What constitutes "filthy rich" or super rich?

I hear that the dems only want tax hikes on these people yet Obama constantly whines about raising taxes on the top 2 percent or (depending on the day) those making over 200K a year. or a family making over 250 a year. So for all you dems, liberals, socialists and Obama supporters-what constitutes "Filthy Rich" or super rich and do any of you have the honesty to admit that Obama's tax hike desires hit far far more people than the "filthy rich

to be in the top 1 percent the cut off is 380K a year (for those who actually filed returns)

top 5% is 160K

200K puts you around the top 4 percent I suspect.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

TurtleDude said:

I hear that the dems only want tax hikes on these people yet Obama constantly whines about raising taxes on the top 2 percent or (depending on the day) those making over 200K a year. or a family making over 250 a year. So for all you dems, liberals, socialists and Obama supporters-what constitutes "Filthy Rich" or super rich and do any of you have the honesty to admit that Obama's tax hike desires hit far far more people than the "filthy rich

to be in the top 1 percent the cut off is 380K a year (for those who actually filed returns)

top 5% is 160K

200K puts you around the top 4 percent I suspect.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Click to expand...

filthy rich? bill gates and the kochs. well off? i would say 150k to 175k........

If you make more than the person posting, you're rich.

tessaesque said:

If you make more than the person posting, you're rich.

Click to expand...

Its amazing how the cat has the tongue of the welfare socialists. they constantly whine about the "filthy rich" yet their sordid tax hike schemes affect a couple that is made up of say two GS-14 workers or two assistant united states attorneys or two postmasters of medium size city post offices

rof The filthy rich are the people who refuse to launder their money.

I think just picking an income point is silly. Is somebody living in NYC really all that well off at 200k if they pay $4k/month (48,000/year) for rent, 6.85% state income tax (for all income over 20k), plus the cost of transport, electricity, phone service, internet service, food, medical insurance, etc? How much do they walk away with before federal taxes (33% for that level of income)?? Are they really able to afford more just because they meet some arbitrary line?

Wealthy, filthy rich, yada yada is temporary. Before the end of this year the definition of said terms will have changed. More money and the accumulation of more "things" does not correlate to more happiness. Certainly being dirt poor and having more money has a greater correlation to happiness. I would submit, however, that accumulating wealth isn't necessarily as gratifying as some would assume. I know many wealthy people who are pure failures as human beings and are unhappy to boot.

Unfortunately the national and world economies aren't going to hold up.

TurtleDude said:

I hear that the dems only want tax hikes on these people yet Obama constantly whines about raising taxes on the top 2 percent or (depending on the day) those making over 200K a year. or a family making over 250 a year. So for all you dems, liberals, socialists and Obama supporters-what constitutes "Filthy Rich" or super rich and do any of you have the honesty to admit that Obama's tax hike desires hit far far more people than the "filthy rich

to be in the top 1 percent the cut off is 380K a year (for those who actually filed returns)

top 5% is 160K

200K puts you around the top 4 percent I suspect.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Click to expand...

Anyone making enough money to own two cars, a big house and take vacations (and doesn't vote Democrat)

TurtleDude said:

I hear that the dems only want tax hikes on these people yet Obama constantly whines about raising taxes on the top 2 percent or (depending on the day) those making over 200K a year. or a family making over 250 a year. So for all you dems, liberals, socialists and Obama supporters-what constitutes "Filthy Rich" or super rich and do any of you have the honesty to admit that Obama's tax hike desires hit far far more people than the "filthy rich

to be in the top 1 percent the cut off is 380K a year (for those who actually filed returns)

top 5% is 160K

200K puts you around the top 4 percent I suspect.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Click to expand...

If you have to pull change out of your tush after swimming in your money bin while the beagle brothers are trying to steal it, you can be considered filthy rich (after all, do you know where that dime has been?!)

If you can't remember how many houses you own....you have too much money.

TurtleDude said:

Its amazing how the cat has the tongue of the welfare socialists. they constantly whine about the "filthy rich" yet their sordid tax hike schemes affect a couple that is made up of say two GS-14 workers or two assistant united states attorneys or two postmasters of medium size city post offices

Click to expand...

Well let's put this in perspective, shall we? A couple affected by the proposed tax hike would earn a minimum of $250,000 after deductions. It might be reasonable to suspect said couple earns between 3 and 4 hundred thousand a year, before deductions. At the current rate of 35%, their tax burden would be $87,500. Under the proposed tax hike on that couple their tax burden would be $99,000 (39.6%); or an difference of $11,500.

I understand we fundamentally disagree on this, but in a time where we have trillion dollar deficits, I see nothing wrong with making a couple earning between $300,000 to $400,000 pay an additional $11,500 a year. The CBO estimates this could increase revenue by $700 billion (roughly half the deficit). And before you rely on your "we need to cut spending" routine, let me say I believe we also need to cut spending. And before you resort to your "I'm only interested in raising other peoples' taxes" routine, let me say I feel we should drop the Bush tax cuts which increases most people' taxes.

Is there really a significant difference between a million dollars a year and five million dollars a year? I mean, you get to a point where you won't even notice another house or car or boat. Is that money really increasing your quality of life?

atrasicarius said:

Is there really a significant difference between a million dollars a year and five million dollars a year? I mean, you get to a point where you won't even notice another house or car or boat. Is that money really increasing your quality of life?

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a 4 million dollars worth of a difference. I would say about 20 million is the point where your lifestyle doesn't improve if you have more money. Those with more money who do have different lifestyles probably have them because of what they do, not how much they are worth.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Well let's put this in perspective, shall we? A couple affected by the proposed tax hike would earn a minimum of $250,000 after deductions. It might be reasonable to suspect said couple earns between 3 and 4 hundred thousand a year, before deductions. At the current rate of 35%, their tax burden would be $87,500. Under the proposed tax hike on that couple their tax burden would be $99,000 (39.6%); or an difference of $11,500.

I understand we fundamentally disagree on this, but in a time where we have trillion dollar deficits, I see nothing wrong with making a couple earning between $300,000 to $400,000 pay an additional $11,500 a year. The CBO estimates this could increase revenue by $700 billion (roughly half the deficit). And before you rely on your "we need to cut spending" routine, let me say I believe we also need to cut spending. And before you resort to your "I'm only interested in raising other peoples' taxes" routine, let me say I feel we should drop the Bush tax cuts which increases most people' taxes.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It sounds like robbery. Simply because they make more money and you need money shouldn't give you the right to take it. The only way they should pay more than the average person is that as a flat tax rate, 2% for 20,000 would obviously yield less than 2% of 20 million.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Well let's put this in perspective, shall we? A couple affected by the proposed tax hike would earn a minimum of $250,000 after deductions. It might be reasonable to suspect said couple earns between 3 and 4 hundred thousand a year, before deductions. At the current rate of 35%, their tax burden would be $87,500. Under the proposed tax hike on that couple their tax burden would be $99,000 (39.6%); or an difference of $11,500.

I understand we fundamentally disagree on this, but in a time where we have trillion dollar deficits, I see nothing wrong with making a couple earning between $300,000 to $400,000 pay an additional $11,500 a year. The CBO estimates this could increase revenue by $700 billion (roughly half the deficit). And before you rely on your "we need to cut spending" routine, let me say I believe we also need to cut spending. And before you resort to your "I'm only interested in raising other peoples' taxes" routine, let me say I feel we should drop the Bush tax cuts which increases most people' taxes.

Click to expand...

It always easier to want someone else-especially if they make more than you (even if their expenses are higher) pay more. And you pretend its only 11,500 more a year. If someone has significant capital gains or dividend income their taxes could be an additional 40-50K a year which is a massive tax hike

many less industrious or prosperous people extrapolate their own situation onto the rich. They assume anyone who has earned 300-400K a year has so much more money left over than the tax hiker has. That simply is not true. And why should that couple say be force to pull one or more of their children out of a private school just because the middle class has enjoyed an artificially low tax rate for years and has demanded massive spending?

NO the place we start is cuts first. The spending is far far higher than it has ever been

then if we "have" to have tax cuts they should start with those who don't pay anywhere near their fair share based on

1) that groups share of the income

2) that groups share of its use of government services

the rich pay far more than their share of the income and far more than their share of what they use

atrasicarius said:

Is there really a significant difference between a million dollars a year and five million dollars a year? I mean, you get to a point where you won't even notice another house or car or boat. Is that money really increasing your quality of life?

Click to expand...

Yeah but as someone noted its around 15-20 million where increases no longer really increase life style.

I find it amusing that the left always talks about Billionaires (whether they mean those making a billion a year versus a billion in assets has never been delineated) yet the vast vast majority of those targeted for Dem tax hikes are making less than a million a year

Well Off
Depending on location $200 000 per year in income

Filthy rich around the $20 million mark in net assets. Which should be able to provide in just investment returns enough money per year that most people will not earn in a lifetime, and that would be considered rich just to have as a net asset rather then yearly income

TurtleDude said:

Yeah but as someone noted its around 15-20 million where increases no longer really increase life style.

I find it amusing that the left always talks about Billionaires (whether they mean those making a billion a year versus a billion in assets has never been delineated) yet the vast vast majority of those targeted for Dem tax hikes are making less than a million a year

Click to expand...

I don't really have any experience with people who make upwards of a million a year, but I find that doubtful. I can't think of anything I want that I couldn't buy on a million dollars a year, or even 500k a year. Maybe I'm just not that imaginative when it comes to buying crap.