|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 9:46:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 26, 2008 10:06:30 GMT -6
Is the sampled $275,000 / yr. attorney in NY really a member of the "struggling middle-class"? Or are most members of the "struggling middle-class" making less than the already present $102,000 SS cap - and not going to pay one cent more? |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 10:23:34 GMT -6
Is the sampled $275,000 / yr. attorney in NY really a member of the "struggling middle-class"? Or are most members of the "struggling middle-class" making less than the already present $102,000 SS cap - and not going to pay one cent more? $270,000 might be upper class - if you live in Cedar Rapids. If you live in a large city (which most people earning over $102K/year do), you need a lot more than that to be out of the middle class. After you account for the high taxes, the high cost of housing, higher cost of living expenses in general and, in the case of most young people with that kind of income, student loans, the vast majority of people making over $102,000 a year aren't rich by any stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on Feb 26, 2008 10:29:55 GMT -6
Is the sampled $275,000 / yr. attorney in NY really a member of the "struggling middle-class"? Or are most members of the "struggling middle-class" making less than the already present $102,000 SS cap - and not going to pay one cent more? $270,000 might be upper class - if you live in Cedar Rapids. If you live in a large city (which most people earning over $102K/year do), you need a lot more than that to be out of the middle class. After you account for the high taxes, the high cost of housing, higher cost of living expenses in general and, in the case of most young people with that kind of income, student loans, the vast majority of people making over $102,000 a year aren't rich by any stretch. So if that's still actually middle class... as someone who does live in a large city, in a nice neighborhood therein, and is employed by a F-500 company and makes barely a third of the example income above... what does that make me*? *Edit: Other than a sucker, of course |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 26, 2008 10:38:14 GMT -6
The answer is firmly yes, that $275k/year attorney is in the struggling middle class. The future of America is in intellectual based service jobs. Many of these jobs are in New York. Many of America's largest corporations, investment banks, insurance companies have a significant presence in NY and they rely heavily on NY law firms to marshall the best and brightest out there. The cost of living in NY is astronomical. My brother makes $225k base, bonus and options at his job and he works a second job to supplement his income by $25k a year. It took him 7 years to save enough for a downpayment for a 2 bedroom condo in Brooklyn that is over half an hour to his office. His monthly payments on his condo are north of 7 grand for a very middle class condo. By the time he backs out 401K contributions, pays taxes and other general expenses, he is just about tapped out.
One big problem with the Wershington jet set is that they refuse to distinguish between income and wealth when attempting to define the middle class. Warren Buffett, for example, complains that his tax rate is too low. Well shit, he pays himself a low salary and then if he needs cash, he just sells a few shares of BRK and pays a 15% capital gain on it. If guys like he and Gates are so opposed to the "rich" getting over without paying enough taxes, they should propose a capital tax for anyone with a net worth over a threshhold amount, say $100 million so the government can bleed those guys dry instead of sapping the hell out of my income thereby guaranteeing that I will never be rich. (Note - I do not advoate a capital tax).
Furthermore, discussions of class are never standardized for COL in various areas. The Bankruptcy reforms standardized the "poor" by saying "poor" for purposes of qualifiying for a Chapter 7 in NY is a lot higher than it is in Des Moines. Frankly, if the Dems think they can tax the "rich" through an income tax that firmly hits members of the middle class, like me, my brother, autolykos and barber, it needs to be adjusted so that the guy making $275k in Peoria or Des Moines has the same purchasing power as the guy making $275k in San Fran or New York. America's competitiveness in the long run depends on her great cities being able to attract and retain the best and the brightest and that leads to a higher COL, which leads to higher wages. There is no rational policy reason to punish the best and the brightest because they wanted to work at Goldman in NY instead of Joe Bob's discount brokers in Oklahoma City.
When I go out to autolykos's place on Saturday to hitch my ride to IC, I'll take a picture of his 1994 Saturn so you can see how the rich fatcats are living.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 26, 2008 10:41:00 GMT -6
Is the sampled $275,000 / yr. attorney in NY really a member of the "struggling middle-class"? Or are most members of the "struggling middle-class" making less than the already present $102,000 SS cap - and not going to pay one cent more? $270,000 might be upper class - if you live in Cedar Rapids. If you live in a large city (which most people earning over $102K/year do), you need a lot more than that to be out of the middle class. After you account for the high taxes, the high cost of housing, higher cost of living expenses in general and, in the case of most young people with that kind of income, student loans, the vast majority of people making over $102,000 a year aren't rich by any stretch. Their struggles make me openly weep. Oh for the freedom to be unburdened from the shackles of living in New York and being forced into the slave like legal profession... sniff... |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 10:47:14 GMT -6
$270,000 might be upper class - if you live in Cedar Rapids. If you live in a large city (which most people earning over $102K/year do), you need a lot more than that to be out of the middle class. After you account for the high taxes, the high cost of housing, higher cost of living expenses in general and, in the case of most young people with that kind of income, student loans, the vast majority of people making over $102,000 a year aren't rich by any stretch. So if that's still actually middle class... as someone who does live in a large city, in a nice neighborhood therein, and is employed by a F-500 company and makes barely a third of the example income above... what does that make me? Well, you're making $90K more than the CEO, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Democrats are always complaining about the fat salaries that CEOs make, so you must be rich if you're making more than him. In November 2006, we announced that John P. Mackey, our Chief Executive Officer, would voluntarily reduce his salary to $1 beginning January 1, 2007 and forgo any future stock option awards. Mr. Mackey will continue to receive the same non-cash benefits that other Team Members receive, including the Team Member purchase discount card and health insurance. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 26, 2008 10:51:35 GMT -6
So if that's still actually middle class... as someone who does live in a large city, in a nice neighborhood therein, and is employed by a F-500 company and makes barely a third of the example income above... what does that make me? Well, you're making $90K more than the CEO, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Democrats are always complaining about the fat salaries that CEOs make, so you must be rich if you're making more than him. In November 2006, we announced that John P. Mackey, our Chief Executive Officer, would voluntarily reduce his salary to $1 beginning January 1, 2007 and forgo any future stock option awards. Mr. Mackey will continue to receive the same non-cash benefits that other Team Members receive, including the Team Member purchase discount card and health insurance. So Mackey is now the rule??? |
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on Feb 26, 2008 10:54:40 GMT -6
So if that's still actually middle class... as someone who does live in a large city, in a nice neighborhood therein, and is employed by a F-500 company and makes barely a third of the example income above... what does that make me? Well, you're making $90K more than the CEO, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Democrats are always complaining about the fat salaries that CEOs make, so you must be rich if you're making more than him. In November 2006, we announced that John P. Mackey, our Chief Executive Officer, would voluntarily reduce his salary to $1 beginning January 1, 2007 and forgo any future stock option awards. Mr. Mackey will continue to receive the same non-cash benefits that other Team Members receive, including the Team Member purchase discount card and health insurance. Actually, you're overshooting that by $65k or so. Regardless, that's a rather specious example, given the exceptional nature of that one particular CEO's income (not counting the millions in non-cash benefits, of course). I would think a better comparison would be to take the national average ratio of CEO salary to employee salary for F500 companies. Singling out the one extreme exception would be no different than if I singled out a similarly extreme one, like Bernie Ebbers at Tyco. |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Feb 26, 2008 11:03:20 GMT -6
Tax reform, the subject that will never satisfy or please all.
There does need to be a factor applied that takes into account geographical locations, but in this day and age, you'd think companies would be tele and video conferencing much more and allowing there employees to go someplace cheaper to live and work. It's a choice to go there though for the individual, not a requirement and it falls on the company to provide the appropriate salary.
I also like the idea of taxing net worth to a certain extent for the mega rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 11:04:11 GMT -6
$270,000 might be upper class - if you live in Cedar Rapids. If you live in a large city (which most people earning over $102K/year do), you need a lot more than that to be out of the middle class. After you account for the high taxes, the high cost of housing, higher cost of living expenses in general and, in the case of most young people with that kind of income, student loans, the vast majority of people making over $102,000 a year aren't rich by any stretch. Their struggles make me openly weep. Oh for the freedom to be unburdened from the shackles of living in New York and being forced into the slave like legal profession... sniff... Yeah, because New York City isn't important to the economic vitality of the country. I personally don't care if anyone lives in New York either, but since I realize that our financial and legal systems would crash if everyone moved out of NYC, I'm not going to punish people for living there. The bigger point is that, regardless of what you and B. Hussein might think, a person living on $102,000 in NYC isn't "upper class" by any definition. If you look at any metric, i.e. the amount of wealth those people have, the quality of their housing, their disposable income, etc., they're middle-class. You and B. Hussein don't care about that though. You just see the gross income and thrust your greedy hands into their pockets as fast you can to steal their hard earned dollars so that you can transfer it to your cronies and hangers-on. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 11:08:51 GMT -6
Tax reform, the subject that will never satisfy or please all. There does need to be a factor applied that takes into account geographical locations, but in this day and age, you'd think companies would be tele and video conferencing much more and allowing there employees to go someplace cheaper to live and work. It's a choice to go there though for the individual, not a requirement and it falls on the company to provide the appropriate salary. I also like the idea of taxing net worth to a certain extent for the mega rich. You're insane if you think most companies allow individuals to telecommute and work remotely. It happens, but it's still in the vast, vast minority. There are functions that simply can't be done remotely (i.e. networking) and employers recognize that. My BMCLF has had associates request to work remotely. None of those requests has been granted. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 11:10:38 GMT -6
Well, you're making $90K more than the CEO, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Democrats are always complaining about the fat salaries that CEOs make, so you must be rich if you're making more than him. In November 2006, we announced that John P. Mackey, our Chief Executive Officer, would voluntarily reduce his salary to $1 beginning January 1, 2007 and forgo any future stock option awards. Mr. Mackey will continue to receive the same non-cash benefits that other Team Members receive, including the Team Member purchase discount card and health insurance. Actually, you're overshooting that by $65k or so. Regardless, that's a rather specious example, given the exceptional nature of that one particular CEO's income (not counting the millions in non-cash benefits, of course). I would think a better comparison would be to take the national average ratio of CEO salary to employee salary for F500 companies. Singling out the one extreme exception would be no different than if I singled out a similarly extreme one, like Bernie Ebbers at Tyco. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. That being said, being middle-class obviously implies falling within a range. Just because you're at one end of the range doesn't mean people who make more than you aren't still middle-class. |
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on Feb 26, 2008 11:22:10 GMT -6
Actually, you're overshooting that by $65k or so. Regardless, that's a rather specious example, given the exceptional nature of that one particular CEO's income (not counting the millions in non-cash benefits, of course). I would think a better comparison would be to take the national average ratio of CEO salary to employee salary for F500 companies. Singling out the one extreme exception would be no different than if I singled out a similarly extreme one, like Bernie Ebbers at Tyco. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. That being said, being middle-class obviously implies falling within a range. Just because you're at one end of the range doesn't mean people who make more than you aren't still middle-class. I agree - "Middle Class" encompasses a range, but its an extremely broad range of incomes. So while individual incomes of $40k and $112K may very well both qualify as "Middle Class," that's a huge disparity, regardless of other factors (kids, loans, location, cost of living, etc). I just don't know that you can apply the same economic policy to such a broad and rather arbitrary range. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 26, 2008 11:35:11 GMT -6
Their struggles make me openly weep. Oh for the freedom to be unburdened from the shackles of living in New York and being forced into the slave like legal profession... sniff... Yeah, because New York City isn't important to the economic vitality of the country. I personally don't care if anyone lives in New York either, but bince I realize that our financial and legal systems would crash if everyone moved out of NYC, I'm not going to punish people for living there. The bigger point is that, regardless of what you and B. Hussein might think, a person living on $102,000 in NYC isn't "upper class" by any definition. If you look at any metric, i.e. the amount of wealth those people have, the quality of their housing, their disposable income, etc., they're middle-class. You and B. Hussein don't care about that though. You just see the gross income and thrust your greedy hands into their pockets as fast you can to steal their hard earned dollars so that you can transfer it to your cronies and hangers-on. How much do cabbies, cops, garbage men, pipefitters, or restaurant workers in NY make? As without them, the NY financial and legal systems would also crash. To reign in your argument - which migrated from the injustice of the SS tax increase on a $275,000/yr NY attorney can't be considered middle class --- to now a $102,000/yr person isn't upper class... I'm still failing to see how the bonds of NY servitude exist, nor how the person making $102,000 will pay more under Obama's plan than they currently do. I made decent money in CA, but took a $40,000 paycut to move back to the midwest. And I'm doing better now than I was there. ---And it's odd, but I had the freedom to choose to move to CA and accept that job - and I had the freedom to choose to move back to the midwest to my current lower $ pay job. Remember, the rules will only be changing on that income above $102,000 - which would be either an equal or lesser % than that below $102,000. So tell me why a NY fireman making $70,000/yr shouldn't be pissed that all of his income has the SS tax deducted --- while the example $275,000 attorney has only 37% of their income hit with the SS tax? |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 26, 2008 15:23:38 GMT -6
Yeah, because New York City isn't important to the economic vitality of the country. I personally don't care if anyone lives in New York either, but bince I realize that our financial and legal systems would crash if everyone moved out of NYC, I'm not going to punish people for living there. The bigger point is that, regardless of what you and B. Obama might think, a person living on $102,000 in NYC isn't "upper class" by any definition. If you look at any metric, i.e. the amount of wealth those people have, the quality of their housing, their disposable income, etc., they're middle-class. You and B. Obama don't care about that though. You just see the gross income and thrust your greedy hands into their pockets as fast you can to steal their hard earned dollars so that you can transfer it to your cronies and hangers-on. .... So tell me why a NY fireman making $70,000/yr shouldn't be pissed that all of his income has the SS tax deducted --- while the example $275,000 attorney has only 37% of their income hit with the SS tax? Easy. The amount paid out by Social Security is capped (and at a pretty low amount). Do you really think Bill Gates is getting a $1.2 million check from the gubiment when he retires? Social Security exists and was created so that people who are too stupid to save for their own retirement can be forced to save and to a lesser extent, as a means of wealth redistribution. As with every other gubiment program, tax-and-spend liberals now want to throw away that idea and increase the size of the welfare state by robbing from the "rich" and giving to the mouth-breathers. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 27, 2008 10:47:12 GMT -6
Bump for leftists. Does Mr. Obama intend to remove the cap on Social Security benefits or is his plan merely designed to increase wealth transfer from the "rich" to the poor?
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 27, 2008 11:07:00 GMT -6
Easy. The amount paid out by Social Security is capped (and at a pretty low amount). Do you really think Bill Gates is getting a $1.2 million check from the gubiment when he retires? Social Security exists and was created so that people who are too stupid to save for their own retirement can be forced to save and to a lesser extent, as a means of wealth redistribution. As with every other gubiment program, tax-and-spend liberals now want to throw away that idea and increase the size of the welfare state by robbing from the "rich" and giving to the mouth-breathers. Are you letting that opinion on what SS does --- stand? Talk to your parents or grandparents (or an elderly neighbor) about their opinion on SS - or a widowed parent of a child under 18. And no, Bill Gates won't get a $1.2 million check from the government when he retires, nor should he based on his input to the SS system (currently capped at $102,000). But whether he wants/needs one or not, him or his wife will still receive a check every month they live - amounting to roughly $54,000/yr. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 27, 2008 11:28:20 GMT -6
Social Security was formed as a safety net. It was not designed to usurp the individual's retirement savings. Earnings applicable to SS are capped because the amount SS will pay is capped. Sure, the person making 300k only has 1/3 of his or her income taxed under the SS tax, however, the percentage of income that SS will replace when they retire is much lower than it is for someone who maxed out at $50k/year.
I know that the left doesn't appreciate the Constititution's prohibition of taking private property without just compensation, but given that Mr. Gates would be expected to contribute $10 million a year for 20 years to a system that would pay him back a robust $54k a year in benefits, the constitutionality of any amendment along those lines must be questioned.
|
|
