7 ms·

Looks like someone is busy setting up the narrative for raising taxes on "the rich" who earn more than 100k. This is how it starts. A whole bunch of "studies"

Looks like someone is busy setting up the narrative for raising taxes on "the rich" who earn more than 100k. This is how it starts. A whole bunch of "studies" come out, then the talking heads roll it out 24/7 on the news media and then Obama makes a speech and a bunch of people pound the table and ta da... brand new taxes for you "rich" people making 100k a year.

untog 13y ago
The average income is $60k. $100k IS rich, even if it doesn't feel like it in Silicon Valley.
- dmd 13y ago
  And, to be clear, that's the average household income, not the average personal income.
  - niels_olson 13y ago
    This is an attempt to recruit middle-income earners into the "wealth" camp, embiggening the "base" to vote against "taxes on the rich". While the bill before Congress will be targeting the top 0.1%, the Republicans will have mobilized a very disciplined 20% of the public to encourage their Congress critters to vote against it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  It sure doesn't feel rich to me :( At the end of the month, after taxes and FICA and health insurance and Medicare and retirement are withheld, and after paying for housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities, sundry expenses, and student loans--there's not a whole lot of that $100K/12 left! Raising taxes on $100K would be almost intolerable. I could probably part with a couple thousand more a year, but it would be difficult, and I have very little faith that they'll invest my money wisely....
  - mrcarlosrendon 13y ago
    Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k.
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      People with the median income don't live in silicon valley. 50k goes further in the midwest than 100k in SF.
      - Crito 13y ago
        Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. That is a good deal more than 50k, but far less than 100k. Now imagine the household isn't one 20-something person, but two adults, closer to middle-aged, with a kid or two. 2.3 people per household in 2011 in SF. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
        ars_technician 13y ago
        >Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. You just proved my point.
      - FreakLegion 13y ago
        I lived in SF on 30k in 2010-2011. It's entirely doable. (Although the fact that it's doable is no excuse for the miserable salary I was paid. I worked in publishing, which everyone with a literature degree wants to break into, and thus, the entry-level pay is notoriously bad.)
    - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
      Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k. What's your point? Sounds like you're basically saying, I'm lucky to be making this much. Of course, I know that. Yes, I'm extremely fortunate, compared to someone making $25K or less. I'm also lucky compared to a paraplegic or a quadriplegic person, or someone dying of cancer. So what? My point is, $100K doesn't go as far as one would think, when supporting a family and living in a big city on the East Coast. It barely meets expenses, and designating this level of income as "wealthy" or "rich" is a ridiculously dated notion.
chaostheory 13y ago
I agree. This is a joke. $250,000 a year is not rich (unless you've been saving for years - houses don't count until you pay off the mortgage) and $100,000 is easily achievable in a two income household even in the Southern US. This is a better list (of liquid assets though and not income): $1.6m – $3.2 million The comfortably poor $5m – $6.5m The comfortably off $8.2m – $24.6m The comfortably wealthy $26.2m – $64m The lesser rich $65.6m – $121.5m The comfortably rich $123.1m – $162.5m The rich $164.2m – $326.8m The seriously rich $328.4m – $655.2m The truly rich $656.8m – $1.64bn The filthy rich Over $1.6bn The super rich
- velodrome 13y ago
  How did you determine this list? Just curious.
sowhatquestion 13y ago
Looks like "someone" doesn't understand income inequality trends very well. Increases in inequality have been especially pronounced at the top end of the distribution, well above the $100k threshhold. Long story short, the income distribution has such a steep curve now that we can implement much more redistributive social policy without raising taxes on people making $100k or even $250k/year. I'm sure that more has been written about this since then, but Matt Yglesias made the case really well in an old blog post entitled "Mobilizing the Lower Upper Class": "[W]hile I have no sympathy with the idea that making the lower upper class return to Clinton-era tax rates is too hard on them, I think you could have some sympathy with the idea that your person earning $250,000 shouldn’t pay the same marginal rate as much as someone making $1.25 million or $6.25 million. Why not add additional marginal brackets?" ( http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/03/10/192079/mobilizing_the_lower_upper_class/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/03/10/192079/mobilizi... ) I found this post via an old bookmark to some insightful commentary on it by Nate Silver: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-bracket.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-b... The problem is, while these "new rich"--the "petty bourgeoisie," as Marx called them--are all too eager to declare themselves "not rich" for tax purposes, they are just as eager to see themselves as being like the rich. They see themselves as the truly productive class, the ones who really keep the economy going. It's ultimately for ideological reasons, moreso than pragmatic ones, that they end up opposed to redistribution (even in the face of increasingly sickening, 1920s-esque levels of inequality). Recently, my dentist and dental hygienist tried to strike up a conversation with me after a routine cleaning. My dentist was just so dismayed that unemployment benefits were still being extended when the recession had "ended" years ago (which is true only in terms of GDP growth, not in terms of the effects on employment and income). But in response, the hygienist--who probably makes one-third what the dentist does, for doing three times the work--upped the ante, approvingly quoting her fiance's suggestion that "the unemployed shouldn't be able to vote until they find a job." Of course, the dentist was delighted by this proposal! The point is, progressives have plenty to offer the petty bourgeoisie: more customers for their small businesses, via boosting aggregate demand; a better educated and healthier workforce "below" them, via treating education and health care as public goods--but what we could never offer is the feeling of saintly victimhood they get from libertarianism. Not only do they nurture this spirituality in themselves, they evangelize it to every promising young worker (e.g., the hygienist) who might someday join the fold.
a5seo 13y ago
Not sure I agree that this is a narrative for raising taxes... if being "rich" is so transitory, it's harder to vilify "the rich" as some permanent class deserving of limitless soaking.

untog 13y ago

The average income is $60k. $100k IS rich, even if it doesn't feel like it in Silicon Valley.

dmd 13y ago
And, to be clear, that's the average household income, not the average personal income.
- niels_olson 13y ago
  This is an attempt to recruit middle-income earners into the "wealth" camp, embiggening the "base" to vote against "taxes on the rich". While the bill before Congress will be targeting the top 0.1%, the Republicans will have mobilized a very disciplined 20% of the public to encourage their Congress critters to vote against it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
blisterpeanuts 13y ago
It sure doesn't feel rich to me :( At the end of the month, after taxes and FICA and health insurance and Medicare and retirement are withheld, and after paying for housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities, sundry expenses, and student loans--there's not a whole lot of that $100K/12 left! Raising taxes on $100K would be almost intolerable. I could probably part with a couple thousand more a year, but it would be difficult, and I have very little faith that they'll invest my money wisely....
- mrcarlosrendon 13y ago
  Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    People with the median income don't live in silicon valley. 50k goes further in the midwest than 100k in SF.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. That is a good deal more than 50k, but far less than 100k. Now imagine the household isn't one 20-something person, but two adults, closer to middle-aged, with a kid or two. 2.3 people per household in 2011 in SF. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
      - ars_technician 13y ago
        >Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. You just proved my point.
    - FreakLegion 13y ago
      I lived in SF on 30k in 2010-2011. It's entirely doable. (Although the fact that it's doable is no excuse for the miserable salary I was paid. I worked in publishing, which everyone with a literature degree wants to break into, and thus, the entry-level pay is notoriously bad.)
  - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
    Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k. What's your point? Sounds like you're basically saying, I'm lucky to be making this much. Of course, I know that. Yes, I'm extremely fortunate, compared to someone making $25K or less. I'm also lucky compared to a paraplegic or a quadriplegic person, or someone dying of cancer. So what? My point is, $100K doesn't go as far as one would think, when supporting a family and living in a big city on the East Coast. It barely meets expenses, and designating this level of income as "wealthy" or "rich" is a ridiculously dated notion.

chaostheory 13y ago

I agree. This is a joke. $250,000 a year is not rich (unless you've been saving for years - houses don't count until you pay off the mortgage) and $100,000 is easily achievable in a two income household even in the Southern US. This is a better list (of liquid assets though and not income): $1.6m – $3.2 million The comfortably poor $5m – $6.5m The comfortably off $8.2m – $24.6m The comfortably wealthy $26.2m – $64m The lesser rich $65.6m – $121.5m The comfortably rich $123.1m – $162.5m The rich $164.2m – $326.8m The seriously rich $328.4m – $655.2m The truly rich $656.8m – $1.64bn The filthy rich Over $1.6bn The super rich

velodrome 13y ago
How did you determine this list? Just curious.

sowhatquestion 13y ago

Looks like "someone" doesn't understand income inequality trends very well. Increases in inequality have been especially pronounced at the top end of the distribution, well above the $100k threshhold. Long story short, the income distribution has such a steep curve now that we can implement much more redistributive social policy without raising taxes on people making $100k or even $250k/year. I'm sure that more has been written about this since then, but Matt Yglesias made the case really well in an old blog post entitled "Mobilizing the Lower Upper Class": "[W]hile I have no sympathy with the idea that making the lower upper class return to Clinton-era tax rates is too hard on them, I think you could have some sympathy with the idea that your person earning $250,000 shouldn’t pay the same marginal rate as much as someone making $1.25 million or $6.25 million. Why not add additional marginal brackets?" ( http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/03/10/192079/mobilizing_the_lower_upper_class/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/03/10/192079/mobilizi... ) I found this post via an old bookmark to some insightful commentary on it by Nate Silver: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-bracket.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-b... The problem is, while these "new rich"--the "petty bourgeoisie," as Marx called them--are all too eager to declare themselves "not rich" for tax purposes, they are just as eager to see themselves as being like the rich. They see themselves as the truly productive class, the ones who really keep the economy going. It's ultimately for ideological reasons, moreso than pragmatic ones, that they end up opposed to redistribution (even in the face of increasingly sickening, 1920s-esque levels of inequality). Recently, my dentist and dental hygienist tried to strike up a conversation with me after a routine cleaning. My dentist was just so dismayed that unemployment benefits were still being extended when the recession had "ended" years ago (which is true only in terms of GDP growth, not in terms of the effects on employment and income). But in response, the hygienist--who probably makes one-third what the dentist does, for doing three times the work--upped the ante, approvingly quoting her fiance's suggestion that "the unemployed shouldn't be able to vote until they find a job." Of course, the dentist was delighted by this proposal! The point is, progressives have plenty to offer the petty bourgeoisie: more customers for their small businesses, via boosting aggregate demand; a better educated and healthier workforce "below" them, via treating education and health care as public goods--but what we could never offer is the feeling of saintly victimhood they get from libertarianism. Not only do they nurture this spirituality in themselves, they evangelize it to every promising young worker (e.g., the hygienist) who might someday join the fold.

a5seo 13y ago

Not sure I agree that this is a narrative for raising taxes... if being "rich" is so transitory, it's harder to vilify "the rich" as some permanent class deserving of limitless soaking.