mortgage averaging $200,000, a car or perhaps two that they're making payments on that they are in debt for $17,000 each. Their kids go to private school for which they pay about $12,000 per year each. They use their credit cards and have an average debt of about $20,000. Life insurance, maybe a boat they owe on, perhaps a summer cabin they are paying for and all the other trappings of "wealth" mean that at the end of the month they probably have about as much left over as the average Joe.
So who is wealthier? If each couple loses it all, Joe still has his apartment and probably his car. He has his wife and children and a car payment, maybe some credit card debt. The "rich" family puts their kids in public school, loses their house and boat, their furniture which they're still paying for, their second home and are sued by the credit card company. Who comes out better?
My point is that just because someone appears to make a lot of money they aren't worth that much. In fact, the average Joe might be wealthier than the rich couple because he doesn't have as much to lose and what he owns is real, where the other couple is rich only on paper. What a messed up way to calculate wealth!
What do you think? Is $250,000 really rich, considering how much property they really own? And are you buying into the whole class warfare things?
5 people like this
19 responses
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
Yes, especially if the gov't doesn't add an extra tax on you because you are "wealthy".
These people would actually be "rich" if they would handle their money like average Joe! 
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
7 Dec 10
If we make the mistake of buying into the class warfare, we put the lid on the American dream. Most people making $250K or more didn't start out that way. They started out with college loans to pay off, entry-level positions and worked their way up the ladder. And along the way up, they incrementally increased their spending to match their earnings. Sure, if you have a low-rent apartment that is just big enough for your family in a less-desirable part of town and suddenly you had much more income, you'd get "rich" by staying put and keeping expenses low. But what is the point of your money then? To sit in the bank and look pretty on the ledger? People use their economic success to better their positions in life. They find better housing, they get newer cars, they invest more in their children through education or even extra-curricular activities, they start taking vacations - in other words, they illustrate a basic economic theory: they work in their own best interests, which puts money into the economy and benefits the community at large. Taking that extra money from them to give to the government does nothing for the economy.
I don't think the average Joe is richer, but he's got one important thing: he's got the opportunity to pursue the dream. Tell Joe that if he succeeds, you're going to take the extra bit from him and you quash that dream. Joe may never make it to the nicer side of town, he may never own his home or drive a brand-new car. But take away the ability to pursue the dream and you guarantee his failure.
I can say that I would be truly happy with enough to pay all bills and just a little left over at the end of the month. But I know for sure that if I suddenly had a windfall - like winning the lottery - I would certainly go buy a nice house for my kids and the amenities that for now, we only dream of owning.
Besides, Christmas is much more special when you don't already have everything you want.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
7 Dec 10
There was an American Dream, jb, and there still can be. I worked for an employer for 21 years, and I knew those in high level and middle management who started out in the lowest positions. Some had great educations, some had basic college and some had no secondary level education. Needless to say, they were all middle-aged to older and had been with the company for 30 years or more. But when they started there, someone could work his way up through experience, job-knowledge and hard work. Over time, the newer employees tended to be vacuous, degreed types who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag but rose up the ladder, nonetheless. This trend may continue for a while, until companies realize that many of the people they hired simply because the name of the university they attended was impressive are rather useless.
But if education is the way to better earnings, then there are opportunities even for those from low-income families. Financial aid, loans and scholarships are still available for those who qualify. I would rather hire the person who grew up in a low-income area, worked hard, got a scholarship and graduated than the person whose parents shelled out a $100,000 so he could go to a really impressive school.
The American Dream will continue only if we let it. Only if we value hard work and perseverance can we expect to see those qualities flourish. I am very much afraid that our victim-based society no longer values those qualities but rather seeks to find someone, anyone, to blame for any hardships that anyone may suffer.
I try to remember the immortal words of Westley (aka The Dread Pirate Roberts):
"Life is pain, princess. Anyone who tells you differently is selling you something."
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
I like the last line, it is so true! We always need something to strive for.
I wish there were people like you in Washington, D.C.
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
8 Dec 10
First of all, the person who earns $250K pays the same tax rate as the person earning $30K, and the Democrats want to keep the tax cuts for all income up to $250K. Plus, the higher tax rate only applies to the amount earned that is over $250K, so a person who earns $250,001 only pays the higher tax rate on the extra dollar.
Second, why is the $250K earner in your scenario spending all this money on optional things like a boat and a summer cabin and private school? Why are they letting their credit card debt build up to $20K? Why are they spending all their money on things they don't need, so at the end they have nothing left which puts them in the same situation as the $30K earner living hand-to-mouth?
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
I stand corrected--$251,000.
I have no idea why those people are handling their money that way. The people I have known that earn $250K or thereabouts bought into the housing boom and lost. They liked nice houses, bought their kids the latest styles and goodies, traded in their cars every couple of years and shopped like maniacs. One I personally knew said she didn't save money because if they got into trouble they could use their house as a bank and take out a second mortgage because it was cheap money.
I'm sure that there are many that make that much that handle it wisely and have a nice financial cushion in the bank but I haven't met any. On the other hand, the wealthy people I have known are very careful to have money in the bank as well as investments--there is money they can get to easily and money that is intended to grow or preserve itself at the very least. They try to stay away from credit card and other debt except for their mortgages and many live in homes that are below their means (but still fabulous). This is why the wealthy tend to stay that way. I don't think it's right to tax them more than the rest of us just because they have handled their money wisely and even increased it.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
9 Dec 10
I don't believe in giving people a break by forcibly taking from people who have more. I would rather see education and vocational training credits or tuition assistance and tax incentives for employers to hire people. I know taxes are necessary for roads and other services we need but our taxes should not be distributed to other citizens. Everyone should be able to keep what they earn except for minimal taxes.
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
8 Dec 10
$250K a year is a heck of a lot of money, even in 2010.
There is no excuse for going broke on $250K a year.
And I would not have any sympathy for you.
Either you are living the life of a movie star, and you are an idiot for doing so.
Or you are greedy and investing your money in some high risk venture.
On $250K a year, you are not rich, but you should be worth a million within 10 years.
And you should be very rich when you retire at 60.
Of course you are not going to be rich on earning $250K in your first year.
But it gives you the opportunity to get rich.
The guy on $40K a year never has that opportunity.
It really comes down to living in the real world and setting some realistic targets. If you live in fantasy land, you don't deserve to earn $250K a year.
1 person likes this
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
8 Dec 10
People are the same in Australia, and I fell into that trap myself when I was in my 40's. But I have learned from my mistakes. And I was not on 250K but 40K.
Saving don't boost the economy, but it reduce the budget deficit and the national debt. Australia encourages saving.
But your discussion is not about saving. It is about spending money wisely and investing wisely. You don't become rich by saving. Particulary when your interest rates are zero per cent. Since the collapse of the housing market in your country, it is a golden opportunity to buy real estate. And with $250K, that is what you should do. And if you have already done so, hold on to it, because the price has to go back up eventually.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
If I had $250K I would buy another property. I used part of my divorce settlement to buy this house, a modest but well built house in a decent neighborhood. I'm afraid to take on any more debt by buying another but there are lots of bargains here! I'm waiting till values rise again then I'll probably move back where my sons live. Meanwhile, I'm stashing away money in my savings account and I have the rest of my settlement invested and pretend I don't have it.
There are a lot of short sales here, foreclosures and auctions. Nothing I'd feel comfortable taking on, though.
It's nice when we can learn from our mistakes in time to correct our habits.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
Like you, I think it's a lot of money but it doesn't go far here. That's mainly because we're a competitive society, always wanting to be better than our neighbors and show everyone how much we have. We've been trained that way since the 1940's. People like me have escaped that and feel as you do, that they are fools and are wasting their economic potential.
My gov't says that savings don't boost the economy but where do banks get the money that they lend and invest? From savings!!! People don't save, banks have no money to work with. At least, that's what my impression is.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
7 Dec 10
The "rich" certainly have more to loose. I don't think 250k is "rich". They certainly are not poor but I don't think they are rich either.
I don't understand the whole hating the rich thing...or thinking that the public is entitled to more of their money. Want a better life? Well do what those rich people did...get yourself a plan and then work your a$$ off to get there.
Most of the rich did not have it handed to them. They worked their butts off to get where they are today. They took risks, worked smart and got it done. THey had drive and ambition. So instead of saying "good on you" for succeeding, we tell them "we want YOUR money".
I also think it boils down to jealousy. THey have it...other people want it. So they want to take it from them. Only instead of robbing them and ending up in jail we get the feds to do it for us. Becuase if the feds do it...then it MUST be legal. LOL.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
The politicians are pushing class warfare like I've never seen before. And our culture of victimization doesn't help. With everything that's going on, I hope they don't win their battle to turn the lower/middle economic class against the upper economic class.
Sure, I'd like to be rich. But I messed up, didn't take advantage of education opportunities and other ways to increase my skills or get my foot in the door somewhere. My fault and no one else's.
Have you noticed how they've quit referring to the "rich" and substituted "millionaires and billionaires"? It's escalating.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
7 Dec 10
I still don't understand "how" the rich are suppost to be "evil" or "bad. Why should I hate them or want to take their money? Why should they penalized? just becaues they are rich?
Wow it is a messed up society when we want to penalize people for being successful.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
Lil, our society has been creating victims since the 60's and taught them that they are disadvantaged and oppressed by the wealthy. We give them excuses for not getting an education, tell them they're from a broken home and that's why they're in trouble for stealing (trying to get attention, etc) and all that other drivel. We encourage them to wallow in their misery instead of lifting themselves up. That's why they think the rich are evil. Some of the middle class and a lot of the "lower" class (I hate that term) resent the "rich" because of this relentless campaign of victimization. Then they tell us the rich got that way by stepping on the backs of the poor.
Now they are building on that resentment that they've nurtured all these decades and yes, they want to penalize people for being successful. It's call wealth redistribution. Of course, those in power would keep their wealth.
I'm glad you haven't fallen for the class warfare. Next time you hear a friend speak up and say the rich are evil, educate them--we could all be rich if we would grab the opportunities when they are presented. (I missed several and it's my own fault and no one else's)
@lovinangelsinstead21 (36850)
• Pamplona, Spain
11 Dec 10
Hiya dragon,
I have seen a couple of programs on the Television not right the way through but enough to realize that these kind of People are rich only on Paper most of them. They cannot afford repairs to their Houses sometimes because the Money goes on paying the House, Kids School, maintenance of House and so on.
I think that the average Joe is much better off than some of these People.
Apart from that they work all hours under the Sun to pay for that House they have. I think it´s not a done thing to call them rich. Really they are no richer than you or me. They might have high paid Jobs but where would they be without those Jobs? They would not be able to pay for those Houses on a normal Job that is for sure.
Of course there are rich rich those that really have got money and then there are these others.
No I would´nt buy into anything as those People I mentioned are not really as better off as they would have people think.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
11 Dec 10
That's how I see it. So why tax them more and call them "rich"? Luckily, they've come to a compromise on the tax "cuts" so we all have a reprieve. Trouble is, the government has already budgeted that extra money they thought they would have (and probably already spent it) so they're calling it an expense.
Our government officials are all insane and delusional and megalomaniacs. In ordinary life they'd be locked up as a danger to themselves and others!
@lovinangelsinstead21 (36850)
• Pamplona, Spain
11 Dec 10
Hiya dragon,
They cannot call those People rich not at all not the ones who work 24 hours a Day to have a House and then pay enormous taxes on top.
Glad they have come to a compromise maybe our President will sit up and take notice too because he had that in mind to punish these kind of People with even more Taxes but not taxing the ones who have committed Fraud through money dealings. I don´t get it either. I personally think they have lost their minds too the ones in this Country I mean. They are robbing Peter to give to Paul. But Paul is usually much wealthier unfortunately.
Still it´s a case of waiting and seeing as always.
@GardenGerty (160883)
• United States
7 Dec 10
I do not buy it. The class warfare, that is. Most people are about as happy as they make up their mind to be. (Lincoln, I think) Some people can have an adequate amount of money and be so scared of losing or spending it that they are actually poor in their souls or hearts. Most people's expenses rise to meet their income, so as in your illustration, both the person with high income and low income are in trouble in a tight economy. We have a low income, but live in an older house and the mortgage is almost paid off. We are in better shape than the people who pay close to $1000 month for rent or house payments. I feel rich. We have cars, no payments. No credit cards. We have bills, but should be able to manage.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
I feel rich sometimes, too. I'm nowhere near "rich" as the government is defining it but I live below my means, as you do, with a paid off car and I'm not even thinking of replacing it just because the new models are prettier or fancier. I use a credit card but pay it off every month and reap cash rewards that I put in my savings account. I'm taxed a lot, though, at least in my view. Gov't takes 20% of my income and if there were any jobs to be had here that I could get, they would take even more!
One thing that brings me a lot of pleasure and makes me feel wealthy is that for the first time in my life I have some money that I can give to charity.
If the people who the gov't says are "rich" did not value material goods so much, they would truly be financially "rich". But then people would hate & envy them just as much.
@ElicBxn (63638)
• United States
7 Dec 10
no I don't, people think that you own a house, a car or 2, a boat, a speck of land (less than an acre) then you must be doing okay, and you probably are, but you aren't rich and you've worked long and hard for what you have - still, there are people trying to take advantage of your good nature - and yes, I know someone who lives this way, and they have lived in their former double-wide for almost 35 years, but there are family members, and a few others who still try to take advantage of them.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
I was surprised, during some research on an article I was writing, to find that mortgages were not common in the U.S. before the 1950's. People who owned cars had actually paid cash, if they owned a house they had paid for it. Back then, "rich" had some meaning!
1 person likes this
@3SnuggleBunnies (16374)
• United States
7 Dec 10
Your discussion is written well and has many points I've never considered. You know people who don't make that are in just as much debt, except I feel the only difference is they have more resources to accumulate more debt if that makes any sense. You know my MIL used to tell me how a woman in an area near where they lived had a nice new house but lived on sandwiches because they put every penny into their house. But you know we all have dreams and are willing to do what we can to achieve them despite the debt and stress we put ourselves thru.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
That's a good point--she has a right to spend on her house and eat sandwiches. With this tax fight that was going one till yesterday, gov't wanted to take more of her money so she couldn't even afford the sandwiches! Of course, she could have downsized but shouldn't have to if that's what she wants.
I think people like that have their priorities wrong but thank God it's a free country and we are allowed to do as we wish--so far.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
8 Dec 10
I don't want to be nitpicky...it's late and I've had a very busy day...but $200k barely buys a townhouse anymore. A couple who earn $250k and above most likely own a home worth around $300k and they each own a car because they each have to get to and from their jobs. It's hard to generalize about credit debt. My husband and I have five credit cards but we pay off the balance of the ones we use every month so that we don't have to pay interest charges and we keep these cards active for a specific reason...unexpected emergencies. If our central A/C croaks we're not going to be able to pony up $5k for a new one...if a Cat 5 hurricane is headed this way and we have to run for our lives, with my daughter and her family following closely behind, we're going to need to be able to pay for gas, motel rooms and food. Folks down here who own a nice boat...bigge than ours...and who own vacation condos...earn much more than $250k per year. Boat storage fees cost an arm and a leg.
As far as losing it all, how can Joe pay the rent? He's going to be kicked out faster than a homeowner facing foreclosure. If you own your home you can short sell and possibly walk away with some cash in your pocket. I think "wealth" is an individual circumstance based on your earnings and the lifestyle you choose.
And, no, I've never bought into this whole class warfare thing that some have worked so hard to promote. Everyone is free to choose their own path in this country. Sometimes it takes years of hard work to get there...but it can be done. The poorest of the poor can become educated, get a good job and earn a good living so what "class" are you talking about?
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
That's fine, I wanted my argument to be picked apart because that's how thinking is expanded and new ideas introduced. You're reinforcing my argument with the first paragraph--$250K is not rich. As for Joe, sure he'd be out on his butt but he'd lose a lot less than those "rich" folks, generally. It's true they could sell short and might have some assets left but for that income bracket they are often so debt ridden that it just doesn't happen, at least here in the Midwest.
The class I'm talking about is the one that politicians have created, the "them" as opposed to "us". "They" are rich, making more than $250K while "we" limp along at $30-100K. Although in the past ten days they've changed their strategy and started using "millionaires" and "billionaires" instead of "rich" and "wealthy". I don't believe a wealthy person should pay any more taxes than I do, I just want them to pay without being able to shelter their income offshore. I do not resent them but resentment is what politicians are trying to build on.
Well, it's all moot right now since a compromise was made and the tax "cuts" extended. I think it will help the economy. The prez seems to be the only adult in a room of bratty pre-schoolers on this one.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
8 Dec 10
Maybe those wealthy business owners will stop being so stingy now and put some folks to work.
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
11 Dec 10
I think that amount to be consider rich a person if they live here in Asia. Because that amount equivalent to millions.
But if you live in the US. I don't say that amount consider rich because you spend dollars a day...maybe that is for a middle class status
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
11 Dec 10
What people here don't realize is that what the poorest among us has is considered wealthy in other countries. We have taken our blessings for granted! $250,000 here is upper middle class, not rich, but our government thinks it is rich. The cost of living keeps rising and people are not good stewards of their money, wasting it and getting themselves into debt for things they don't need. If they would live for a week in a poorer nation I believe their attitudes would turn around.
@jb78000 (15139)
•
7 Dec 10
that is called living beyond your means, or getting into unnecessary debt and even people on high incomes are not immune. nor are those on low incomes either. a high mortgage, a few credit cards, a loan for two or three nice toys, and yep all your money is gone and the bank owns your stuff if things go bottom up.
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
•
7 Dec 10
more money doesn't help you if your money management skills are dreadful. basically you should only take out a loan to start a business, for an education or to buy your home (one home, and not one so big you'll struggle to make the repayments) and in utter emergencies. christmas spending is not an emergency.
1 person likes this
@millertime (1394)
• United States
8 Dec 10
I agree with you that the present administration is trying to foment class envy or class warfare. Inciting the middle and lower income groups to hate the "rich" plays into the progressive's agenda. The poor or lowest income group is really the only group that they succeed with though. Most of the working middle class don't really resent the rich that much because they strive to reach that level themselves. It's the pursuit of the American dream.
I see your point about the level of income that defines "rich" too. While a lot of people, including myself, would love to reach that level of income, it's not necessarily what I would consider "wealthy". A lot of people at that income level may be working "paycheck to paycheck" just like someone making a lot less. They have the mortgage and car payments, etc. and might not really have a huge bank account full of cash like one might think.
It's always kind of amazed me actually, that someone at that income level doesn't always save like they should. They increase their lifestyle right along with their income and spend everything they make. I read a story recently about a guy that got like 8 million dollars from the sale of a business and through wasteful spending and some bad investments, lost it all. It's hard to believe that people mismanage money that badly but they do.
Anyway, while I may envy the rich, I've never really resented them. I've always wanted to become one of them actually. I would love to make $250,000 a year and it would probably feel like being rich. I know I could live better than I do now and not have too many worries. I guess I'll keep trying! 
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
8 Dec 10
You and I feel just alike. The "rich" have a right to their money and I think it would be fair if we all paid 10% tax and that's it. No secret offshore shelters and crap, just pay. I think that would satisfy everyone and I know I'd be thrilled with it. Now they're talking about a VAT, which would really hit lower income people hard and the middle income hard, too.
I've always wondered about the saving part, too. It's a mind set, I think. Many people make good money but have to have "stuff" to show it off and appear affluent, it is important to their ego to appear to be doing well and even outshine their friends.
I feel more secure with a well-fed savings account and a house free of the clutter of the newest electronics, etc.
Since the 40's there has been a concerted campaign to turn us into and keep us as consumers and that fueled the economy. It worked well. But now we produce little, consume a lot and the economy is a mess. Consumerism worked too well.
@millertime (1394)
• United States
11 Dec 10
Yes, you touched on another point that I've been railing about for years. America started out primarily as an agrarian society. Then we slowly turned into an industrialized nation. We had a huge manufacturing base. At one time our steel industry was second to none. Some of the most prosperous years in this country were during the height of this period. Then for various reasons, including NAFTA, our manufacturing industry started to wane. Cheap labor elsewhere and the opportunity to easily exploit it caused our factories to close their doors. We turned into a nation of consumers. Our economy is now based on buying and selling and not actually producing anything. I think that is part of the reason our economy is in such a mess. We no longer produce, we only consume. We are not self-sufficient but dependent on others. I might be called a "protectionist" but I believe we need to change things to bring manufacturing back to this country. Our economy might just depend on it.
@liuyh0619 (108)
• China
9 Dec 10
The rich are rich distressed, the poor are poor happy. The wealthier have to spend a lot of money to keep their social status. Pay a high mortgage for big house, buy a better car with credit card, send the children to the private school and so on. They suffer huge pressure, If the supply, they lost the job, were cut off, The bank would take off all your stuff. So besides the mortgage, you'd bettere buy something with cash, especially in the midst of economic crisis today.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
9 Dec 10
That is true of many "rich" people because they don't handle their money well. Since mortgages were introduced on a mass scale in the 1950's here, people have been in debt as a way of life. I'm not rich but I stay out of debt as much as possible and I have peace of mind--I don't have much but I won't lose much, either!
@elitess (5070)
• Ipswich, England
7 Dec 10
Hello my dear dragon.
The human being is bound to improve it's living, it's life in general, and it tends to expand in luxury as much as money permits it - i know, different people, different ways of spending money, but in the end, we all spend more or less to improve our way of living even if sometimes we chew more than we can swallow.
The thing with those "rich" people that separates them from the average joe is that they have access to better accessories and services for the time being. While they are paying more then your average joe, they get better stuff for the money spent.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
That's true, they do have better quality things but most don't really own those things--they buy them on credit. Joe buys with cash so if he has no more money, he still has the stuff. If the rich lose their wealth they lose their stuff, too, because it has been bought on credit. So Joe is actually wealthier!
1 person likes this
@bunnybon7 (50973)
• Holiday, Florida
7 Dec 10
the average joe would still be the worse off as they could actually end up homeless and many have. John and i were close to rich so i know what im speaking of. we both had jobs that are always needed somewhere. so one of us at least would have always had a job if he hadnt passed away. we had a brand newly built house with very easy payments when it was both of us and if i hadnt gotten deathly sick, id still be able to pay on it. plus if we'd lost everything, so to speak, the rich always have something they can live in.Like we would have been moving back to our mobile home, in the park, that had very low rent and we owned the mobile. now if we hadnt owned it we could take out of our savings or sell asets to buy an old one. and we were quite happy there anyway. 
so, still the average joe is still worse off i think. dont feel sorry for the rich, still think they are lucky
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
I'm sorry that happened, bunny!
The rich are rich mostly on paper. In bad times, paper suffers as much as real money. The rich worked for what they have and I don't begrudge them their wealth and don't think they should be taxed more percentage than anyone else.
I wish we could get a president who would pass the Fair Tax.
The rich are rich mostly on paper. In bad times, paper suffers as much as real money. The rich worked for what they have and I don't begrudge them their wealth and don't think they should be taxed more percentage than anyone else.
I wish we could get a president who would pass the Fair Tax.
@savypat (20216)
• United States
7 Dec 10
It's a matter of point of view, to me the most fair way would be for each to pay a percent of their earnings in tax and this percent be the same for all. That was those that many $40,000 would pay 400.00 dollars and thoses that made 400,000 would pay 4000.00 dollars each paying the same percentage. ( I hope my math is right)
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Dec 10
That's called the Fair Tax, something people have been trying to get passed for years! It never works because the IRS has too much power and therefore the gov't has more control over the people.
We have a couple people running for 2012 prez that want the Fair Tax. Hopefully, they'll have enough other qualities that they'll get voted in.
@sanjay91422 (2725)
• India
7 Dec 10
I think what you wrote above is quite difficult to understand. You asked some questions in the end which are not quite clear to be said to be questions. I think you are giving the example of a people who have a good property to rent. I think such people make their living very easily but they need patience for that. $250,000 is really a big amount so i will consider the person a rich. I suggest you to break you post into paragraphs. I know you can't do that with this post but you can do it in future with other discussions. Thank you and have nice day ahead.
1 person likes this
