4 ms·

Well, I certainly don't draw the line somewhere that makes 60% of the US population definitionally "rich", nor do I think being able to afford an Xbox and a "bi

Well, I certainly don't draw the line somewhere that makes 60% of the US population definitionally "rich", nor do I think being able to afford an Xbox and a "big screen TV" qualifies one as such. Personally I would draw it at an income where someone living within their means can afford to raise a happy, healthy, well-educated family and provide all with proper dental and medical care, including responses to unforeseen and serious emergencies, without being financially destroyed, and go on to retire in relative comfort. Beyond that, you and I have deep ideological differences that I hardly think are worth airing in an internet forum, and I'm not going to bother.

jki275 8y ago
I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes. Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. And most of them don't pay much in taxes either.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes Well, I didn't say you said that, so we're good. I'd say I more implied that you implied it. > Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. Yes, that does sound more like a middle class lifestyle than a "rich" one, doesn't it? > And most of them don't pay much in taxes either. Most of who? A hypothetical middle class that meets my (possibly flawed) criteria for richness, or an actual middle class as defined by some percentile spread about the median household income? What rate of taxation is "much in taxes"?
  - jki275 8y ago
    When I was squarely middle class I normally didn't pay more than about 5k in annual federal income taxes. That's pretty reasonable. It's also hard to cut a number that small. When you get into paying 50k, 100k+ in taxes, then a percentage tax cut will appear much larger. I know plenty of people who have about 2k withheld throughout the year and then get 5k-15k "refunds" at the end of the year. That's what I was referring to with the xbox and tv comment, those refunds are often spent that way.

jki275 8y ago

I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes. Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. And most of them don't pay much in taxes either.

caconym_ 8y ago
> I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes Well, I didn't say you said that, so we're good. I'd say I more implied that you implied it. > Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. Yes, that does sound more like a middle class lifestyle than a "rich" one, doesn't it? > And most of them don't pay much in taxes either. Most of who? A hypothetical middle class that meets my (possibly flawed) criteria for richness, or an actual middle class as defined by some percentile spread about the median household income? What rate of taxation is "much in taxes"?
- jki275 8y ago
  When I was squarely middle class I normally didn't pay more than about 5k in annual federal income taxes. That's pretty reasonable. It's also hard to cut a number that small. When you get into paying 50k, 100k+ in taxes, then a percentage tax cut will appear much larger. I know plenty of people who have about 2k withheld throughout the year and then get 5k-15k "refunds" at the end of the year. That's what I was referring to with the xbox and tv comment, those refunds are often spent that way.