It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


250K is the new "rich"

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:56 AM
I keep seeing 250K thrown around as the cut-off point for "rich" people.

While campaigning, RobinObamaHood wanted to cut taxes for every family making less than 250K.

AIG bonuses are going to be taxed 90% on employees grossing more than 250K. (OK there are more complicated issues with that one, but it's still a 250K number)

Setting aside millionaires... What is with 250K???

You can't retire early making around 250K a year, especially in this economy. 250K is not the salary of a "rich" person/family. Yet, I fear the new administration is targeting this number as the high-water mark for what anyone should reasonably make.

This is a message to all the up-and-coming American workforce peeps. Do not work extra hard and make over 250K a year or you will be punished. Shoot for around 100K and kick back.

Government cheese is coming soon for everyone else.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:05 AM
Thats the one issue I have. 250K a year is really dependant where you live. If you are living in a trailer park in the South, its a ton of money. But take the SF Bay Area where a 1100 sq. foot home in a good area will run you 1.2-15 million (No even now) its alot less.

They really need to factor in cost of living to make it realisitic.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:24 AM
reply to post by FredT

I think it would be nearly impossbile for the IRS to keep up with regional issues for federal taxes. But...

The current (and future) tax brackets make no sense at all.

Feel free to tax the crap out of Tiger Woods (sorry Tiger if you're reading this), but have some mercy on the middle/upper-middle income folks

At a certain point, the government is not incenting people to succeed... you get punished the more you make, unless you make rediculous amounts of cash... then it does't reall matter.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:28 AM
Wow only 250 a year?
Wow gee thats poor as man woaaah.
Best get some food stamps or something yeh?
I think you people need to realize, if you can earn 250k a year, you are very rich.
You realize that's 2.5 million dollars in 10 years right?

You can't retire early making around 250K a year, especially in this economy.

You must be out of your mind right?
You cant RETIRE EARLY???
Earning 2.5 million dollars in 10 years?

[edit on 21-3-2009 by CaptainCaveMan]

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

Are you frigging kidding me ?

$250000 is a LOT of money. I would retire in 10 years if I made that much...

Problem is with people in this country, the more they make, the more they want to spend

How logical is that ? How much stuff do you need ?

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan

Indeed... 2.5 million in 10 years with 2.2 million in expenses.

It's all relative.

It's nearly impossible to win at any level. Unless you're Tiger Woods (sorry again, Tiger, if you're reading this)

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:36 AM
Your expenses are YOUR PROBLEM!
2.5 million in 10 years, that's 5 million in 20.
Invest some along the way...
Your gonna end up with TO MUCH money than you know what to do with.
Expenses? go take a hike please....
You realize the majority of people on this planet, live on less than $1 per day right?
While your whinging about 250k a year?

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:41 AM
If you can't live on 250,000 then you are wasting alot of money.

With that much you can buy a nice comfortable house and a vehicle and have it paid off in a few years. Unless you save for a couple of years and buy it out right.

My heart isn't bleeding for those who say the 250,000 ceiling is to low.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan

hmmm. I don't recall saying I personall make over 250K a year

I was merely pointing out a common theme I am seeing in the current administration.

However, you have helped confirm the pitch-fork weilding mentality I was expecting to see here, and have seen in the news lately.

Experiment complete, much earlier than expected...Thanks CaptainCaveMan

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

What pitch fork mentality are you referring to?

250,000 is alot of money.

You realize the average annual income for 08 was about 50,000 dollars?

Mind you that is working income. The unemployed factored in lowers it by about half.

They seem to get along just fine, forgive us average people for not crying a river for them.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by jd140]

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:50 AM
I personally could retire after about 10 years on 250k a year. It's not rocket science. It's all about living within your means. If you make 250k a year and have 240k a year expenses you're no better off than someone who makes 70k a year and spends 60k. Given you may have the better house, a nicer car, but you're still driving to the same city, in the same rush hour traffic, working the same hours (maybe longer hours even) than the person whos making 70k.

This reminds me of that commercial where that guy has 2 cars, a nice house, and is having a barbeque, how does he do it? "I'm in debt up to my ears!"

Unless you live in manhattan or some other place with similar expenses I couldn't imagine making 250k a year is a problem for you.

I also read somewhere that the definition of "rich" is having anywhere from 10-15 million in assets, not sure on the income.

Just my $0.02


posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan

Yea but you forget what you don't spend the government is going to take.

250k is not a lot of money, I would call it a comfortable living but I wouldn't call it rich.

Besides if I earn it I should keep it. It isn't about how much you need it is about how much you earn and the risk you are willing to take to earn it.

By the logic of, "how much do you really need" is like me telling you that if you have an extra room in your house you need to go pick up two crackhead thieves on the corner and set up two beds in your extra room to house them, you also need to spend everything extra you spend to feed and cloth them. After you buy clothes once a year for yourself.

You are left with no money for entertainment or splurge items. So until you start giving out extra rooms in your house apartment and feed and cloth people that will steal from you to fund their addiction you really don't have an argument for, "how much do you really need". After all how much do you really need?

The logic of an argument of "How much do you really need" is pretty absurd. I'm just putting it into perspective.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by jd140


Why should someone making over 250K pay a higher federal tax percentage than someone making 25K?

Just wondering.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by LOLZebra

I personally challenge you to retire within 10 years making 250K per year only IF YOU ARE MARRIED

I'll bet you can't.

You can begin this challenge at any time between now an Dec 21, 2012

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:23 AM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

Because they can afford to pay more and still live very comfortably.

If I pay 15 percent on lets say 30,000 then I pay 4500. I am left with 25,500 take home.

If I make 250000 and I pay 33 percent then I pay 82,500. I am left with 167,500.

Who is able to live more comfortably? The one making 25,500 a year or the one making 167,500?

Now that is using the current tax bracket.

Lets say they lower my tax percentage to 10 percent.

I pay 3000 and am left with 27,000. Still not alot, but I have lived on worse.

Now raise the 250,000 to 38 percent.

They will pay 95,000 and are left with 155,000. That is a very comfortable.

Who is worse off. Which group would you want to be part of?

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

I'll take this challenge.

You going to pay me 250,000 a year?

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:28 AM
reply to post by jd140

How about if the government taxes you 38% on your 30,000 a year.

Is that fair?

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

That would leave me 11,400.

Can you live on that for 1 year comfortably?

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

Let me put it a bit in perspective for ya...

Me and my wife (no kids) are living on $40k per year, and we cannot complain.

Let me see, $200000 extra every year times 10 is how much ? I bet I could retire in 10 years

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:36 AM
reply to post by jd140

It isn't about if you can live comfortably, I think 30,000 a year or 2000 a month is "rich". Doesn't matter if you are comfortable or not.

Living comfortable takes on a different perspective depending on who you are and what you think is comfortable.

I'm just trying to put this in perspective.

Besides 2000 a month in NY city would barley be enough to pay electricity and rent. Then on top of that you also have state tax and sales tax.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in