What is Wealthy? I messed up my other poll the other night by not being specific enough.

[Mike 03]

I'm talking about net worth. Life savings.

At what point do you think we need to tax the living shit out of these folks.

And please be honest.

Let me repeat that for clarification: I'm talking about NET WORTH, not annual salary.

And this is not a single person, but a family. So please take into account the cost of raising a child, or children.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

1. $500,000 net worth is wealthy - but

if you taxed the living shit out of it, it would be gone.

So in regards to the tax part of the question, $5 million.

[NYC_SKP]

2. One problem I have in answering...

Health security.

For example, my parents have very nice coverage for catastrophic health events which could easily wipe them out if they didn't have it.
They're otherwise worth about 350,000.

One or two million could be gone quick for a family or couple without coverage.

Thus, a 500K net worth family WITH good coverage is WAY better off than a 2Million net worth family without, IMO.

So, without more information I can't answer.

[DesertFlower]

3. i have to agree.

our net worth is about 1.5 million, but i don't have coverage for long term care. hubby does, but his policy has a maximum. a long term illness could wipe us out.

[elocs]

13. Isn't it exciting that nearly 1/3 of the responders think it's ok to tax the shit out of you?

Another DU gem.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Um, dude worth $1 million can surely buy coverage comparable to the $500k dude, no?

So why is there any ambiguity?

[DesertFlower]

7. sometimes there are what insurance

companies deem "pre existing conditions" so you can't buy the policy.

[BlooInBloo]

9. And pre-existing can happen equally easy to $1 million dude....

In which case his response might be "phew - good thing I'm richer than $500k dude over there!".

Focus, people.

[DesertFlower]

10. my mom had to go into

a dementia care facility. the cost was $3,000 a month -- a bargain. nursing homes start at $4,500 a month for a semi-private room.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Sorry about your mom.

[DesertFlower]

19. thank you. nt

[rrneck]

5. Last I heard (can't remember where, sorry)

ten million was considered wealthy in the United States.

[ThomWV]

6. On the last day we both worked my wife and I were worth about a million

Its not as much as you might imagine and not hard to accumulate that much over the years. We live on 100 acres that didn't cost all that much 35 years ago when we bought it, but it contributes a lot to our "wealth" now even at today's prices. That and a little lot we bought on the Outer Banks when they could be had for next to nothing and presto, you've got a high worth. There are also things like life insurance value and plain and simple regular savings that start to mount up in later years - same thing for regular contributions to mutual funds that were started decades ago. A lot might have been lost in the last 8 years but there is still substantial savings out there for some thrifty individuals.

[Mike 03]

8. I appreciate the responses.

I'm reading everything you all write.

Thank you

[catnhatnh]

12. Deleted Dupe N/T

.

[TripleKatPad]

14. Are you counting retirement accounts?

For me, that's not fair. I've scrimped and lived frugally for years to pad my 401K and IRA, hoping to retire by 62 (10 years away). Like many folks, I lost (way) more than a third of my retirement and it's still tanking. I've revised my plans; given the grim forecasts, retirement is no longer anywhere in my long-term plans. Like I tell my friends, my hope is to be able to afford a double-wide refrigerator box retirement home, located in the company parking lot. If I'm lucky. To me, "wealth" should be measured on net income. Retirement accounts should be excluded. Or there has to be some kind of sliding scale for people like me. JMHO.

[catnhatnh]

15. I think it is much higher than most here choose and varies with family size...

But I think RICH would at least be enough that you and your immediate family need do nothing else to make enough residual income without depleting their principal in their lifetimes. That said a net worth of five million is actually low for a larger family. Five years back when a 5% interest lock-in was easy to find they might have done well and for a family of four or five 250K SOUNDS like plenty.

But consider...when talking net worth you talk a shitload of assets that are not income and don't produce income....let's let our little hypothetical group have $1 in non-producing assets...real estate, vehicles, etc, etc,... now lets talk about an income of 200K....Put two of the kiddies in a decent college without scholarships-simultaneously and PRESTO...someone you perceive as RICH is suddenly buying at Walmart to cover those expensive years.....and that is not rich.

Of course at a time when investors are chasing 0% treasuries just to slow the bleeding it could be that anyone without enough net millions to guarantee no financial bind no matter the markets or their spending patterns is no longer rich.

[Mike 03]

16. Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate your honesty, and

I'm not here to judge anyone, just to learn.

[brentspeak]

17. There's not a thing wrong with being wealthy

But if a wealthy person achieved their wealth by screwing over the working person, then they are scum. And if a wealthy person uses their wealth to screw over the working person, that also makes them scum.

[Fireweed247]

18. Give us Universal Health Care and then ask the question

If people weren't losing everything they had worked for their entire life because of the Health Industry, I might answer differently. These days many people need their millions just so they don't end up on the streets in their 'golden' years.

on edit: I am not for taxing the shit out of anyone. Right now over half of our tax dollars goes to fund the pentagon and our attempt at world domination. I think if we fired all the bastards responsible for wasting our money on useless endeavors we would be much better off.

[LWolf]

20. Other: I don't really know, based on your measure.

I don't know how much "net worth" makes one wealthy without considering income.

I don't know anyone who can live for the rest of their lives on "net worth" without generating income. I guess that means I'm not one of the "wealthy," lol.

So what constitutes "wealth" would include the cost of living where they live, and that net worth divided by how many more years left to them in an "average" lifespan.

I also don't think it matters whether it is a single person, a couple, or a family. What we choose to spend our money on is irrelevant. Conceiving and raising a family is a choice. An economic choice as well as a social, emotional, cultural, and biological choice.

[jannyk]

21. Our home is worth over a million....

even though we paid a quarter of that for it. We are already being taxed at the million dollar level through property taxes, (currently over $10,000 per year) and trust me they are a stretch for us to pay.

Here in the Bay Area, and San Francisco in particular, a million dollar home is not a mansion - it is a pretty ordinary house. One bedroom condos are still going for $650k in 'nice' areas.

Also, we slaved and saved for over 40 years to get our little nest egg together, a chunk of which has already evaporated thanks to the economic meltdown. We inherited nothing, we were given nothing, never saw a 'bonus' in my working life - just hard work, good planning, regular saving and a little luck.

We own 2 vehicles, one is a 1993 model and the other a 1989. We do have a funky little trailer tucked away in a coastal village in Baja - no electricity, trucked in water and the lease costs us $500 per year - yep, we're really living high on the hog!

We are NOT wealthy, we are, for the moment, comfortable, and like anyone else, we are one health crisis away from financial catastrophe. Where we live, we would be considered 'lower middle class'. Are we your target group?

Bear in mind that a tax on 'net worth' would also penalize those of us that were fiscally responsible. We scrimped and saved, did not refinance nor borrow against our home as tempting as it was sometimes. Therefore, under your suggestion, I would pay higher taxes than my neighbor whose home is the same value as mine, but he used his home like an ATM and has no equity left and therefore, almost no net worth. He spent his equity on golf clubs, a boat, cruise vacations and other 'toys', while we paid our mortgage down. He is up to his eyeballs in debt - we are not. A tax on net assets would hit us not him - we'd have to sell our house to pay them - is that your intent?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. WOW! There must be some really rich people here that they start at 5,000,000 for wealthy!

DAMN! I am impressed!

[norepubsin08]

23. Having enough income or reserve to

comfortably live in a reasonable home, be able to pay the utilities, have enough food for everybody and be able to have a little extra for some fun.

[Two Americas]

24. it is not about some number

By telling us that it is about a number, you are dictating to us how we should think of wealth. That makes it a push poll.

As some of us asked on your last thread, how many slaves does it take before we have slavery? Define slavery for us with a number.

How big does a robbery have to be before we have a theft? Define theft for us with a number.

In a political context- -provided we are not right wingers - when we talk about "the wealthy" we mean those with massive wealth and living off of the labor of others - the upper 1% - and the "not wealthy" as the other 99% of us.

But as with slavery, it is not so simple. What of the small farmer who rented one slave for one day for one month? You could say that he was not a slave owner, but you could hardly say that therefore we should have some confusion or ambiguity about slavery itself.

Asking us to define "the wealthy" with a number is to covertly set a trap, to build your argument into the deceptive form of a question, and to preclude consideration of any sort of political and economic analysis other than that of the political right wing.

In the 1850's, the opponents of the Abolition movement used the same tactic. They said "not all slave owners are bad" and that we "shouldn't hate them" and that many of them were poor, or kind, and otherwise tried to blur the issue. They also said "you are just jealous, and if you could afford slaves you would have them too." They asked "define who it is that is bad and should be punished or hated?"

But the Abolition movement was not about punishing or hating slave owners, it was about eliminating slavery. Shifting the discussion so that it was about the slave owners was an effective way to oppose the Abolition movement, while disguising that.

You are making the same argument.