Iy depends on the source of the income. If it’s all from investments, then they may be rich. If it’s all from labor, then maybe not.
The irony is that this is going to serve to subvert the Agenda 21 objectives of herding people into the cities. People will start moving to rural/unincorporated areas just to get out from under the additional tax burden of municipal government.
The longer I am on this roller coaster, the more I come to believe that the proper taxation method is “representative apportionment”. By that, I mean that Congress decides how much to spend and also how much to tax. However, the amount raised in taxes would only be a specific dollar figure. That figure would then be broken down as follows:
50% of the total would be divided by 100 to obtain a per Senator cost.
50% that remains would be divided by the current number of the house seats to obtain a per congressional district cost.
Each state’s cost would be the sum of each of it’s Senator’s costs plus the sum of each congressional district’s cost. You could then divide the State’s cost into quarterly or monthly invoices.
That bill is then delivered to the State and the state would then be able to use it’s own internal taxation laws to raise the required revenue.
There would of course be penalties for those states that were late or not current. Things like automatic loss of chairmanships, membership in committees, loss of floor votes etc.
That depends on where someone lives. There are huge variations in the cost of living between major cities and wealthy suburbs, and smaller towns and rural America.
Being “rich” has very little to do with your income level in any particular year. When people think of “rich”, they are really referring to how much wealth someone has accumulated. A person making $250,000 this year may have made considerably less last year and may make more or less the year after.
If you are a single person, with no dependants, own your own house and live in a low tax state and in a community with reasonable housing costs, then $250,000 is very comfortable. If you are married, have two kids in college,have to save for your own retirement, a mortgage in a high cost housing area, and have to spend considerable amounts on commuting, then $250,000 is comfortable in terms of your day to day living expenses, but leaves little room for any significant wealth accumulation.
Keep in mind that the person who is making the $250,000 is likely working his or her butt off to make that money and in many cases is an entrepreneur taking all the risks. If that person has an opportunity to work an extra hour per day and make another $50,000 per year, why would they put in that effort if the additional income is going to be subject to confiscatory rates of taxation?
I make a decent income which puts me in the highest marginal tax bracket in my province. I could make additional income if I sacrificed more family time in favour of longer work hours. I would consider doing that if I thought my family would benefit, but I can’t justify working those hours when the government is taking 50% of every dollar earned above the highest bracket level. When you factor in all the taxes that apply when you actually spend that money, I am getting much less than 50% value in each additional dollar I earn. That is being a slave to the state.
More evidence of our ignorance of economic matters. High income does not equal wealth. It’s not how much you make that matters but how much you manage to keep.
I closed one of my businesses before the election. I’ll probably start cutting back on my primary business after the first of the year. The marginal dollars really aren’t worth it.
Raising taxes on one segment of the population based on income is bigotry.
That is middle class here in commifornica.
If you are like me and make only $50G a year $250G is a lot. If you make $2M a year, $250G don’t cut it. But if you make only $10G, my $50G is a lot.
The nation is falling under the spell of communism and some jackass feels the need to argue that $250K a year isn't rich ?
There are millions of families who work hard, play by the rules, struggle, don't accept welfare, will go thier entire lives without a real vacation or a new car. This is the problem with and difference between conservatives and Christians. Christians help and uplift the poor with charity and fiscal conservatives fertilize the garden of communism by grinding the faces of the poor with greed.
There is no better way on earth to turn the struggling working poor to the left.
Did they earn it ?...Yes. Do they deserve it ?...Probably. Are they rich ? ABSOLUTELY.
I still need clarification:
Is the $250,000 number a GROSS income?
ADJUSTED GROSS income (AGI)??
NET TAXABLE income?
Those are 3 VERY different numbers.
Can anyone clarify this for me??
“Obama starts the meter at $250,000, and it goes up from there. The tax increases on high-income earners would deliver about $42 billion in 2013.”
0bama has clearly stated that this tax increase would raise $1 Trillion dollars over 10 years.
This is another thing republicans failed to point out during the campaign.
Al Gore famously (and the members of the Obama administration since) have argued that if you earn $250,000 you ARE a millionaire.
It is simple class envy and nothing but. Fudge the numbers to whip hysteria and greed.
Envy is against one of the 10 Commandments (so there goes Obama’s “historical Jesus” argument that we are biblically dictated to give to the welfare State). It is also one of the 7 Deadly Sins.
A 0.1 drag on the GDP, what a joke. The over 250k group does most of the consumer spending, investing, and pretty much all of the hiring. This is demoralizing for the productive class and many will slow down or go Galt. Just wait when the “rich” see how much they are losing in taxes next year. Do you think that they will work harder if that money goes down a black hole.
$250,000 is just a random number. It rolls smoothly off the tongue of the Community Organizer and his friends.
Anyone remember the episode of “TAXI” where the character Jim accidentally burns down Danny DeVito’s characters Apartment?
Jim’s Father, a Lawyer, agrees to pay for the damage and los. Danny DeVito is pacing the floor trying to come up with a number. He is trying desperately to figure out a number big enough to enrich himslf but small enough to not scare away Jim’s Father.
Finally after five minutes of arguing to himself he says give me $25,000 or something like that. After Jim hangs up the phone, DeVito says well? Jim says OK, he will give you the money. DeVito is really proud of himself until Jim says, he was worried you would want $100,000. DeVito collapses on the floor.
The Liberals have set a line in the sand where $250,000 is the new “rich”, and everyone in power has bought into it.
Just like the Minimum Wage or CAFE standards, the Sheeple eat it up. We are all Comrades now.
My Father told me people live with what they earn. Well, not anymore but you get the picture. When I was young I would think to myself, if only I made a certain amount of money I would have it made. Well, I worked hard and made more than that imaginary amount, but I never had it made.
i live in california. I make about 70k a year, but i don’t work, i get a gov pension and own 5 house and have no mortgage on any of them.
I feel rich.
If it’s more than the takers make, then it’s rich.
And don’t spend too long dwelling on the 250k figure. It will come down just as soon as it’s learned the revenue doesn’t cover the problem.
But, then, the upside is that, pretty soon, we’ll all be rich...by definition.
The move is for exemptions for the NYers and other DNC enclaves.