Sorry, Pal, You're Rich

I feel the only true way to solve the tax issues in this country is to make taxes even across the board for EVERYONE! Possibly a good solution would be to eliminate income tax and increase sales tax. That way everyone; rich, poor, legal or illegal will be pitching in.
This of course will work until congress passes legislation giving tax breaks for the purchases of yates.

I have to disagree with the first poster. I work in finance in NYC and I don't live in Manhattan. You can still get away with a 20-45 min commute and save a couple hundred grand simply by moving to a borough or even Northern NJ (Hoboken, Jersey City) where there are safe, hip, convenient neighborhoods to live in. It definitely doesn't come easy but there has to be some cost cutting you can do. You live in Manhattan because you want to, not because you have to. It's fun, vibrant, and prestigious. But what you fail to realize is that the fact that you CAN afford to buy an apt in Manhattan, in what I imagine is a tony area with that pricetag, makes you rich. Not wealthy, but rich. I make $80k on my own with no husband or partner to help me and I would consider myself upper middle class. Class is irrespective of location. As the author says, though you aren't wealthy compaired to the guy in the penthouse with the 4 bedroom spread in East Hampton, you still have riches available to you that are not available to over 97% of the population.

The truly wealthy, filthy rich people that everyone thinks a politician is talking about when he says he will raise income taxes on the rich aren't worried because an income tax doesn't tax wealth that is already in the bank. The really wealthy people don't earn income anymore so they may pay some capital gains taxes from time to time but they don't have to pay social security and medicare taxes on capital gains, and they aren't worried about the relatively small portion of their income that is taxed at an earned income level. It is only the people who aspire to one day join this group who are worried.

NYC111, you are completely full of it. You choose to live in a ritzy area and spend a lot of money on a small flat. You can certainly live wonderfully in NYC on 250K. Whine, whine, whine. I can't afford what the television tells me I should have so I'm poor. Get over it

Americans tend to believe that we have a lot of "rights" that we don't and can't have. One is the right to have as many kids as we want without regard for our ability to provide for them. If we can't handle the cost, society is obigated to cover us, right? After all, it's not the kids' fault, and they're so darned cute... Another presumed right is the "right" to live in any part of the country. It doesn't work that way. There are places that are particularly attractive, and due to the competition for these places, the price is high. You have a choice. Earn enough to win the competition, or decide you have other priorities and move to the great places in America's heartland. But no, many on coasts turn their noses at 80% of the country, declaring, like the born-rich snobs they claim to hate, that nothing without a beach is good enough for them.

If $250,000/year doesn't go very far in your area, then your area is not for middle class people. Move to one that is, and enjoy your money.

But now for the criticisms. First, this article assumes that once we've proved someone is "rich", it's ok to jack up their taxes. It's a Newsweek article, so that's expected; Newsweek is liberal. Still, I have to point it out. The rich pay higher rates post-Bush than they did pre-Clinton. Jacking up their taxes won't solve our problems.

More than that, though, our entire tax structure is based on the ridiculous idea that a year is enough time for any investment plan to come full circle. That is, we assume that someone who makes X dollars one year makes X dollars every year, and thus we can base tax decisions on the idea that they have so much money. What foolishness! For the few salaried clock-punchers left in this country, annual income might be pretty stable over the long run, but many people don't live that way.

Much has been said of the "injustice" of oil company profits. Besides the obvious flaw - billions of dollars in profit isn't that much when you are a hundreds of billions of dollars company (it's the percentage that counts), these "arguments" disregard the many lean years that preceded these. "Big Oil" invested in its future and now reaps the rewards. If you average their profits over 20 years, it's not too hot for them.

People are the same way. If I decide to found a small business, I might have negative income for two years, break even in the third, turn a profit in the fourth, and make $300K in the fifth. Another person might just make $60K/year for five years at a big company. Do the math. Over five years, we had the same income, but I paid far more in taxes because I had mine all in one year! The government assumes I'm rich when I'm probably barely paying my loans.

Remember this: 80% of Americans are at some point in their lives in the bottom 20% and the top 20% of income earners. When you dedicate yourself to screwing people in another tax bracket, you may be digging your own grave.

Americans tend to believe that we have a lot of "rights" that we don't and can't have. One is the right to have as many kids as we want without regard for our ability to provide for them. If we can't handle the cost, society is obigated to cover us, right? After all, it's not the kids' fault, and they're so darned cute... Another presumed right is the "right" to live in any part of the country. It doesn't work that way. There are places that are particularly attractive, and due to the competition for these places, the price is high. You have a choice. Earn enough to win the competition, or decide you have other priorities and move to the great places in America's heartland. But no, many on coasts turn their noses at 80% of the country, declaring, like the born-rich snobs they claim to hate, that nothing without a beach is good enough for them.

If $250,000/year doesn't go very far in your area, then your area is not for middle class people. Move to one that is, and enjoy your money.

But now for the criticisms. First, this article assumes that once we've proved someone is "rich", it's ok to jack up their taxes. It's a Newsweek article, so that's expected; Newsweek is liberal. Still, I have to point it out. The rich pay higher rates post-Bush than they did pre-Clinton. Jacking up their taxes won't solve our problems.

More than that, though, our entire tax structure is based on the ridiculous idea that a year is enough time for any investment plan to come full circle. That is, we assume that someone who makes X dollars one year makes X dollars every year, and thus we can base tax decisions on the idea that they have so much money. What foolishness! For the few salaried clock-punchers left in this country, annual income might be pretty stable over the long run, but many people don't live that way.

Much has been said of the "injustice" of oil company profits. Besides the obvious flaw - billions of dollars in profit isn't that much when you are a hundreds of billions of dollars company (it's the percentage that counts), these "arguments" disregard the many lean years that preceded these. "Big Oil" invested in its future and now reaps the rewards. If you average their profits over 20 years, it's not too hot for them.

People are the same way. If I decide to found a small business, I might have negative income for two years, break even in the third, turn a profit in the fourth, and make $300K in the fifth. Another person might just make $60K/year for five years at a big company. Do the math. Over five years, we had the same income, but I paid far more in taxes because I had mine all in one year! The government assumes I'm rich when I'm probably barely paying my loans.

Remember this: 80% of Americans are at some point in their lives in the bottom 20% and the top 20% of income earners. When you dedicate yourself to screwing people in another tax bracket, you may be digging your own grave.

Americans tend to believe that we have a lot of "rights" that we don't and can't have. One is the right to have as many kids as we want without regard for our ability to provide for them. If we can't handle the cost, society is obigated to cover us, right? After all, it's not the kids' fault, and they're so darned cute... Another presumed right is the "right" to live in any part of the country. It doesn't work that way. There are places that are particularly attractive, and due to the competition for these places, the price is high. You have a choice. Earn enough to win the competition, or decide you have other priorities and move to the great places in America's heartland. But no, many on coasts turn their noses at 80% of the country, declaring, like the born-rich snobs they claim to hate, that nothing without a beach is good enough for them.

If $250,000/year doesn't go very far in your area, then your area is not for middle class people. Move to one that is, and enjoy your money.

But now for the criticisms. First, this article assumes that once we've proved someone is "rich", it's ok to jack up their taxes. It's a Newsweek article, so that's expected; Newsweek is liberal. Still, I have to point it out. The rich pay higher rates post-Bush than they did pre-Clinton. Jacking up their taxes won't solve our problems.

More than that, though, our entire tax structure is based on the ridiculous idea that a year is enough time for any investment plan to come full circle. That is, we assume that someone who makes X dollars one year makes X dollars every year, and thus we can base tax decisions on the idea that they have so much money. What foolishness! For the few salaried clock-punchers left in this country, annual income might be pretty stable over the long run, but many people don't live that way.

Much has been said of the "injustice" of oil company profits. Besides the obvious flaw - billions of dollars in profit isn't that much when you are a hundreds of billions of dollars company (it's the percentage that counts), these "arguments" disregard the many lean years that preceded these. "Big Oil" invested in its future and now reaps the rewards. If you average their profits over 20 years, it's not too hot for them.

People are the same way. If I decide to found a small business, I might have negative income for two years, break even in the third, turn a profit in the fourth, and make $300K in the fifth. Another person might just make $60K/year for five years at a big company. Do the math. Over five years, we had the same income, but I paid far more in taxes because I had mine all in one year! The government assumes I'm rich when I'm probably barely paying my loans.

Remember this: 80% of Americans are at some point in their lives in the bottom 20% and the top 20% of income earners. When you dedicate yourself to screwing people in another tax bracket, you may be digging your own grave.

If 250,000 is middle class then we should be able to get food stamps, CHIPS, and any other stuff poor people get. My husband is a school teacher for 23 yrs now and make $50,000.........Wish we got $250,000 a year and I know a lot more Texans do to. Must be nice.