You are of course correct that it is impractical to try to tailor the federal income tax system to account for geographical differences in costs of living. But thats not the point of your story. Your claim is that 250K/yr. makes you rich in an economic sense regardless of where you live, even if that is in Manhattan. And that is demostrably false. Its not just that the 250K/yr. manhattanite feels poor in comparison to his "filthy rich" investment banker neighbor. And its not just, as you put it, that one might not be able to afford their "dream house." Its that 250K/yr. in Manhattan won't even buy you a decent 3BR apartment in a decent neighborhood. Its very hard even to find a decent 2BR apartment for under $1M. You can say 250K is "pretty good coin," and most of the people who read your article and live outside Manhattan will eagerly agree that any such person is "rich" because they simply cannot appreciate how high the cost of living is in some areas of the country. But stop for a minute and consider the fact that a family of 4 in Manhattan on 250K/yr. cannot afford separate bedrooms for their kids and a living space that will accomodate both a couch and a dining room table. How can you credibly call such a family "rich" in any objective financial sense?
If you're going to raise taxes on everyone making over 250K/yr., including those that reside in Manhattan and other areas with extremely high cost of living, at least be honest and tell them its because you've determined its necessary. Don't insult them by insisting they are "rich" by definition and therefore deserve it.









Discuss