Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

Perhaps, but it's not like they are driving around in BMWs with gold-plated 22s and sippin' on $500 bottles of champagne. Households earning more than $250K live very comfortably in any market with any reasonable number of kids, but they are by no means "rich" (which is what this thread is about).

It strikes me as somewhat unfair to say to upper-middle class families, "You make more money than the rest of us, so hand over your money to the rest of us by allowing the government to tax you at a rate that is four times higher than mine." True, those upper-middle class systems benefitted from our current government and infrastructure. But let's not act like families earning $250K are just sitting on trust funds their parents set up; that is by far the exception to the rule. Most households earning $250K+ have breadwinners who have to bust their asses to make that kind of money and took enormous risks to get there (see, e.g., school debts incurred without any promise of a good ROI). Moreover, even under a flat tax system, their per capita tax burden is far and away more onerous than that which others have to carry.

Don't get me wrong, the lives of those earning $250K or more is not a sob story. But, these people are NOT rich IMO.

Well frankly this thread is ridiculous because it began with an article about how these people would be nailed if they had to pay an additional 3% on the $50,000 they make over $250K (i.e. the extra $1,500 they wouldn't see each year and that would sink them apparently). I think the whole idea of a progressive tax structure has really flown over a lot of people's heads here. Those tax cuts were bad financial policy to begin with, but if we are so intent on keeping helping those who make significantly more than $250K then let's do some serious cost cutting. Stop paying for the Iraq War with supplementals that hide the true cost, have massive cuts to social programs, cut government spending across the board. I'm sure that will not increase economic inequality and a healthy society is all that important anyway. Get yours if you can get it, if you can't then clearly you were not cut out for the great race of life. Survival of the fittest as Herbert Spencer would say.

I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that $250k is "scraping by" - it clearly isn't.

It's equally as clearly not "rich" (or whatever the cash-flow equivalent is - I agree with Schneed on this one).

Well frankly this thread is ridiculous because it began with an article about how these people would be nailed if they had to pay an additional 3% on the $50,000 they make over $250K (i.e. the extra $1,500 they wouldn't see each year and that would sink them apparently). I think the whole idea of a progressive tax structure has really flown over a lot of people's heads here. Those tax cuts were bad financial policy to begin with, but if we are so intent on keeping helping those who make significantly more than $250K then let's do some serious cost cutting. Stop paying for the Iraq War with supplementals that hide the true cost, have massive cuts to social programs, cut government spending across the board. I'm sure that will not increase economic inequality and a healthy society is all that important anyway. Get yours if you can get it, if you can't then clearly you were not cut out for the great race of life. Survival of the fittest as Herbert Spencer would say.
Sounds like a good plan to me. Can we also do away with SS? I also would like to see a source that this is a progressive tax the one someone did give was to a post in this thread.

So for a link I get someones post here on this thread? I was looking for a real source. I did not see any links on that page so I'm assuming it was a post you directed me too.
I posted links in this thread in response to your initial post about people gaming the system by making $245k instead of $250k.
United States

See also: Income tax in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) and Taxation in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States) The progressive aspects of the Federal income tax rates in the United States have varied widely since 1913. For example, in 1954 the Congress imposed a Federal income tax on individuals, with the tax imposed in layers of 24 income brackets at tax rates ranging from 20% to 91% (for a chart, see Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1954)). As of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2006), there are six "tax brackets" ranging from 10% to 35% used to calculate the percentage of taxable income (of individuals) that must be paid to the United States Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury). If taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of income on each dollar that falls within that monetary range. For example, a person who earned $10,000 in taxable income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxable_income) (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) for 2006 would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50. This ensures that every rise in a person's salary results in an increase of after-tax salary. The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service) (IRS) data, the share of all federal taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive structure of the U.S. federal tax system that reduces the tax incidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence) of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of all federal taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_taxation#cite_note-22)
However, if the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_distribution) rate, which was studied in A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S. by Arthur Kennickell at Levy Economics Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Economics_Institute), the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_taxation#cite_note-Kennickell-23) Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance) loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax) system is regressive on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions taxing only the first $97,500 for 2007 from gross wages, and none earned from capital investments or interest. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities) states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_taxation#cite_note-newlight-24)

Sounds like a good plan to me. Can we also do away with SS.

Yes, government gone. Except for the military and police to protect the God given right of personal property and the rights of Due Process for corporations secured under the 14th amendment. Wouldn't want any revolutionaries thinking they could affect social change by force.

Well frankly this thread is ridiculous because it began with an article about how these people would be nailed if they had to pay an additional 3% on the $50,000 they make over $250K (i.e. the extra $1,500 they wouldn't see each year and that would sink them apparently). I think the whole idea of a progressive tax structure has really flown over a lot of people's heads here. Those tax cuts were bad financial policy to begin with, but if we are so intent on keeping helping those who make significantly more than $250K then let's do some serious cost cutting. Stop paying for the Iraq War with supplementals that hide the true cost, have massive cuts to social programs, cut government spending across the board. I'm sure that will not increase economic inequality and a healthy society is all that important anyway. Get yours if you can get it, if you can't then clearly you were not cut out for the great race of life. Survival of the fittest as Herbert Spencer would say.

I have to wonder whether this whole debate is about what is fiscally wise or what "feels right." The former issue is up for debate as I highly doubt that anyone here is qualified to say with a very high degree of certainty that any tax scheme is what is best for our country. The latter issue is I think what is dominanting the conversation. I never would have thought that a discussion about tax schemes could become so heated.

You're probably right. It may be time to shut it down. I've enjoyed it though - it's been an education on several issues.

I posted links in this thread in response to your initial post about people gaming the system by making $245k instead of $250k.

My point wasn't about people breaking the law but when a person is self employed they can spend the money on the business keeping their salary under the $250 mark.

My point wasn't about people breaking the law but when a person is self employed they can spend the money on the business keeping their salary under the $250 mark.
"Gaming" doesn't mean illegal - it means "using the rules, policies and procedures of a system against itself for purposes outside what these rules were intended for." The Wikipedia article I posted just describes how the US has a progressive tax.

Perhaps, but it's not like they are driving around in BMWs with gold-plated 22s and sippin' on $500 bottles of champagne. Households earning more than $250K live very comfortably in any market with any reasonable number of kids, but they are by no means "rich" (which is what this thread is about).

It strikes me as somewhat unfair to say to upper-middle class families, "You make more money than the rest of us, so hand over your money to the rest of us by allowing the government to tax you at a rate that is four times higher than mine." True, those upper-middle class families benefitted from our current government and infrastructure. But let's not act like families earning $250K are just sitting on trust funds their parents set up or merely have to breathe in order to make the cash; that is by far the exception to the rule. Most households earning $250K+ have breadwinners who have to bust their asses to make that kind of money and took enormous risks to get there (see, e.g., school debts incurred without any promise of a good ROI). Many people earning $40-$50K per year work 9-5 jobs. Most people earning $250K work 11 hour days, don't leave work at the workplace, etc. Moreover, even under a flat tax system, their per capita tax burden is far and away more onerous than that which others have to carry.

Don't get me wrong, the lives of those earning $250K or more is not a sob story. But, these people are NOT rich IMO.

You're preaching to the choir in regards to people making 250K not being rich, these people have to work day in day out after all. I do however find it odd some feel that 250K is not enough.