This is what I fear people mean by "rich":

[Dreamer Tatum]

Consider someone who graduated with BA/BS in 1980 at age 22. That person will be 52 next year. Suppose that person started a job out of school at $25,000/year, and through promotions, merit increases, COLAs, or whatever, that person was fortunate enough to increase his pay 6% per year on a nominal basis for 25 years.

Around now, this person would be at a salary of around $120,000, not including bonuses, etc. Suppose this person (a) bought a house in Southern California in 1983 for $150,000, and (b) saved 6% of their pretax income and earned a consistent 8% annual nominal return. None of those numbers are unrealistic by any stretch.

In 2009, that person will have accumulated more than $375,000 in savings (not including any other household income) and probably over $600,000 in wealth through real estate appreciation.

That person is most assuredly a "millionaire," but pretty much only a couple of things happened to ensure this exorbitant level of filthy, stinking wealth: he didn't get seriously sick, he didn't lose his job,and he paid his mortgage on time.

Would anyone cheer for the downfall of THIS rich guy? I sure wouldn't. I would wish I was as lucky, but that's about it. It seems like this guy is in people's crosshairs, though, and I think that's messed up.

[Schema Thing]

1. He's not in anyone's crosshairs.

Care to give us a clue what you meant by that?

[bbinacan]

6. It means he's a target

for having the shit taxed out of him. Clear enough now?

[Schema Thing]

71. Well that was always clear, wasn't it?

And as I said, he's not in anyone's crosshairs.

If you think he is, tell me who's gunning for the 120k dude.

[verdalaven]

80. A 4% increase

is having the shit taxed out of him?

[WCGreen]

133. Not if he is making $ 120 k and bought his house and not sold it...

his top tax rate would be about 17% with no deductions...

[pnwmom]

149. Your figure is incorrect. Here is a link to income tax rates:

http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/qt/2009_tax_rates.htm

For example:

Single filers:

10% on income between $0 and $8,350
15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835
25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675
28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550; plus $16,750
33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754
35% on the income over $372,950; plus $108,216

Married filing jointly:

10% on the income between $0 and $16,700
15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670
25% on the income between $67,900 and $137,050; plus $9,350
28% on the income between $137,050 and $208,850; plus $26,637.50
33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50
35% on the income over $372,950; plus $100,894.50

[WCGreen]

171. I'm an accountant and ran your scenario in my tax program...

The rate you are looking at is marginal and so in order to get the correct tax rate, you have to blend the income with the various lower rates until you hit the high one...

I am correct...

[timeforpeace]

20. Well of course he is. He is who will bear the burden. That is always the case.

[tabasco]

160. Move to Somalia if you don't like taxes.

The real burden is capitalism.

If the winners in capitalism don't like the burden, we can always try something else.

[Contrary1]

94. Maybe something to do with this thread?

:shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7018193

[tekisui]

2. Where is that person in cross hairs?

[bbinacan]

3. Very good point.

:toast:

[tekisui]

29. Not really, actually.

It is a non-sequitur, at best.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. That's not 'rich'.

That's reasonably comfortable middle class.

[boston bean]

5. can someone re check this math?? it wouldn't be DU if someone didn't

plus I think this post is not even worth talking about...

[bbinacan]

7. So why did you comment?

:think:

[boston bean]

18. i thought if he got beat up on the math part, it could contain my interest.

this whole scenario is a red herring....

[tekisui]

15. I get his salary at $107,296.75 after 25 years of 6% increases.

And, even by his numbers, they wouldn't be a millionaire.

This hypothetical guy is surely a rarity as well. And, that scenario would almost never play out into today's marketplace.

Further, Someone making some $150,000 a year is not a target of unreasonable high taxes.

He is trying to find the poorest rich person to suffer negatively, and he hasn't done it, even with this fanciful construction.

[boston bean]

19. tyvm! nt

[Canuckistanian]

127. +!

By rights, this person should be solidly "middle class".

It ain't his fault that the lower class got lower.

[kentuck]

8. How much tax do you think this "person" should pay?

Just curious.

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. I fear that whatever I say, it would be at least 5% too low, which is my point

My point is a lot of people didn't get rich by fucking other people over, which is a very common accusation here.

[kentuck]

17. There was 6% "pre-tax" income, right?

So how much on top of that?

[Dreamer Tatum]

39. Jesus Fucking Christ, going from $25K to $120K in 30 YEARS is controversial?

REALLY?

And did I say this was the AVERAGE CASE, or did I present to you someone that MOST PEOPLE WOULD CALL WEALTHY?

[ddeclue]

44. It's not even remotely realistic.

I'm a degreed engineer from Georgia Tech - I graduated in '89

I theoretically make $45/hr.

Until you take out all the periods of un or under employment that I've been through in the last 18 months.

In 2001 I was making $60/hr but even then there was unemployment involved so I ended up right at $100k in my best year ever.

I'll be lucky to make $50k this year.

and I'm doing better than most people.

YES your straw man is controversial because it is a work of fiction not grounded in actual statistics from the Commerce Bureau / Census Department.

[Dreamer Tatum]

56. So let me get this straight

I presented an example of someone I claimed did very well, and you're saying that's not supported by the average?

If you're really an engineer, you should get this pretty quickly:

5 10 15 20 25

What is the average of those five numbers?

Are any of the numbers above the average?

Thank you.

[ddeclue]

61. 15 is the average and 2 of the numbers are above average - what's your point.

I'm saying your example is so far above the MEDIAN net worth in this country as to be a ludicrous example. It is likewise so far above the MEDIAN income as to be ludicrous.

Now it's YOUR turn to answer a question:

Do you know what the difference is between MEAN and MEDIAN?

Your straw man simply doesn't exist statistically speaking - I'm worried about those people at least reasonably close to the median income - not the millionaires.

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. At the risk of being excommunicated

I know lots of people who do MUCH better than that in less than half the time.

I didn't say EVERYONE did, or even that MOST people did, or even that MANY people did, but some people have accumulated
wealth in exactly the way I described.

Yes, my straw man does exist, believe it or not.

[ddeclue]

70. Anecdotal and you apparently have a lot of rich friends - I have 3

rich friends - you would only know one of them because he's Alan Grayson and he's worth about 31 million dollars last I heard. My other two rich friends are worth about 3 million and 1 million each. I wouldn't even know them except for being involved in politics.

The reality is that it's not even "some" people who have accumulated wealth in "exactly the way you described" it's a statistically insignificant number who have - less than 1%. Your example is a straw man and NOT backed by Census Bureau data.

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. You just keep on believing that, then.

You COULD go to the IRS SOI website and look up actual adjusted gross incomes by the zip code level, but then again you would discover that you are wrong. So I guess you won't do that.

[ddeclue]

75. A fact based intervention on your fantasy:

Census Bureau 2003 data
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Perecentile Household Incomes (based on the 112,000 households <22,400[br />households per quitile] in the US)
0-20% earned 3.4% of US income
20-40% earned 8.7%
40-60% 14.9%
60-80% 23.4%
80-100% 49.9%

The average household earned $43,318, so doing the math that means the
average (mean) household in each quintile earned:
0-20% $ 7,364
20-40% $ 18,843
40-60% $ 32,272
60-80% $ 50,682
80-100% $108,078

[Dreamer Tatum]

78. You just proved me correct, thanks. I accept your data. nt

[ddeclue]

82. Then you don't understand how to read the data.

Your strawman is at the very tip top of the scale. He's non existent.

[Dreamer Tatum]

84. You just showed me that about 20% of households are around $108K

Is there something in that data you don't understand?

[ddeclue]

87. Yes - $108k was at the TOP of the number bracket - your guy was $12,000 ABOVE that.

Census Bureau 2003 data
Translation: your strawman is in the 99% percentile or higher.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Perecentile Household Incomes (based on the 112,000 households <22,400[br />households per quitile] in the US)
0-20% earned 3.4% of US income
20-40% earned 8.7%
40-60% 14.9%
60-80% 23.4%
80-100% 49.9%

The average household earned $43,318, so doing the math that means the
average (mean) household in each quintile earned:
0-20% $ 7,364
20-40% $ 18,843
40-60% $ 32,272
60-80% $ 50,682
80-100% $108,078

[Dreamer Tatum]

90. So you think the dropoff from $108K to $120K is HOW much?

You realize that there are MILLIONS of people who make $200K and above, yes?

I gave you your point when I said that ABOUT 20% of households are at ABOUT $108K.

Silly argument now. You proved my point with your own data, so, done.

[ddeclue]

98. No millions of people do NOT make >200k. Sorry but this is NOT supported by the facts.

No I haven't proved your argument.

Firstly those numbers are HOUSEHOLD not individual incomes so your guy is doing very well indeed because most households are two income households these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

The 2005 economic survey revealed the income distribution for households and individuals whereby the top 5% of individuals had six figure incomes (exceeding $100,000) and the top 10% of individuals had incomes exceeding $75,000.<4>

According to INDIVIDUAL incomes your guy is in better than the 95 percentile.

Secondly:

Here's a more finely broken down set of HOUSEHOLD income numbers for you:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Income range Households
(thousands) Percent
$0 to $25,000 (28.22%)
Under $2,500 2,566 2.26%
$2,500 to $4,999 1,389 1.22%
$5,000 to $7,499 2,490 2.20%
$7,500 to $9,999 3,360 2.96%
$10,000 to $12,499 4,013 3.54%
$12,500 to $14,999 3,543 3.13%
$15,000 to $17,499 3,760 3.32%
$17,500 to $19,999 3,438 3.03%
$20,000 to $22,499 4,061 3.58%
$22,500 to $24,999 3,375 2.98%
$25,000 to $50,000 (26.65%)
$25,000 to $27,499 3,938 3.48%
$27,500 to $29,999 2,889 2.55%
$30,000 to $32,499 3,921 3.46%
$32,500 to $34,999 2,727 2.41%
$35,000 to $37,499 3,360 2.96%
$37,500 to $39,999 2,633 2.32%
$40,000 to $42,499 3,378 2.98%
$42,500 to $44,999 2,294 2.02%
$45,000 to $47,499 2,700 2.38%
$47,500 to $49,999 2,371 2.09%
$50,000 to $75,000 (18.27%)
$50,000 to $52,499 3,071 2.71%
$52,500 to $54,999 2,006 1.77%
$55,000 to $57,499 2,420 2.13%
$57,500 to $59,999 1,786 1.57%
$60,000 to $62,499 2,566 2.26%
$62,500 to $64,999 1,774 1.56%
$65,000 to $67,499 2,101 1.85%
$67,500 to $69,999 1,637 1.44%
$70,000 to $72,499 1,978 1.74%
$72,500 to $74,999 1,413 1.24%
$75,000 to $100,000 (10.93%)
$75,000 to $77,499 1,802 1.59%
$77,500 to $79,999 1,264 1.11%
$80,000 to $82,499 1,673 1.47%
$82,500 to $84,999 1,219 1.07%
$85,000 to $87,499 1,418 1.25%
$87,500 to $89,999 984 0.86%
$90,000 to $92,499 1,282 1.13%
$92,500 to $94,999 917 0.81%
$95,000 to $97,499 1,023 0.90%
$97,500 to $99,999 846 0.74%
$100,000 or more (15.73%)
$100,000 to $149,999 11,194 9.89%
$150,000 to $199,999 3,595 3.17%
$200,000 to $249,999 1,325 1.17%
$250,000 and above 1,699 1.50%


Interpolating the $100-$150k bracket linearly gives:

9.89% x (1-0.4) + 3.17% + 1.17% + 1.5% =11.774% of HOUSEHOLDS make more than $120k - assuming that we can linearly interpolate in the $100k to $150k bracket - that's not really very likely to be true however - in reality the numbers go down as you go up so it could well be more like 10%.

Your straw man is well above the median household income much less the individual income - he's in the 90th percentile of HOUSEHOLDS and the 95th percentile of INDIVIDUALS.

Finally re: MILLIONS of people making >$250k.. not really. Maybe a million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

The top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000 with 146,000 households, the top 0.12%, having incomes exceeding $1,600,000 annually.

Q.E.D.

[Dreamer Tatum]

103. You already proved my point, so enough. nt

[ddeclue]

107. No I've proven you wrong your straw man is NOT typical -not even close

he's in the 95 percentile.

Sorry if you can't grasp the math.

[Dreamer Tatum]

110. My fine friend, I never, ever, never, ever, ever said it was typical.

Never. In fact, I held it out as an extraordinary case. I just didn't realize that it was IMPOSSIBLE, which leads me to question the existence of, oh, EVERYONE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

[ddeclue]

113. Whoopie - anecdotal evidence does not persuade me..and you did NOT make it out as "extraordinary"

I DID. You kept defending it as something that was reasonably within common experience. I demonstrated statistically that it simply is NOT.

[Zywiec]

66. Not even remotely realistic?

I'm 45 years old and make about $120K a year.

30 years ago when I was 15, I made minimum wage washing dishes.

It is possible.

[Dreamer Tatum]

69. No, it's not. You either make exactly the average, or

you screw poor people over and you make millions a year.

Your experience is incorrect. Please re-check your W-2's.

[Zywiec]

73. Luckily I'm receptive to the sarcasm

as well as the bitterness and jealousy on this thread.

[tonysam]

88. Who the hell is "jealous"?

What a bullshit response. Some people are whining the vast majority of us should feel "pity" for people like you. Forget it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

93. I didn't see him/her ask for pity. nt

[ddeclue]

74. You are by far the exception and NOT the rule.

Very few doctors and lawyers even do that well.

Census Bureau 2003 data
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Perecentile Household Incomes (based on the 112,000 households <22,400[br />households per quitile] in the US)

0-20% earned 3.4% of US income
20-40% earned 8.7%
40-60% 14.9%
60-80% 23.4%
80-100% 49.9%

The average household earned $43,318, so doing the math that means the
average (mean) household in each quintile earned:

0-20% $ 7,364
20-40% $ 18,843
40-60% $ 32,272
60-80% $ 50,682
80-100% $108,078

[Zywiec]

97. I guess my 3 brothers and I lucked out and became part of the exception

I wonder how one family could beat the amazing odds against us?

:shrug:

[ddeclue]

102. Actually not so surprising. The wealthy tend to keep getting wealthier in this country

while the rest of us keep getting poorer.

[Zywiec]

114. The wealthy?

My father worked for the government for 30 years and retired on a government annuity. My mother was a stay at home mother. We were not wealthy at all. It is not a case of wealthy getting wealthier, but why ruin your great imagination.

:crazy:

[ddeclue]

120. Your standards are not statistically based. Mine are.

Try looking at the Census Bureau data some time.

[Dreamer Tatum]

108. ddeclue lives in a world where all standard deviations equal zero

that is, all data points are the same, since it's impossible to have an income greater than the median.

It must be an interesting world.

[ddeclue]

112. No a standard deviation +/- is about 69% - two standard deviations is 95.4%

of the samples.


Your straw man is at the 95th percentile therefore if we are talking about normal Gaussian distributions that's TWO standard deviations.

:rofl:

[Dreamer Tatum]

115. Let's not go there. Incomes are not Gaussian, for one thing.

I have a feeling that you would be utterly floored if you knew how much money a LOT of people make. And they don't alllive in mansions behind walls.

[ddeclue]

119. Dude I lived in Fort Lauderdale - I've seen the 100 foot yachts with the helicopters.

They ARE the exception however - and YES incomes are not Gaussian as I have already pointed out.

Nonetheless YOU were the one who brought up the notion of a STANDARD deviation which implies a Gaussian distribution. I simply converted from the percentile ranking back to a Gaussian distribution to demonstrate how wrong you were in either universe.

Your strawman is a strawman because he is worth 8x the national median net worth. Facts are facts friend.

[Dreamer Tatum]

122. "Standard" means "normal?"

I'm sorry you're so ill informed. You're not UNinformed, just ill informed.

I would wish you luck, but in your world, you don't really need it: everyone is right at the median. Nothing can be true if it's not close to the median.

[ddeclue]

128. All you've got left is insults since you don't have any FACTS on your side.

The reality of the distribution of income is this - there are far MORE incomes clustered around the MEDIAN income than there are clustered around the 90th percentile for household income or the 95th percentile for individual income. More than 50% of American households make LESS than 50k/year. Only around 25% make 75k or more and only around 10-11% make 120k or more.

You can't be typical if you numerically are NOT typical.

I win this argument.

Q.E.D.

Income distribution
Income range Households
(thousands) Percent

$0 to $25,000 (28.22%)
Under $2,500 2,566 2.26%
$2,500 to $4,999 1,389 1.22%
$5,000 to $7,499 2,490 2.20%
$7,500 to $9,999 3,360 2.96%
$10,000 to $12,499 4,013 3.54%
$12,500 to $14,999 3,543 3.13%
$15,000 to $17,499 3,760 3.32%
$17,500 to $19,999 3,438 3.03%
$20,000 to $22,499 4,061 3.58%
$22,500 to $24,999 3,375 2.98%

$25,000 to $50,000 (26.65%)
$25,000 to $27,499 3,938 3.48%
$27,500 to $29,999 2,889 2.55%
$30,000 to $32,499 3,921 3.46%
$32,500 to $34,999 2,727 2.41%
$35,000 to $37,499 3,360 2.96%
$37,500 to $39,999 2,633 2.32%
$40,000 to $42,499 3,378 2.98%
$42,500 to $44,999 2,294 2.02%
$45,000 to $47,499 2,700 2.38%
$47,500 to $49,999 2,371 2.09%

$50,000 to $75,000 (18.27%)
$50,000 to $52,499 3,071 2.71%
$52,500 to $54,999 2,006 1.77%
$55,000 to $57,499 2,420 2.13%
$57,500 to $59,999 1,786 1.57%
$60,000 to $62,499 2,566 2.26%
$62,500 to $64,999 1,774 1.56%
$65,000 to $67,499 2,101 1.85%
$67,500 to $69,999 1,637 1.44%
$70,000 to $72,499 1,978 1.74%
$72,500 to $74,999 1,413 1.24%

$75,000 to $100,000 (10.93%)
$75,000 to $77,499 1,802 1.59%
$77,500 to $79,999 1,264 1.11%
$80,000 to $82,499 1,673 1.47%
$82,500 to $84,999 1,219 1.07%
$85,000 to $87,499 1,418 1.25%
$87,500 to $89,999 984 0.86%
$90,000 to $92,499 1,282 1.13%
$92,500 to $94,999 917 0.81%
$95,000 to $97,499 1,023 0.90%
$97,500 to $99,999 846 0.74%

$100,000 or more (15.73%)
$100,000 to $149,999 11,194 9.89%
$150,000 to $199,999 3,595 3.17%
$200,000 to $249,999 1,325 1.17%
$250,000 and above 1,699 1.50%

[Dreamer Tatum]

131. OK, you win. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

Oh, I get it! You think any reference to "standard deviation" refers to the normal distribution!

How cute!

Thanks for the extra laugh.

[ddeclue]

130. Well you asked for it.

[patrice]

137. There ARE certain people who have done that, but I don't see a lot of DUers saying that is true of

everyone who is making 125K or better.

The most common thing I see is that people know that greater wealth requires more of the commons than less wealth does: more carbon fuels, highways, airports, retail facilities, entertainment, medical resources, more law, more of everything and the costs of these things are not simply limited to dollars. There are systemic burdens imposed on others. Some of us would like to see some recognition of that gestalt and I do not think that expectations are un-reasonable. None but the most extreme wish to destroy wealth. They think rather that something a little more than the minimal status quo recognition of these costs would free a lot of people to be less of a burden on themselves and others.

[unpossibles]

165. very well stated

Someone can tug on their own bootstraps all day, but if they are alone on an island they will not get any richer.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. He'd be one of the 95% of Americans who got a tax cut from Obama

I'd hardly call that being "in people's crosshairs", but YMMV.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Eh, maybe I'm wrong, then.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[timeforpeace]

24. No you're not. You're being bullshitted. Guess the media missed the tax cut news.

[Hello_Kitty]

79. I guess they did.

I'm assuming a gross income of $120K. Which means unless the person has no dependents and writes off nothing, s/he got a tax credit from the stimulus.

[Schema Thing]

77. wrong, right, I just want to know where the hell you're getting the idea

that this dude is "in the crosshairs"?

[Greyhound]

11. Solidly middle-class, not rich.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions regarding the parasite class v. the rest of us. The scale of the differentiation between their wealth and the person you describe is literally beyond our comprehension.

I define rich as being able to write a check for $250,000 that will clear without liquidating major assets.

[ddeclue]

13. Statistically speaking that person IS rich.. they are far above the mean household income and wealth

I hate to tell you this and poke holes in your straw man but hardly anyone has consistently gotten 6% raises for 25+ years.

I'm a degreed engineer from a very good school and the best I ever did was around $100k back in 2001. Since then my annual income has declined considerably NOT risen.

Indeed for the vast majority of Americans their annual income has remained flat or declined over the last 10 years - hardly any have gotten consistent 6% raises.

Next hole to poke is with the $600,000 home - not very likely given then huge declines in the value of homes in the last 18 months - that was paper money at best and your mythical straw man is more likely upside down in a mortgage that costs more than the home is worth. Home values have declined 30-40% in many areas.

Next hole to poke is with the saved $375,000. Ha ha. I don't see how that is even possible if he is a normal married guy with two kids and a wife but even if he has invested in the stock market, the market hasn't gotten back to where it was in 2000 just before the first tech bubble crash and if adjusted for inflation is actually back somewhere around where it was in 1995.

If you have a million dollars in net worth my friend you are indeed very rich these days - that's 8x the median net worth of an American family these days.

Please don't ask for my sympathy.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/average-net-worth-of-an-american-family.html

Across all groups, the 2007 median net worth was $120,300 and the mean was $556,300 (guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett really mess things up).

Here are a few of the more interesting ones (2007 median data, 2007 dollars):
Current work status of head:

Working for someone else: $350,100
Self-employed: $1,961,300
Retired: $543,100
Other not working: $124,100
Race or ethnicity of respondent:

White non-Hispanic: $692,200
Nonwhite or Hispanic: $228,500
Housing status:

Owner: $778,200
Renter or other: $70,600

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. Ladies and gentlemen of DU, I rest my case.

Please don't ask for my sympathy.


Thank you.

[ddeclue]

21. Sorry but if you have a million dollars you ARE rich and your guy is nothing but a straw man

because he doesn't really exist statistically speaking.

You are putting forth a case that doesn't exist and then asking us to have sympathy for this non-existent person.

If you are a millionaire you are by definition rich so stop asking poor people to have sympathy for your case. There are a lot of people worse off and the millionaires in this country have NOT been paying their fair share since Reagan.

Your case is full of holes.

[boston bean]

23. in this dreamers scenario, did the guy ever pay taxes??? nt

[ddeclue]

30. I didn't run the math on taxes but it was obviously flawed when he started talking about 6% annual

raises year in year out.. Who do you know that has ever gotten these kind of consistent annual raises?

My own career my income went up dramatically in the 90's about 500% under Clinton but ever since the tech bubble burst it has fallen and gotten stuck or gone down - the last 18 months I have been through quite a lot of unemployment which has driven my annual income down (as happened in 2002-2003 as well) and my hourly rate has been basically stuck at the same level since 2003.

Overall I'm down a good 40% from my peak in 2001.

6% raises for everyone!!

:D

[boston bean]

37. I haven't gotten a 6% raise in atleast 9 years! 3% is the max! nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

41. How about me? I have. Should I be drawn and quartered? nt

[ddeclue]

45. I don't know you - I don't want to draw and quarter you - just tax you appropriately.

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. Just for funsies...what should my tax rate be? It's just your opinion, so put a number out there.

I'm interested to know.

[ddeclue]

53. 45 to 50% for the top bracket. I don't know what you make though.

[Dreamer Tatum]

57. That is EXACTLY what I advocated YESTERDAY.

Just search my posts.

[ddeclue]

62. Then what's your point TODAY?

It sounds like you want us to have pity on those same people and not raise their taxes.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. There's no point anymore. People are so hung up on details, and doubting

that any human being could possibly go from $25K to $120K in fewer than 600 years, that all is lost.

I admit it: I am crazy. The world is composed of people who make exactly the average income per the Census Bureau,
and the filthy stinking rich. That's it.

As usual, I have put forth an example that bears no semblance to reality in this universe, or any other. I just stepped outside of line for a couple of moments of complete fancy, and I beg your forgiveness.

[ddeclue]

81. The reality is this:

Census Bureau 2003 data
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Perecentile Household Incomes (based on the 112,000 households <22,400[br />households per quitile] in the US)
0-20% earned 3.4% of US income
20-40% earned 8.7%
40-60% 14.9%
60-80% 23.4%
80-100% 49.9%

The average household earned $43,318, so doing the math that means the
average (mean) household in each quintile earned:
0-20% $ 7,364
20-40% $ 18,843
40-60% $ 32,272
60-80% $ 50,682
80-100% $108,078

I have friends who are lawyers and friends who are engineers and programmers like myself - the general reality in my experience is this:

Most of my lawyer friends top out around $80-100k unless they can become a partner in a big firm in which case it may be $200k - $300k.

Most of my engineer and programmer friends top out around $90k these days - indeed many make $50-70k depending on discipline.

Most doctors top out around $120k unless they are certain kinds of specialists in which case they can top out around $200k to $250k.

Most nurses top out around $60k.

Most school teachers top out around $50k.

[pitohui]

129. yes in the reality based universe silly people get hung up on details

actually god is in the details but you thought we were too stupid too know that

you think we are stupid because we are poor, i have news

[annabanana]

154. Don't feel bad.

Sometimes we all waste our time and annoy the pig.

[TicketyBoo]

99. I'm kinda new here.

Just search my posts.

You can do that? How?

[ddeclue]

101. surprisingly ordinary Google works well for this.

of course it won't have the very latest posts by an author.

[TicketyBoo]

106. Yeah, I already tried that.

Not really all that helpful if someone posts a lot.

[ddeclue]

109. Have to add meaningful search terms - googling is an art form.

Of course he says he just posted it yesterday so Google probably hasn't had a chance to visit that page yet and index it.

[TicketyBoo]

111. I'm pretty good

with The Google.

Some online forums have their own search feature, so I thought maybe I was missing something.

[ddeclue]

116. Well there IS a DU search in the top right hand corner but I've never tried it.

[dmallind]

167. I made 30K in 1998. I make more than four times that now

So 6% annual compound income growth is neither impossible nor even all that unusual as many people with my education have done the same or better. You assume people never improve their value to the marketplace through education or training if you think annual 6% is extremely optimistic.

[tekisui]

27. Oh yeah?

Well what if a guy, upon graduation from high school saved one penny. And the next day he saved two pennies, and so on and so on......

After ten years, he is offered everything he owns for either one ton of dimes or two tons of nickels. Say he then takes the nickels and cashes them in, investing half in Microsoft in 1988, and the other half in real estate.

What do you think then?

[ddeclue]

32. DUZY!

[bbinacan]

65. A real life example.

In 1990, my Dad had a negative net worth when he took a job paying him less than what he had been making. He had no college degree. His income rose 5%/year until his retirement in 2007. At that point, he was worth $1.1 million. This was due in part to investments in his 401k and appreciation in his home. He died in 2008. Even after the stock and real estate market crashes, my Mom is worth $800k. This is not unusual.

[ddeclue]

85. Actually it's very unusual - your mom is worth over 6x the national median net worth.

[bbinacan]

170. What's the average?

Not the median.

[Hello_Kitty]

147. So explain how she's "in the crosshairs" per the OP. eom

[kentuck]

22. But you really don't need or want anyone's sympathy.

Do you? :shrug:

[ddeclue]

26. He's concerned that he might actually be asked to finally pay his fair share in taxes

and that we might be returning to pre-Reagan tax rates.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. More like Clinton-era taxes.

35% to 39% top marginal rates. Oh the humanity!!1!

[Dreamer Tatum]

46. Search my name. Yesterday I suggested going back to pre-Reagan taxes.

No need to apologize. Just note it and move along, thank you.

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. My point has been proven to the nth degree already

and for anyone calling it a "straw man," NO FUCKING SHIT. I MADE IT UP. I SAID I MADE IT UP.

Forget the 'millionaire' part. My point is simply that a LOT of Americans have done well simply by
working hard and being lucky not to have gotten sick. Some of those people have accumulated what would
seem to be a lot, yet these people are NOT what a lot of people have in mind when they speak derisively of
"rich" people.

And if anyone still thinks my example is completely false and unrealistic, let's take a drive through SoCal
one day together. But pack a lunch.

[hfojvt]

36. if by "a lot" you mean 10% of Americans

you might be right, but the fact remains that that group has done better than the other 80% of Americans, many times by a long, long ways. But whatever you do, don't call them rich. No, no, no, 90th percentile is solidly in the "middle" :crazy:

[ddeclue]

40. more like the 97% percentile..

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

38. It's a straw man because it's NOT REALISTIC - you had NO CHOICE but to make it up.

A lot more Americans have worked hard and haven't done well despite their hard wark.

Stop blaming people's poverty on "not working hard enough". The vast majority of Americans are two paychecks away from bankruptcy and your example is ludicrous.

A lot of your so-called mini-millionaires really got that way by screwing over the employees of their small business by paying minimum wage and taking the lion's share of the profit instead of treating their employees like the asset they really are.

As someone who works and studies hard to have valuable employable skills I am not particularly interested in having pity on such people who abuse my efforts in the workplace so as to enrich themselves without enriching me at the same time.

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. When did I say any of that? Seriously, help me out. Where in hell did you get

anything out of what I wrote to justify this shit:

Stop blaming people's poverty on "not working hard enough".


Touchy, touchy, touchy people.

[ddeclue]

50. You associated your strawman's wealth with his "hard work" thereby implying that poverty was the

consequence of failing to work hard.

In reality, poverty and wealth are not so closely tied to "hard work" as you imagine.

Luck has a great deal more to do with it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

58. No, you put the rest in there. Plenty of people work like dogs and are not as lucky.

Does that clarify it for you, rather than put words in my mouth?

[ddeclue]

63. Thank you for acknowledging that fact.

[Dreamer Tatum]

76. My father is one of those people, as are the bulk of Americans.

Those people deserve whatever sympathy people need to feel, and they should receive the help they need. At the expense of rich people.

But exactly how rich is rich?

[ddeclue]

83. A million dollars is rich. That's how rich is rich. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

86. Per year? Yes, VERY, VERY rich indeed.

[ddeclue]

89. NOPE: I just mean NET WORTH. A millionaire is defined presently as someone having a $1M net worth.

[Dreamer Tatum]

96. I would call that person wealthy, but

I created a realistic (yes it is realistic) example of someone who is "wealthy" but most of that wealth is measured in real estate equity. Also, I showed how consistent savings at HISTORICAL rates can add up to a large-looking number, but that is really just accumulation.

So is that person appropriately taxed? I'm not sure of the answer, but I am sure that they shouldn't be lumped in with people who make that much CASH in a year.

[ddeclue]

100. It's NOT realistic because it is NOT anywhere near the MEDIAN.

And I've already debunked your mythical 6% raises and mythical gains in house prices and mythical stock market gains. Sorry but they aren't real at all.

You can't take the top 5% and pretend that it is anything like reality. Reality is what MOST people have - that's called the MEDIAN income.

[Dreamer Tatum]

104. You realize that "median" means "as many above as below", yes?

That eliminates your thesis out of hand, so you're done.

[ddeclue]

121. No it doesn't Your example is SO far from the median that it is in the top 5%

which means that 95% make LESS than your straw man.

You need to go take some statistics classes apparently.

[Dreamer Tatum]

124. I'll consider taking stats classes while I polish the case on my PhD in Statistics, thanks. nt

[ddeclue]

132. Apparently not so much...

:eyes:

You seem to lack a basic grasp of numbers from this engineer's viewpoint.

[Dreamer Tatum]

135. I hope you don't engineer anything subject to variable stresses

I don't think you agree that variance exists.

[ddeclue]

138. Clearly I've already demonstrated that I understand the concepts of variance and standard deviations

and you clearly don't understand either structural analysis OR statistics so I'm done discussing it with you. Have a good night.

[Dreamer Tatum]

140. I mentioned "standard deviation" and you went Gaussian

which means you once might have cracked a book, but that's about it. I'm sure you're an exemplary engineer.

Best of luck to you. But again, when nothing can be far from the median, how bad can anything ever be?

[Hello_Kitty]

150. If that person has his/her savings in a tax-deferred retirement plan

Then s/he hasn't even been taxed yet. Their taxable income is whatever they report to the IRS as income every year.

On edit: Same with real estate. It's only wealth on paper until it's sold.

[tonysam]

59. And connections. n/t

[unpossibles]

166. *two* paychecks? You lucky, rich bastard!

I kid, I kid!

[Hello_Kitty]

25. What case?

Your OP is a strawman.

[patrice]

14. Has or will this person benefit directly or indirectly from Medicare or Social Security?

[Bluenorthwest]

31. That's not a rich guy.

That's a guy with fair and steady employment and a lucky home purchase. The home's value is not important unless he's dying or selling it to move to a much different real estate market. By gosh, if this guy moved into his car, he'd be a millionaire!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Greyhound]

35. Back to zero from the negative. n/t

[Speck Tater]

42. Originally, "millionaire" meant a person whose investments earned one million dollars per year. nt

[stray cat]

51. Its anyone who owns a house on parts of the east or west coast!

you can rent a one br 700 sq ft for 1400 if you are lucky!

[stray cat]

52. Its anyone who owns a house on parts of the east or west coast!

you can rent a one br 700 sq ft for 1400 if you are lucky!

[dysfunctional press]

172. no, it didn't.

the word has been around for 200 years- it's always meant someone whose assets total 1 million units of currency.

[stray cat]

47. My parents who saved for years would have had enough to retire until they lost half of it.

Hard working people who sacrificed all their life to have a decent retirement - both of them in poor health with high medical bills. Anyone who can't feel sympathy for people who worked all their lives to retire won't get any hearing from me.

[ddeclue]

105. Which is why the gov't ought to mandate guaranteed employer pensions.

and the "good old days" before we got screwed by the IRA and 401..uh I mean 41K.

IRA's and 41K's are just excuses to screw over the working guy by forcing him to invest in a market where he doesn't get the same access to investment information that the fat cats get and thus ends up losing out like your parents did. The fat cats know when to get out and leave us holding the bag.

[A HERETIC I AM]

161. I'd like to understand your position a little better.

Which is why the gov't ought to mandate guaranteed employer pensions.

Is there a minimum size a company has to be in order to have this mandate enforced?
Should a small, typical "mom & pop" retail or service business, say a dry cleaner or restaurant (and if you live in a city or the suburbs, it is a virtual certainty there is at least one of these type businesses within 3 miles of you) that has the owner, his/her significant other and maybe 3 or 4 others as employees be subject to this mandate? If not this company (and based on company size or however you would like to qualify it), at what point does the mandate kick in?

IRA's and 41K's are just excuses to screw over the working guy by forcing him to invest in a market where he doesn't get the same access to investment information that the fat cats get and thus ends up losing out like your parents did. The fat cats know when to get out and leave us holding the bag.

NO ONE that has either a 401(K) or an IRA (or both) is forced to invest in "the market". That statement is complete bollocks. If your concern is that you aren't getting information then there are ways to get that information on your own or structure a portfolio to almost completely eliminate risk. In a 401(K), no one is able to force you to invest in anything riskier than US Treasury bonds or a money market fund. In an IRA account you don't even have to do that as most IRA custodians can offer simple cash accounts and insured Certificates of Deposit. You argued upthread about a "straw man". The above quote of yours certainly qualifies.

[Greyhound]

118. I've known people like your parents in each of the bailout cycles over the last

20 years. People that have literally devoted their lives to "the company" for 30 years and more only to have all their dreams of retirement ripped away just as they needed it.

People that excuse this obscenity earn my enmity.

[unpossibles]

48. fear noted. Two things however...

1 - a 6% pay increase every year is not that common, at least in any company I've worked for. Not saying it doesn't happen, but loyalty is seldom rewarded and typical merit increases tend to be half or less of that, which greatly affects your end-point salary.

2 - I don't know many who will call $120K a year "rich" but I do have to admit I am sick of people complaining about how they "only" make 3 times what the average income is. My point being that $120K is not rich, but if you can't live on that minus your taxes then I have trouble feeling sympathy for you considering most of us manage to live on far, far less and odds are good that those of us making far less are working pretty damn hard themselves.

There are some other points as well, but those were my main sticklers.

[patrice]

148. 1+

[Selatius]

54. Some people have low standards as far as qualifying for "rich" is concerned. He isn't rich at all.

He has more in common with someone making 30,000/year than someone making 20,000,000+ a year. If your income plants you in the top 1% of income earners in this nation, you qualify as rich in my book. If your income plants you in the top half percent of income earners in this nation, then you probably are a CEO of a very large company or a hedge fund manager or a Wall Street investment banker or something dealing with the trading and selling of securities.

People who makes 120,000/year and think they are rich are nothing but ants trying to be gods.

[havocmom]

117. +1

yep

[abelenkpe]

55. six percent raises every year?

Yeah right. Never happen.

Did this guy have kids? Pay daycare? Send them to college? Ever have any medical issues. Cause if he did he's prolly in debt.

My parents raised three kids, made much more and have nothing but debt and a house that was supposedly worth 700,000 in 2007 and worth no where near that now. But who cares what it is worth? They're still paying a mortgage cause they refinanced several times to pay for my sisters wedding and downpayment and divorce and wedding and downpayment and divorce and wedding and downpayment and....

Life messes stuff up.


At any rate, making 120,000 a year no matter how one got there in CA would not make one rich.

Now a million a year....you're a rich bastard and I'd like to increase your taxes to pay for health care for all. ;)

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. I presented a case of a person who accumulated roughly $1million over 30 years

So yes, anyone making $1 million INCOME per year IS a VERY rich person indeed.

[ddeclue]

67. I read somewhere that a kid = $500,000 to raise to age 21.

and that was several years ago.

There goes all that saved money...

These days the kid will be stuck at home until he / she is nearly 30 because there aren't any decent paying jobs.

6% raises for everyone - let's get Obama to issue an E.O. on it - everybody gets a raise every year.

:D

[Warpy]

91. This is why I keep saying a million in assets isn't rich

but if that person is able to sell the house and retire to a place with cheap real estate and invest the proceeds wisely, he'll have a decent income to see him through retirement. That million in assets means he's potentially comfortably middle class even after retirement if he can unload his house for that kind of paper value.

However, if he's 52, he's going to have to do that sooner rather than later, because 55 is the average corporate expiration date, that birthday at which the PTB decide either you move into top management or you are let go in favor of a green kid right out of school. Most hardworking corporate types are let go. That leaves 10 years before Medicare kicks in and 7 years before he can apply for reduced social security benefits.

Likely he and his wife will end up working a patchwork of dead end, low paid jobs to pay his medical costs until they're 65 since the real estate market is not going to improve soon enough for them to realize the full paper value that house once held and allow them enough of an income to retire on.

The admission price to the rich man's club is considerably higher and starts at about ten million. At that entry point, he's got access to the rich man's infrastructure through richer friends who use it all the time, but full access starts at about double that kind of money.

Just don't let anybody tell you a family with a million in combined assets is rich. They're not.

[rgbecker]

156. The may not be rich, but they are doing better than 98% of Americans.

This from the Census Bureau.....Those with net worth greater than 1.5 million Dollars

2004 = 2,196,000

That's out of 116,011,000 households.

Figures to 1.89%

So I have to ask, WTF?

[Warpy]

168. That doesn't mean they're rich

as much as it means the rest of us have been impoverished.

Face it, wages have been depressed for the last 40 years and debt has been substituted to mask the effects of depressed wages. Now the debt has dried up and the bills are due, leaving the bottom 90% with next to nothing.

Because a handful of men have been allowed to become billionaires at our expense, we're encouraged to think the middle class is now rich and that the billionaires are so remote as to not exist, at all.

That's a real problem in this country. The men who bought the government and did this to us are invisible to most people, who focus on the middle class as the rich.

The point of my post is that they're not the rich and never will be.

[Hello_Kitty]

157. It's also why they shouldn't be criping about taxes.

They have as much credibility as Joe the (non)Plumber does when they vote Republican and wave signs frantically at teabag rallies. And they need to STFU about the "death tax" too.

[Barack_America]

92. I would not wish his "downfall", but I would encourage his taxes to increase.

So that his "luck" can be possible for another generation.

[laughingliberal]

95. I would not begrudge that person what he has earned and do not consider those people the 'rich.'

I would wish that I had his employer as I graduated not long after that and my wages stagnated like most of the workers in America since the late 70's. My wages, when I became unable to work in 2007, were not 1/2 what that person's are and I worked my ass off.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

134. You are by FAR an exception to the rule.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

144. Don't feel bad for being smart and working hard

This topic is not a good one to discuss here due to the sort of "popular prejudices" in our society. Don't worry and don't be insulted by those who would lash out based on limited understanding of your life's experiences versus theirs.

[AlienGirl]

169. ...as long as you don't get sick and purchase something stupid like chemotherapy. nt

[bluestateguy]

125. Not rich. Comfortable yes, but not rich.

But you will earn the wrath of the certain people who think that anybody is rich who lives in more than an efficiency apartment and makes more than $15,000 a year.

Good luck.

[ddeclue]

136. I'd say if you are worth $200k you are well to do. $1M = RICH.

If you by yourself are making $60k you are upper middle class. $120k/annual = rich.

[pitohui]

126. guy make $120K a year at age 52, yeah, this guy really needs your pity

i'm gonna worry abt the guys i know, such as myself, who are in that age category and who will never ever hold paid employment again

you're seriously worried abt a dude earning $120 fucking K a year????

the dude is rich, he doesn't give a fuck about you, and he is not on this site or anywhere on the internet, because guess what "he has a real job"

most of us don't and never will and we worked just as hard and our grades were better, hell, i was magna cum laude, what abt you?

while you're brown nosing the rich guy's ass, i have news -- this guy doesn't know or care that you're licking his ass, he doesn't know you exist

[Dreamer Tatum]

141. I didn't go to school...was too busy brown nosing rich dudes' asses. nt

[pitohui]

145. that i believe my friend

have you ever noticed that professional salad tossers are not, themselves, particularly healthy or well to do?

notice that before it's too late to save yourself

[HughMoran]

142. That is so not rich

Yikes!

[HughMoran]

143. I don't have half those assets as I live very humbly, but my pay increased faster than that

I worked my ass off after getting out of college (well, not initially), but through not necessarily voluntary job changes and earning promotions, my pay went from $27k to $125k in 20 years. I'm not earning that now due to the recession & I'm not going to go into my expenses, but I'm hardly rich and I don't have much in the way of savings (I'm divorced with kids should give a hint.)

[Zywiec]

153. Please see post 44 - It's not even remotely realistic.

that you could make what you do...

[HughMoran]

155. I made more than that after bonuses. I got 12% raises and "one time" incentives

I'm scratching my head here - are you questioning my integrity?

Are you suggesting that when I said "worked my ass off" that I was lying?

Please tell me that you don't just go up to people you don't know and tell them that they're lying.

[BzaDem]

163. They are being sarcastic. n/t

[HughMoran]

164. Perhaps, I may have missed the point

oh, well

[CANDO]

146. Lost in all your concern for this person....

is any concern for the rest of us working class folks who've seen our real wages decline over the same timeline. What about US???

[Cleita]

151. Income doesn't determine who is rich. It's their assets.

Even back in the early sixties when I was working with the bank, anyone with less than five million dollars in assets was considered a piker.

[harun]

158. Exactly, the super-rich who really run the show want everyone to always think

in terms of one's income, not ones wealth. Which is what determines if someone is really rich.

[TheKentuckian]

152. Not even close. That kat still has to keep his nose to the grindstone

That's doing well but far from rich and not even in wealthy's area code.

[subterranean]

159. Who's in favor of raising taxes on people like this?

I haven't heard anyone propose any tax increase on people making $120,000 a year. Have you? You say this guy is in people's crosshairs. Whose crosshairs? Can you be more specific?

[bluestateguy]

162. Some of the clowns who post crap from the WSWS would probably want his taxes raised

They want everybody making $15,000, living in a dirty one bedroom apartment, taking the subway to work (cars not allowed) working in a job that they have been ordered by government to take.