Wait. I must be missing something here.

[BotanyBoy]

Only sometimes?

I love his gun porn post......and intentionally antagonistic quips

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Sometimes "view post" just makes me laugh my ass off.

If you think that 200 - 250K per year is "middle income" then you're as out of touch and moronic as Romney. This was Pereg's point.

Obama defines rich for families at 250K +....Is he out of touch?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I believe you, and I don't think of that as insanely wealthy. But it's still in the top five percent. No reasonable definition of "middle" anything includes the five percent at either end of the spectrum. That's like saying that if you earned $5 000 this year, you'd still be middle class.

50,000: Not rich, but lower middle class. After contributing $22,000 to your tax-exempt 401K and IRA, you are left with $28,000 in gross income to live. With an effective tax rate of about 15%, you have about $24,000 left after taxes. $24,000 or $2,000 a month is enough to live a frugal lifestyle, however, you’ll probably want to find a partner who makes at least $20,000 a year to be comfortable with a family.

$100,000: Not rich, but middle class. After contributing $17,000 to your tax-exempt 401k, you are left with $83,000 a year in gross income, and ~$62,000 net income based on a 25% total effective tax rate. Notice there is no more $5,000 tax-exempt IRA contribution because you make over $68,000. That’s right, the government doesn’t want you to save money if you make over $68,000. Hopefully, you are following my savings guide and saving another 20% of your after tax income, equaling roughly $12,400 a year. You’ve got around $40,000 to spend on whatever you want and you’re breathing pretty good now.

$200,000: Upper middle class. After retirement contributions, you are left with $178,000 in gross income, leaving you with roughly $125,000 in after tax income. You boost your after tax savings rate to roughly 30%, leaving you with about $87,500 left. By the time you are making $200,000 in your career, you’re probably in your 30s or older and have a mortgage and kids to consider. Kindergarten/daycare may run $15,000-$20,000 a year, followed by $30,000-$40,000 in shelter costs for a reasonable home. You’re left with $20,000-$40,000 to spend on food, travel, groceries, gifts, lessons, and so forth. Not bad.

$350,000: Still upper middle class. After retirement contributions, you’re left with $333,000 in gross income, or roughly $250,000 in after tax income. With a 30% after-tax savings rate, you have $175,000 left to spend. Your family has grown to 4, and you seek a bigger home. An average 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath home in a good area in San Francisco will run you about $1,300,000 to $2,000,000. We’re not talking anything super fancy at 1,800-2,800 square feet. Your mortgage at 3.5% on $1.1 million will therefore cost around $60,000 a year + $15,000 a year in property taxes. I choose $1.1 million because that is the maximum level for mortgage interest deductibility. As a result, you’re left with about $100,000, or $8,333 a month in after tax income for school for two, travel, food and so forth. You’re doing well, and if you are frugal, you can certainly save more than $75,000 a year in after tax money along with the $17,000 401K contribution.

$500,000+: You are rich. With $483,000 in gross income after maxing out your retirement contributions, you have about $300,000 in after tax income (effective at 35%, which includes 10% state). That’s right, you are paying around $183,000 in taxes alone, yet the government still wants to take more from you! Undeterred, you crank up your savings to 35%, and put away another $105,000, leaving you with $195,000. Subtract $70,000 for annual mortgage/property tax leaves you with $125,00. Then subtract another $40,000 in tuition for two. With around $7,000 a month in money available for travel, food, entertainment, goods, gifts, you are sitting pretty, especially since you are putting away away $122,000 a year in savings.

 

[koalabear]

I love his gun porn post......and intentionally antagonistic quips

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Portals/0/productimages/2012/O6891.png

 

[Peregrinator]

Is that a c&p? Citation, please, if so.

Also, it's still in the upper five percent. No matter what, that cannot be the middle. It just can't.


0............................................................................................................middle...100?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is that a c&p? Citation, please, if so.

Also, it's still in the upper five percent. No matter what, that cannot be the middle. It just can't.


0............................................................................................................middle...100?

It is not as easy as taking the median salary. You have to consider the life style available at the income you make.

Even Obama defines middle class as family's making below 250k.

 

[Peregrinator]

Obama defines rich for families at 250K +....Is he out of touch?

Part of this whole discussion is cost of living, right? If you make 250k and live in, say, North Dakota, you likely own the whole fucking state like some kind of feudal overlord. If you make 250k, have sixteen kids, and live in Greenwich, CT, you are a dumbass, and you probably eat Ramens and visit your local thrift shop regularly.

That said, if you make that much and choose to blow it on stuff like a nice house and a big yard and a picket fence, your income is still higher than 95% of other Americans not to mention inconceivably high compared to most of the world. The point of the thread is that Willard the Wealthy Liberal doesn't seem to realize the math.

And math is verifiable, whatever koala seems to think.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is that a c&p? Citation, please, if so.

Also, it's still in the upper five percent. No matter what, that cannot be the middle. It just can't.


0............................................................................................................middle...100?

It's an editorial stating the personal opinion of someone calling himself the Financial Samurai.

Editorials are the same thing as facts. Ask AJ.

Also, Ishspawn are trained from birth to spout the opinions of others as their own, just like daddy does. He can't be blamed for his horrendous upbringing.

 

[Peregrinator]

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Portals/0/productimages/2012/O6891.png

.380?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

It's an editorial stating the personal opinion of someone calling himself the Financial Samurai.

Editorials are the same thing as facts. Ask AJ.

Also, Ishspawn are trained from birth to spout the opinions of others as their own, just like daddy does. He can't be blamed for his horrendous upbringing.

You really should have seen if that Dr. could have sucked some of the fat out of you head as well......

 

[Peregrinator]

It's an editorial stating the personal opinion of someone calling himself the Financial Samurai.

Editorials are the same thing as facts. Ask AJ.

Also, Ishspawn are trained from birth to spout the opinions of others as their own, just like daddy does. He can't be blamed for his horrendous upbringing.

Thanks for the link. I know you hate VatAss, but I find him enjoyable company and I definitely believe in his expertise in finance.

 

[about_average]

I believe you, and I don't think of that as insanely wealthy. But it's still in the top five percent. No reasonable definition of "middle" anything includes the five percent at either end of the spectrum. That's like saying that if you earned $5 000 this year, you'd still be middle class.

It all depends on how you define the "middle". If you define it as being the range of 5% to 95% then they are middle. I'd define middle as in the range of 40-60%. On the other hand I've always considered myself to be middle class, wage wise, but I earn a lot less than 250k. If I earned 250k I'd consider myself quite wealthy.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Part of this whole discussion is cost of living, right? If you make 250k and live in, say, North Dakota, you likely own the whole fucking state like some kind of feudal overlord. If you make 250k, have sixteen kids, and live in Greenwich, CT, you are a dumbass, and you probably eat Ramens and visit your local thrift shop regularly.

That said, if you make that much and choose to blow it on stuff like a nice house and a big yard and a picket fence, your income is still higher than 95% of other Americans not to mention inconceivably high compared to most of the world. The point of the thread is that Willard the Wealthy Liberal doesn't seem to realize the math.

And math is verifiable, whatever koala seems to think.

and I say this is not a black and white equation. I know for a fact I make a little less than 250K and am not rich. If I lived in South Dakota I may be, but then I would not be making what I make.

My point is Obama has set the same 250K family threshold and yet you let him slide. which goes back to the previous thread....Show me your ballot!

 

[LongPenStroke]

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/mitt_romney_defines_middle_income_as_200_250000/

In an interview with “Good Morning America’s” George Stephanopoulos, Mitt Romney was asked: “Is $100,000 middle income?” “Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,” Romney replied.


Is this being horribly spun? Is there some context missing? Earning a million dollars every four or five years is "middle income?"

Not even close. The average worker earns right around 50k a year. Let's say that a household has both spouses working, that would mean the family income would be just under 100k a year.

So, if the average is right around 50k per individual, or just under 100k per family, then the majority of America is living in poverty.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He only paddles on the left side of his boat. I think it's genetic. And he's really scared of logic. He's said so before. Sean Renaud used to have me quoted in his sigline on that topic.

Oh I haz seen it....and I'm not trying to defend KB, but I fucking hate Renaud and do so dearly hope that case of blue waffle disease he got from his mom ends his entire gene pool.

Obama defines rich for families at 250K +....Is he out of touch?

No, the OVERWHELMING majority of Merikuh makes quite a bit less than 250k.

50,000: Not rich, but lower middle class. After contributing $22,000 to your tax-exempt 401K and IRA, you are left with $28,000 in gross income to live. With an effective tax rate of about 15%, you have about $24,000 left after taxes. $24,000 or $2,000 a month is enough to live a frugal lifestyle, however, you’ll probably want to find a partner who makes at least $20,000 a year to be comfortable with a family.

$100,000: Not rich, but middle class. After contributing $17,000 to your tax-exempt 401k, you are left with $83,000 a year in gross income, and ~$62,000 net income based on a 25% total effective tax rate. Notice there is no more $5,000 tax-exempt IRA contribution because you make over $68,000. That’s right, the government doesn’t want you to save money if you make over $68,000. Hopefully, you are following my savings guide and saving another 20% of your after tax income, equaling roughly $12,400 a year. You’ve got around $40,000 to spend on whatever you want and you’re breathing pretty good now.

$200,000: Upper middle class. After retirement contributions, you are left with $178,000 in gross income, leaving you with roughly $125,000 in after tax income. You boost your after tax savings rate to roughly 30%, leaving you with about $87,500 left. By the time you are making $200,000 in your career, you’re probably in your 30s or older and have a mortgage and kids to consider. Kindergarten/daycare may run $15,000-$20,000 a year, followed by $30,000-$40,000 in shelter costs for a reasonable home. You’re left with $20,000-$40,000 to spend on food, travel, groceries, gifts, lessons, and so forth. Not bad.

$350,000: Still upper middle class. After retirement contributions, you’re left with $333,000 in gross income, or roughly $250,000 in after tax income. With a 30% after-tax savings rate, you have $175,000 left to spend. Your family has grown to 4, and you seek a bigger home. An average 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath home in a good area in San Francisco will run you about $1,300,000 to $2,000,000. We’re not talking anything super fancy at 1,800-2,800 square feet. Your mortgage at 3.5% on $1.1 million will therefore cost around $60,000 a year + $15,000 a year in property taxes. I choose $1.1 million because that is the maximum level for mortgage interest deductibility. As a result, you’re left with about $100,000, or $8,333 a month in after tax income for school for two, travel, food and so forth. You’re doing well, and if you are frugal, you can certainly save more than $75,000 a year in after tax money along with the $17,000 401K contribution.

$500,000+: You are rich. With $483,000 in gross income after maxing out your retirement contributions, you have about $300,000 in after tax income (effective at 35%, which includes 10% state). That’s right, you are paying around $183,000 in taxes alone, yet the government still wants to take more from you! Undeterred, you crank up your savings to 35%, and put away another $105,000, leaving you with $195,000. Subtract $70,000 for annual mortgage/property tax leaves you with $125,00. Then subtract another $40,000 in tuition for two. With around $7,000 a month in money available for travel, food, entertainment, goods, gifts, you are sitting pretty, especially since you are putting away away $122,000 a year in savings.

Buuuuuuu shit propaganda......the number of people making 250-500k are not the middle class. They make up a tiny percent of the population and it's a long fucking ways from the middle.

60-120k is your middle class...

I'll buy upper middle class up to 250k.....doctors/lawyers etc...

Beyond that you're part of a tiny percentage of the population.

 

[koalabear]

.380?

Yep, Colt.

 

[Peregrinator]

It all depends on how you define the "middle". If you define it as being the range of 5% to 95% then they are middle. I'd define middle as in the range of 40-60%. On the other hand I've always considered myself to be middle class, wage wise, but I earn a lot less than 250k. If I earned 250k I'd consider myself quite wealthy.

If I earned 250k for five years, I'd retire. There's something seriously foolish in people who spend as they earn. This is what allows me to have a lifestyle that looks wealthier than I am. I carry no debt, manage my money carefully, etc, etc. I work in a field that's a growth industry indexed to population growth...more people, more emergencies, more need for education about emergencies, etc.

and I say this is not a black and white equation. I know for a fact I make a little less than 250K and am not rich. If I lived in South Dakota I may be, but then I would not be making what I make.

My point is Obama has set the same 250K family threshold and yet you let him slide. which goes back to the previous thread....Show me your ballot!

Then maybe you're not choosing as carefully as you could? I'm not saying you manage your wealth wrong; I just wonder how anyone can even spend that kind of money.

Look, I'm just back from a high-end cruise in the Med. You can go look at the pics. I live in an expensive neighborhood in the town that Time Mag said was THE place to be for Christmas because it's so fucking preppy and Currier and Ives. I do all that on less than a quarter of your stated income. That's our joint income per year, despite the mythical trust fund your father likes to talk about when he's drunk and I beat him in an argument.

You're making an amount of money every year that 95% of Americans wish they made. Go ahead and feel rich! You deserve to. You're doing fucking great, financially. Own that. Why wouldn't you?

Fuck Obama. If he says that, he's just as wrong and stupid as the Liberal Republican fool. I promise you I'll vote Johnson this year. Of course, like in the last one, my vote will be irrelevant, because then I was in Oregon and now I'm in Vermont.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I always liked the 380...great lil round.

 

[Peregrinator]

Oh I haz seen it....and I'm not trying to defend KB, but I fucking hate Renaud and do so dearly hope that case of blue waffle disease he got from his mom ends his entire gene pool.

I just want to check and make sure that you mean Renaud and not renard_ruse.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Oh I haz seen it....and I'm not trying to defend KB, but I fucking hate Renaud and do so dearly hope that case of blue waffle disease he got from his mom ends his entire gene pool.



No, the OVERWHELMING majority of Merikuh makes quite a bit less than 250k.



Buuuuuuu shit propaganda......the number of people making 250-500k are not the middle class. They make up a tiny percent of the population and it's a long fucking ways from the middle.

60-120k is your middle class...

I'll buy upper middle class up to 250k.....doctors/lawyers etc...

Beyond that you're part of a tiny percentage of the population.

and I said that 250K (family) is upper middle class......... I would put upper middle class at 180 to 250. But my point is you can not use a national average to make this call on a grand scale. It simply does not work. Their are too many qualitative and quantitative variables.......

 

[Peregrinator]

Yep, Colt.

I thought you weren't a fan. But that looks more concealable than my PPK...though a similar design?

I always liked the 380...great lil round.

I like what Massad Ayoob said about it...some experts will tell you it's barely adequate and others will tell you it's barely inadequate. I'm no expert, but I know I can pretty reliably make holes in shit at common self-defense ranges with mine. I really can't ask a whole lot more of a small concealable handgun.

 

[koalabear]

I always liked the 380...great lil round.

I wasted money on a LCP, wish I had seen that one sooner.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-13/the-democratic-struggle-to-define-whos-rich

Judging by this week’s headlines, Democrats would like to raise taxes on the rich—but can’t even seem to agree on a definition of the term. What precipitated this apparent crisis was President Obama’s call on Monday to extend the Bush tax cuts for another year, but only for households earning less than $250,000 annually. That seemingly put the White House at odds with the Democratic leadership in Congress, which has advocated increases only for those making more than $1 million a year. The White House, too, had recently been inclined to define “rich” as starting at the million-dollar level: The Buffett Rule, which Obama proposed in April, would impose a minimum 30 percent federal tax rate on millionaires.

But despite some of the news coverage and the gleeful Republican needling about Democratic disarray, there really isn’t much disagreement among Democrats about who’s rich and should pay more taxes. Instead, the disparity reflects different political strategies about how best to put pressure on Republicans. The inevitable resolution—Obama will prevail—reflects the president’s primacy and also his dire predicament. Having once before broken his vow to let the Bush tax cuts expire (as part of a 2010 stimulus deal), he probably can’t do so again and feel confident about getting reelected.

The disparity within the party arose in large part because Obama failed spectacularly the last time he tried to frame an election as a referendum on whether to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000. That was in 2010, when the Bush cuts were first set to expire. Some Democrats, led by New York Senator Charles Schumer, were already pushing to define “rich” as $1 million. While it’s true that a salary of $250,000 doesn’t feel rich in some parts of New York, Schumer’s primary motivation was tactical: Setting the threshold at $1 million is better politics because for everyone except maybe the Koch brothers and the Kardashians, “millionaire” connotes “rich.” And forcing Republicans to explain why they’d block a tax cut for all Americans in order to get a bigger break for millionaires is something any Democrat would love to do.

After the 2010 elections, most Democrats warmed to Schumer’s way of thinking. But they didn’t abandon the belief that people making more than $250,000 should pay a bit more (in part because there’s a huge deficit, and upping the benchmark to $1 million would mean forgoing $68 billion in annual tax revenue). During the subsequent lame-duck session of Congress, the Senate held separate votes on the $250,000 and $1 million thresholds. Each drew 53 votes, and 48 Democrats voted “yes” on both. So it’s misleading to portray the issue as a dispute; for most Democrats, the answer isn’t one or the other—it’s either one.

For Obama, though, caving on the $250,000 figure a second time would risk demoralizing his liberal supporters just when he needs them most.

He’ll still have a clear contrast with Mitt Romney, who favors extending, and expanding, all the Bush tax cuts. And if Obama does eke out a win, he’ll have a stronger case to raise more revenue.

But the real winner in that scenario (or any scenario, really) wouldn’t be Obama or Schumer or any Democrat. It would be George W. Bush.

Bush’s tax cuts were supposed to last 10 years. We’re now on year 12. If Obama were to prevail and the Bush cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000, they would still continue for the 98 percent of Americans who earn less. And even the millionaires and billionaires would get a break on their first quarter-million.

There would probably be plenty of huffing and puffing from conservatives about socialism, job-killing tax hikes, and the death of free enterprise. But what they don’t recognize—and Obama won’t dare say—is that the whole fight would represent a huge capitulation to Bush’s economic values. Most of his signature tax cuts would live on, probably permanently—and they’d be all but impossible to revoke since they’d have the endorsement of a Democratic president

 

[Adre]

Now you're all arguing semantics and minor definition differences, when the original point was more about mittens not having any fucking idea about average Americans or their financial conditions. And most truly rich people don't. WHy would they?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Now you're all arguing semantics and minor definition differences, when the original point was more about mittens not having any fucking idea about average Americans or their financial conditions. And most truly rich people don't. WHy would they?

and Obama does?