Current Events > If someone makes $150,000+ a year, should they be taxed 45%?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jesus Christ its not how much you make its how well you manage/save/invest your earnings.

You can easily retire with millions upon millions if done right making 50k a year.
---

That's more than a bit excessive.
---

JJWatt posted...

Jesus Christ its not how much you make its how well you manage/save/invest your earnings.

You can easily retire with millions upon millions if done right making 50k a year.

Exactly.

The problem with most western societies is the need for the 'best' and 'newest.'

How many people have high end phones, vehicles, etc when they do not need them or can even afford them?
---

Can the people saying 150k for ONE person isn't rich explain themselves? By my calculations, even with the 45% tax rate, that would get you a luxury apartment in downtown Houston/Austin/Dallas, a brand new car, and all expenses paid without even approaching half of your monthly income spent. I would think that would be rich to the vast majority of people.
---

legendary_zell posted...

Can the people saying 150k for ONE person isn't rich explain themselves? By my calculations, even with the 45% tax rate, that would get you a luxury apartment in downtown Houston/Austin/Dallas, a brand new car, and all expenses paid without even approaching half of your monthly income spent. I would think that would be rich to the vast majority of people.

lol texas
---

g980 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Can the people saying 150k for ONE person isn't rich explain themselves? By my calculations, even with the 45% tax rate, that would get you a luxury apartment in downtown Houston/Austin/Dallas, a brand new car, and all expenses paid without even approaching half of your monthly income spent. I would think that would be rich to the vast majority of people.

lol texas

Regions are very ... different in cost of living. Texas has a pretty low cost of living, so $150k would seem like a lot there, but in a place like California, it would not.
---

JJWatt posted...

Jesus Christ its not how much you make its how well you manage/save/invest your earnings.

You can easily retire with millions upon millions if done right making 50k a year.

lol wut? This would require not only amazing investment strategies, but also a low cost of living.
---

That's the 98th percentile nationally guys. Texas is the second most populous state and a place lots of people are moving to. Even if you change it to Chicago, that's still a ton. That's what a big firm lawyer used to get paid, you'd be hard pressed to find non-CE contrarians who didn't consider that rich.
---

legendary_zell posted...

Can the people saying 150k for ONE person isn't rich explain themselves? By my calculations, even with the 45% tax rate, that would get you a luxury apartment in downtown Houston/Austin/Dallas, a brand new car, and all expenses paid without even approaching half of your monthly income spent. I would think that would be rich to the vast majority of people.

So basically, because you get to finance a bunch of shit you think it makes you rich?

150k a year in South Dakota.

You're living comfortable and well.

150k a year in the NY/Metro area?

That's not rich or close to well off.
---

Balrog0 posted...

i think that we should stop taxing capital gains and dividends differently from earned income that way we can raise revenue without raising the nominal income tax rate at all

this is a good general idea that would protect the majority of americans who invest through tax-sheltered accounts anyway
---

meingott posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Can the people saying 150k for ONE person isn't rich explain themselves? By my calculations, even with the 45% tax rate, that would get you a luxury apartment in downtown Houston/Austin/Dallas, a brand new car, and all expenses paid without even approaching half of your monthly income spent. I would think that would be rich to the vast majority of people.

So basically, because you get to finance a bunch of shit you think it makes you rich?

That is how most people think of things. Unless your definition of rich is being able to buy everything outright with no financial strain, even in the most expensive of markets. That's fine if that's your definition, but most people would consider others rich far before they reached that level.

Or at least that's what I thought before I checked the polls. I was actually wrong. It seems people actually agree with you. I still think that's an abuse of the word though. If you're in the 98th percentile of income and can live straight up irresponsibly in a major metro area without even coming close to straining financially, that's rich to me.
---

You're a spoiled brat if you think 150K isn't rich. Sure it's not millionaire status, but that is quite a lot of money. Anyone who can handle money management can be rich off of that
---

legendary_zell posted...

Or at least that's what I thought before I checked the polls

Our conversation hasn't been related to the poll in a while, lol.
---

Nukleen posted...

This is how much people in the UK pay BTW

The UK is culturally very different, for instance you don't need to worry about health insurance.
---

Xelltrix posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Or at least that's what I thought before I checked the polls

Our conversation hasn't been related to the poll in a while, lol.

Not the poll in this topic. Opinion polls on what people think "rich" means. But its actually based on income. The more you currently make, the more you think it requires to be rich. Which makes me think it has no fixed, objective meaning, it simply means "an arbitrary amount more than I currently make" in most people's minds.

I think my definition makes more sense. It's main flaw is that the specific way I talked about it doesn't include like LA, DC and NYC. Those are pretty much the only places where 150k wouldn't be enough to live like a king while saving a ton.
---

legendary_zell posted...

Not the poll in this topic. Opinion polls on what people think "rich" means. But its actually based on income. The more you currently make, the more you think it requires to be rich. Which makes me think it has no fixed, objective meaning, it simply means "an arbitrary amount more than I currently make" in most people's minds.

Yup...
---

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

You're a spoiled brat if you think 150K isn't rich.

That's a very interesting viewpoint.
---

It really depends on where you live.

My brother and I both make ~100k each living in San Francisco area and the cost of living is very high. I'd say we're 'well off' but definitely not rich.
---

Nukleen posted...

This is how much people in the UK pay BTW

No it's not. £150,000 is not $150,000. It's a little over $185,000.

Nukleen posted...

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

You're a spoiled brat if you think 150K isn't rich.

That's a very interesting viewpoint.

And this all falls back to the arguments made back and forth about what defines as "rich".

Anyway for the poll topic, being taxed 45% of what you make is robbery. It kills the incentive to working to where you would be to earn that much money to be nearly slashed in half because everyone else who intentionally abuse government assistance is pretty much stealing away from you. $150k is a lot of money, but it really depends on where you are and how much standard of living is there. Which I don't have to explain since it's been pointed out very well already in this thread.
---

Afaik anything under $100K annually is considered poor.

@JE19426 posted...

£150,000 is not $150,000. It's a little over $185,000.

Okay,

Should someone making $185,000+ a year be taxed 45%?
---

Nukleen posted...

@JE19426 posted...

£150,000 is not $150,000. It's a little over $185,000.

Okay,

Should someone making $185,000+ a year be taxed 45%?

Still a hell a lot to be taken away by the government.
---

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

You're a spoiled brat if you think 150K isn't rich. Sure it's not millionaire status, but that is quite a lot of money. Anyone who can handle money management can be rich off of that

"can be rich"

that is the key
---

10% at most

GigaSPX posted...

Nukleen posted...

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

You're a spoiled brat if you think 150K isn't rich.

That's a very interesting viewpoint.

And this all falls back to the arguments made back and forth about what defines as "rich".

Anyway for the poll topic, being taxed 45% of what you make is robbery. It kills the incentive to working to where you would be to earn that much money to be nearly slashed in half because everyone else who intentionally abuse government assistance is pretty much stealing away from you. $150k is a lot of money, but it really depends on where you are and how much standard of living is there. Which I don't have to explain since it's been pointed out very well already in this thread.

How is it "killing" the incentive when you're still making more money? You are getting more and can buy nicer things. 150k is better than 120k regardless of tax brackets. But that raises a question. Is this 45% of your total income or a 45% marginal tax?
---

FightingGames posted...

10% at most

Bernie Sanders won't like that lol
---

Why is everyone on page one arguing with one of the dumbest posters on CE?
---

So now they make 82,000?
If you're in a major city that isn't crap if you have a house and a family
---

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

Why is everyone on page one arguing with one of the dumbest posters on CE?

That's not very nice
---

chrono625 posted...

150k a year in South Dakota.

You're living comfortable and well.

150k a year in the NY/Metro area?

That's not rich or close to well off.

where I live, 150k a year is almost 4x the median household income and almost twice the income of where the top quintile begins (~80kish)

it's almost but not quite in the top 5% of income

Is that really not rich?
---

im using numbers from my metro area, not my state btw

if I used state averages it would easily be in the top 5% of income... probably closer to 1
---

GigaSPX posted...

FightingGames posted...

10% at most

Bernie Sanders won't like that lol

He doesnt like people to be as rich as him, right?
---

legendary_zell posted...

Is this 45% of your total income or a 45% marginal tax?

this is one of the secrets of conservative bullshitting: present maximum marginal tax rates as effective tax rates and strip out all deductions

it's a great scare tactic
---

SSMajinVegeta2 posted...

So now they make 82,000?
If you're in a major city that isn't crap if you have a house and a family

Yep.

Most home owners once they buy a house, are basically condemned to financial slavery for at least the next 30 years of their life.
---

Darkman124 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Is this 45% of your total income or a 45% marginal tax?

this is one of the secrets of conservative bullshitting: present maximum marginal tax rates as effective tax rates and strip out all deductions

it's a great scare tactic

Yes, it's honestly amazing how often they do this and how often they don't get called out on it. But many of them legit don't seem to understand the difference. I've had otherwise extremely intelligent conservatives argue with me about taxes as if they were the same thing.
---

Balrog0 posted...

chrono625 posted...

150k a year in South Dakota.

You're living comfortable and well.

150k a year in the NY/Metro area?

That's not rich or close to well off.

where I live, 150k a year is almost 4x the median household income and almost twice the income of where the top quintile begins (~80kish)

it's almost but not quite in the top 5% of income

Is that really not rich?

No. It isn't.

You're low balling what rich really means.

150k seems like a lot of money but if you're an adult with a family and a house living in or near a major city ala NYC it is not a lot of money.

Houses in or around my area start in the high 300's for rubbish.

If you want a decent home you're looking at high 400's and thats with a 30x100 lot size.

Start getting into more comfortable lots you're talking 600+ now.

And I'm not even talking mansions. I'm speaking about 1800sqft to like 2300sqft homes.

When you're looking at a 2000-3000 a month mortgage, start racking up your other expenses. Utilities, food, car/maintenance/insurance, travel expenses for work, etc. If you have kids now you have more expenses.

"Rich" and what your dollar power are is totally relative to your location.

You can't go by the National median income because the country has various costs of living.

Even a 1 bedroom apartment can go for like 1200. 2 bedroom 1800.
---

No one should be taxed nearly half their salary, no matter how much they make.
---

chrono625 posted...

You're low balling what rich really means.

I'm not low-balling it, except insofar as my cost of living is lower than it is in NYC...

I'm not arguing that 150k in NYC is rich

I'm arguing 150k in Arkansas is rich

are you just saying you can't be rich in Arkansas? I mean, the waltons are definitely rich
---

I wasn't using national figures btw if you read my post I was actually being generous by using metro area numbers rather than state level medians because I realize costs are variable

still, you can get a really big house for less than $150k in North Little Rock with two stories, 5 rooms, 2 bathrooms, a fireplace, and probably an acre of land

if you're making that much a year it would be easy to finance and still have money left over
---

ITT: "They're not rich, they can't buy a house in a single year"

ffs

Nukleen posted...

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

Why is everyone on page one arguing with one of the dumbest posters on CE?

That's not very nice

Wasn't talking about you homie
---

Classic CE, where 150k/year isn't even rich
---

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

You're a spoiled brat if you think 150K isn't rich.

I don't know why I find this post so amusing
---

$150k is upper middle class tbh

This also depends where you live. $1 is worth more in the midwest than on the coasts.
---

Who was the 98th poster?
---

Nukleen posted...

Who was the 98th poster?

me

I said $150k- 999999 is upper middle class but I changed my mind. At some point that turns to lower upper class
---

How do you suggest we pay for UBI if the rich people who own robots dont pay high taxes?
---