How the Mighty Have Fallen

Class warfare has made it fashionable to hate those evil rich folks. The problem comes with identifying who is really rich. To a lot of democrats 100K is rich. The problem is that those nasty rick people have quit buying products and going into restaurants and employing the people who depend on the evil rich for their own living. How's that Obamanomics working out for you?

Per IRS Website of 2003 the rich only paid 1/5 of the total taxes collected. That makes sense, since the middle class cannot
re-invest, buy tax havens, credits, nor can they afford their own charity. The burden of taxes always did lie with the middle class, who have no way getting out of their tax obligations like the rich do. Besdies, we all work hard and unless you are in the right place at the right time, we simply cannot be all "millionaires." Go after the 52,000 in the UBS Bank and the ones in other countries' tax havens and we won't have a tax problem. The upper class does not have to make a decision will it be
gas for the car or a loaf of bread for the children.

Moral Hazard, and the pain, have hit more people than usual because the depth of the last 30 years model has come due more broadly than before.
The Moral Hazard for the worst actors was abated by the TARP. The banks themselves are back to the ubermensch recreational jet lifestyle, while those with a million or less are being eaten alive for their greed and avarice.
I as a mere thousndaire in the Ozarks wish you would all look at the whole picture, and the whole frame of time.
To the many with Student Debts, those should be deductable, and in the instances where a greater public good is served, waived.
To the many who are really getting by on just 250k, It sure as heck was not the poor who wrote the rules. Us fighting amongst ourselves is a neat distraction. Coprorations and lobbyists with PAC's and access write the rules. In Arkansas my 40k goes a long way. My brother in California has to earn 125k to live as nicely in the Bay Area.
The Author's false premise is that 250k is anything more than another arbitrary number. As for proportionality in taxation, and hitting the rich (whomever they are) more, that goes to Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations. (Not Obama, or Marx)
If we bagan to call the rich at a 400k plateau, would any of the arguments change?

Honey, for $260,000 a year my works-like-a-dog-just-to-get by husband and I could live like royalty. If you can't, then you need to adjust your priorities. The fact that you can make a statement that on such a large income you "buy some clothes" but don't live a life of luxury means that you have no idea what hardship is. What's "luxury" to you? Getting to jet off to Europe four times a year instead of three? Getting to go to the spa to be pampered thrice a week instead of twice? We consider it exciting that we can afford to take two days to go to a hotel on the other side of the state this year, and our "spa" is a haircut that we only buy when we absolutely need it. If you want a lack of luxury in lives, look over here.

Ask me if I feel sorry for any of the people portrayed in this story: NO.

Doesn't anyone reading this article get it - if the top 14% of Americans who make up at least 40% of the spending stop, then there are loss of jobs in all areas. I believe the article was trying to bring out that folks at $250,000 (the magic number of the Obama administration) are definetly comfortable, but are they rich? I laugh now when I heard this "children are a poor man's riches". See, I have four children 6 months to 13 years old, two parent home, one household income of $105,000. We are making our payments and putting food on the table and saving 6% in 401(k). We have about $200 a month of disposable income. So, the folks with more disposable income we want them spending their money to generate jobs. So, the way I see it, the Obama administration doesn't want the wealthy Americans to have a choice on where they spend their disposable income, they want to take it from them in the form of increases taxes and let's let the "effiencient government agencies" decide best where to spend the money. Something wrong with that American picture, looks more like socialist Europe kind of picture to me. Go see their standard of living in Europe, nothing to compare with ours. Don't think we should be heading down that path.

Yesterday on my lunch break: Im at Walmert for what little we can afford of "off" brands. In front of me 2 women, one pregnant, toddlers in tow using food stamps to buy brand name and high grade cuts of meat my family hasnt been able to afford in over a year. As we walk out the door passing the greeter; they climb into and SUV occupied by 2 strapping able bodied men. Scenario #2. My neighbor rented his house to a welfare recipient; I found her a job; part time; but a JOB; found her FREE classes to learn English. Attended one class; quit the job after 2 weeks because it cut into her welfare check. No sympathy from me

This is disgusting. They DO realize we have families in the world surviving on less than $1 a week, right?

And a lot of the rich didn't work for their wealth. And for execs, at a certain level, jobs & titles get passed around, and there isn't a lot of work being done by many of the "rich". Many of the "rich" have seriously contributed nothing of value to the economy - through networking, inheritance, sheer luck, ... they were "rich".
Party's over - maybe now, people & the economy will start rewarding those that generate revenue & build businesses, not the many that made their wealth either doing nothing or selling "polluted air" - like bad mortages, toxic financial products, ...

To make that $300k a year, my husband and I have a combined $200k in student loans. We also work 15 hour days and see 1/2 of our take home pay. Are we lucky that we can afford life's little luxuries (going out for dinner, buying a nice shirt)?Yes! But does that mean we don't make personal sacrifices or that we have loads of money in the bank? No! I live in a high cost area (Southern Ca) where a two bedroom condo costs $500k. WIth $200k in student loans, I can not afford to buy a house (so no tax breaks). We don't have kids because I don't have relatives near by who can help with childcare given that I need to work in order to pay off my student loans (which at my income level is not tax deductible)-- plus what's the point of bring a child into the world if you'll never see the kid! We help out our elderly parents by giving them an allowance on a monthly basis (this goes toward the fact that we are lucky that we can afford the luxury of helping our parents out). However, to make all of this work and live responsibly, we live in an one bedroom apartment in a not a nice part of town, drive average cars (no BMWs or other luxury brands), make personal sacrifices (we'll be lucky to have dinner with each other once a week), deal with constant stress at work (as professionals, we are always under deadlines that necessitate working until early in the morning), while having to keep hearing that we're "rich"

My husband and I are not eligible for the tax breaks that an average American enjoys. We see 1/2 of our take home income. We are continuously being portrayed as "rich" people who don't pay their fair share. How is that possible that I don't pay my fair share just because I work really hard and make more money -- therefore, I owe people even though I have significant amount of debt which enabled me to get there?

The trickle-down process mentioned in the article is somewhat misleading when one considers the reasons behind this recession. It claims that when the rich get poorer, no else is getting richer. Ah, but this ignores the falsehood promoted during each boom (internet, real estate for starters) - that overall wealth will only increase. In truth, there were winners and losers, depending on who was eventually left holding the bag when the boom ended.

The other, main issue - about $250,000 a year household who don't feel rich, in terms of maintaining the lifestyle they're accustomed to. Sure, I can understand that, but their situation still pales in comparison to the majority of Americans who have to make do with poor-paying, uninteresting jobs, multiple jobs to make ends meet, little or no health care, no heat in winter.

Until we have some sort of revolution that totally changes the tax code into something far simpler and tax haven free, we are the mercy of creative accounting and the same "lord's of the manor" rules that fathered the concept of majority rule! What happened to that idea, was it the special interest, or idiousy along the lines of "a deeper humanitarianism"? No, it was and is complacency, and what could be best termed "fat, dumb, and happy"! Do something about it, when polititians are allowed to take their "application for employment"(you know the speaches when they tell us, "no new taxes unless making $250,000.00") and then after they have been given the job on those viirtues, be allowed to retain that job after bald faced lieing their way into the job!

Majority rule, only exceptions: supreme court verified HUMAN RIGHTS issue, anything but those human rights issues are ruled by the simple rule: What is best for the majority is the way it goes!

American policy, domestic and mostly the foreign type, are easily proven to be backassward of democracy: when 1-3% of the population make 80-90% of the profits that are controled by government policy and law, no such thing as democracy!
Kinda a shame, when the general popluation was just force feed some idiotic idea like "bringing democracy to Iraq", when we have none here!

The people who are going on here about how people making over $250,000 did so at the expense of others are idiots. My husband & I are both doctors. We paid for our own schooling through student loans, and paid back those loans ourselves. Neither of us came from wealthy families. To the people here who are jealous & resentful of our financial success: tough. We owe you NOTHING. You didn't help me pay back the $150,000 I owed in student loans. You didn't supplement my income when I was making 97 cents per hour as an intern. You were sitting on your ass watching TV or partying in your local bar when I was pulling all-nighters in school or spending 100-120 hours per week in hospital during internship & residency. You've probably never worked a 40 hours shift in your life. So, if you aren't happy with your dead-end 40 hour per week job, get off your butt & do something else. And if you can't make ends meet working one job, get a 2nd or a 3rd one. I work for MY income to provide for MY family; I hurt no one to get where I am, & I sure as hell don't owe you a penny.

The problem is, of course, that many of those persons who have incomes that exceed 250, 000+ thousand have worked their whole lives to get there. A surgeon, for example, may spend up to 15 years AFTER high school earning next to nothing. The salary for a first year resident from 1998-99 was $34, 104, on average. That's nothing. You're working 14+ hours, nights too and no break for over 14 hours; doing the 'dirty work' and all for less than 35 thousand dollars. You will rack up hundreds of thousands and debt, probably find a wife/husband and try to start a family -- more debt. You get out of your residency with hundreds of thousands in debt, and you're trying to rase a family too. I think far too often, the 250,000+ group is regarded people who all we/are the posterity of the already rich. No. Many of those in the 250, 000+ dollar rage have had to work night and day from the time they were in first grade until they're in their 30s before they see a dime of 'wealth'. Then, of course, all that time you spend studying, as previously stated, has burdened one with a numbing amount of debt + a small family you're trying to rase on little or no money because of all the debt. Many surgeons have to take on extra hours and work day and night until they're in their in their late 40s and one becomes established/experienced/valuable.

I don't have a penny to spend on myself..honestly, my back is to the wall, finically. You trying to rase a small family with over 270 thousand dollars in debt (from groceries, rent, etc.-- ALL that debt just from the bare essentials) which especially hard to pay off on only 250 thousand for income; taxes, daycare, food, and if I'm somewhat lucky, I MIGHT have enough to buy my beautiful wife a dress or a pair of shoes...but even that goes on plastic that is, of course, if the visa isn't full of debt from groceries and rent.
I grew up DIRT poor and and just trying to give my kids all the things I never had (a good home; food; care, etc.) I'm not living outside of my means in the slightest and it's true that I will probably be able to afford to send my kids to a great university (one of the same ones that broke my finical back) and I will be able to, in time, perhaps, be able to afford a nice home....but right now? I'm next to broke. Wanted to have kids and couldn't wait any longer for fear of infertility of two people in their mid/late thirties.
You don't just get handed this large income, you have to get a huge education which is VERY expensive and all that time while you're learning, you're earning next to nothing.


Anyone who thinks ALL people who earn more than 250 thousand+ drink French wine and eat caviar on the weekends is really and truly delusional.
What's that old cliché? It's not the destination. It's the journey?
Yea', I earn 250 thousand a year but, to be frank, the journey was and still is a finical sinkhole that's rendered me nearly broke and not one ounce of extravagance to show for it. I am NOT ???rich???.