2 ms·
That's like saying "150k ain't rich if you have a 100k/year gambling habit" or "150k ain't rich if you have an enormous house purchased with a big mortgage". Li
by gjm11 18y ago
That's like saying "150k ain't rich if you have a 100k/year gambling habit" or "150k ain't rich if you have an enormous house purchased with a big mortgage". Living in the Bay Area is a luxury that only the well-off can afford without great hardship; it has benefits which mean that many people do it even though after paying to live in the Bay Area they don't have much disposable income. Just as many people choose to take out large mortgages, or buy fast cars, or gamble, or whatever, even though they may not then have much disposable income left.
- diego 18y agoThe same can be said of living in the US. You could move to a cheaper part of the world, perhaps even telecommute. You could argue that you grew up in the US, so staying home is not a luxury. Those who grew up in the Bay Area don't see living there as a luxury any more than you see living in the US as a luxury.
- gjm11 18y agoActually, I don't live in the US. But yes, living in the US is a luxury, but that isn't relevant to the US tax system because everyone taxed by the US (more or less) lives in the US. (When people say things like "we should tax the rich more" or "we shouldn't tax the rich more", "rich" is really shorthand for "among the best-off of the people being taxed".)