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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

250K is the new "rich"

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:36 AM
Ok guys if you make 250k a year, and you don't have some kind of offshore tax minimization scheme.
Then you are probably lying about making 250k a year.
Once you earn more than 100k a year, to make it worth the expenses, you can make up offshore shelf corporations, and do investments and the like.
You can do this offshore out of the prying eyes of the IRS.
So for example you deposit 300k into an offshore corporation of investment capital for investment purposes.
You do the books YOURSELF!, and it gives you a statement for the IRS saying you lost the 300k trading the markets.
You can actually claim a loss.
Yes, tax payers money, going to you

The only pre requisite for engaging in this highly "LEGAL" behavior, is earning enough to make it worth it.
Yes, its actually legal.
And anyone who earns over a certain amount to make the expenses worth it, does it.
The system is made, for the RICH.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by CaptainCaveMan]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by CaptainCaveMan]

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by 5thElement

Let me see 200000 more a year and I will throw a freaking party firts. Maybe hire Zakk Wylde to do a hour long set. Beer for my buddies and then I will start saving.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

No it isn't putting it in perspective. You ask me if they tax me 38 percent will it be fair. Taxing me down to 11,400 is not possible to live on. Not even close to even surviving. I could either eat or stay live in a rundown apartment for 6 months, maybe.

If the worse the 250k crowd suffer is not buying a new car that year then they will just have to save for it like the rest of us.

Comparing the two is just ridiculous.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by jd140

No. You will have to figure out how to make 250K on your own.

However. I don't see any logic in your argument as to "living comfortably" based on tax rates. If you were to be taxed 10 percent, that would great! You could live fairly comfortably. But why would you tax someone else 39 pct. just because they make more money? Do you not take into account the effort and toil (in some cases) that it takes to get to that income? Extra effort should not be punished and that is what the current administration is trying to do.

Please understand that I am not saying that you do not work hard. But for the argument of this case, there are many out there on the fringe that work hard as well, and sacrifice, to get to the 250K level... only to be taxed at an extremely high rate. I don't get it. Again, I'm not talking about millionaires... just middle-upper class incomes that are treated the same way as millionaires.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan

What on earth are you talking about?

No one in that income bracket does the types of things you refer to.... way too risky.

EDIT: OK I won't say "no one", but surely not many.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Zarniwoop]

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:05 AM
reply to post by jd140

Comparing the two isn't ridiculous. How bout the guy that has been working for 15 years and decided to take a risk and start his own business and the business failed because of the economy and he needs that extra money to pay off his loan that he took out for his business?

It is completely comparable. You are saying that because a person makes 250k a year can afford to live comfortably because he is making 250k a year even though you have no idea what that persons personal life is and what kind of debts that person has to pay for.

The only thing ridiculous is trying to say that everybody that makes 250k a year is "comfortable" and they can afford to give up a 100k. Just because somebody "thinks" that is comfortable living.

The whole point is that anybody can "think" any amount of money is rich. How about the person that is homeless. In the homeless persons perspective your 30k a year is "rich". After all he/she lives with less than 5k income a year.

It is all perspective and when talking progressive income tax it is all comparable. There is nothing "fair" about a progressive income tax. A progressive income tax is nothing but a tool for bureaucrats to assert control. After all a progressive income tax comes straight out of the communist manifesto.

The very heart of a progressive income tax is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:05 AM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

I was just pulling that number out of thin air.

Right now it is 15 for 30,000 and 33 for the 250000 range group.

I just dropped one down 5 and raised the other 5.

For all I know it could drop 2 and raised 2.

I actually see this topic as a moot point to argue about, soon everyone will have their taxes raised anyways.

Right now the higher group is going to have their taxes raised. Nothing we can do about it. I'm pointing out that they will still be making plenty of money and will not be struggling.

If we lower the taxes for the lower group, their life will be a little easier, but once they get their taxes raised(and it is coming) they will be in the same boat as they are in now.

I see it as the current administration giving them a little breathing room before they lower the hammer.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I believe small buisnesses are getting a tax break. So that solves that problem.

As for those who lost their buisness. They are in the same boat as those who lost their jobs. Hope they planned for the worse, like I do.

Doesn't matter anyways, like I said in my above post. Everyone will have their taxes raised in a year or two.

Atleast the lower income folks will have a little breathing room until then.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:14 AM
reply to post by jd140

I agree with you almost 100 pct.

...except that many of those in the higher income brackets used their wealth to buy real estate as investments about 2 years ago and are facing going banko now

May we all fair well in the near future

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by jd140

No, it does matter. How many lower income folks have employed you in your life time? Me personally I haven't ever been employed by somebody that lives in the lower income bracket.

How bout that person that was going to take the extra money and start a business because he has a really good idea that all the data works out to show that he can make money in these hard times. But he isn't going to be able to do that because his taxes are going up?

The tax hike just killed a whole business that had potential to employ people.

And then you said it yourself, everybody's taxes are going up sooner or later. Besides lower income tax brackets don't even pay taxes they get it all back.

This tax system of ours is a real problem.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:08 AM
HOW about if the government TAXED the top 1% at 90%
like they did in the 50's... Eisenhover R -

If you want some perspective... "ROBINHOODSATANOBAMA" is suggesting a 3 - 4 % hike

50% - than IKE - sooooooooo...


BTW way F#@# the elites and the crocks at AIG - I can't believe some of the anti gov populists on here are turning around and defending these folks, its a joke...

BOO HOO bailout -

But when it comes time to do something about it...

Cry me a river.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:06 AM
In the UK Iget taxed plus I pay national insurance. I earn (before bonuses & overtime) £16380 a year, I take home £13117. This isn't the best income in the world at all!! But I am only learning my trade so it will go up with time. (providing the company can survive).

And most people who earn lower incomes work a hell of a lot harder than those on higher incomes. Especially in manufacturing anyway.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Damien_uk]

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:56 AM
$250,000 per year in household income, not individual.

That amount is about equal to the combined income of a NYC Deputy Fire Chief (the guy that runs one single firehouse) and his schoolteacher wife.

These are the "Evil Rich Fat Cats" that we want to tax more oppressively?


posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by FredT
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.

you know..that a little under $20,000 dollars a month. sympathy here. have to "settle" for the 535 beemer instead of the AMG beemer, if you can't live comfortably on that there is something seriously wrong with your priorities. yes...your not wealthy, but your doing damn fine.

by the in calif, our sales taxes jumped up, our car registration almost doubled,massive cuts in education, and...businesses got another tax break to the tune of 1 billion dollars...thanks govenator arnold for the BELT TIGHTING!!!! ...another republican f'in the regular hard working people by raising our taxes, while giving tax breaks to big business. yeah...that makes me want to vote for republicans..."NOT"!!!

and i've got friends in the south by redwood city, just a few miles down from san franicisco off of 101, that have nice homes in the 500,000 to 700,00 range.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by jimmyx]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I believe small buisnesses are getting a tax break. So that solves that problem.

Believe what you want, but it's a pipe dream.

Note Obama's proposal during the campaign:

Obama's tax proposals bring an increase in federal income taxes of about 39 percent for self-employed people earning over $250,000 - and take the top federal tax rate on self-employment income to its highest level since 1971.

They would also take the top marginal tax rate (federal and state taxes combined) in some states to over 57 percent on self-employment income. For employees, the top federal tax rates would increase by about 30 percent.

Only once since 1917 has there been a tax-rate increase equal to or greater than the two twin tax proposals being made by Obama. That tax increase, the Revenue Act of 1932, was proposed by Herbert Hoover. The result was an even greater budget deficit, plummeting tax revenue and a longer Great Depression.

Taxes don't occur in a vacuum. Wealthy taxpayers and large businesses don't simply continue along as if tax-rate hikes of 30-plus percent are just another day at the office.

* Businesses will raise prices to try to recoup the extra costs - a cause of inflation.

* Entrepreneurs will adjust their expectations with respect to investing their risk capital - souring the economy.

* Enterprises will visit more carefully the advantages of moving business overseas.

* Generally, all such individuals and businesses will take all possible legal steps to reduce the impact of confiscatory tax rates.


As for those who lost their buisness. They are in the same boat as those who lost their jobs. Hope they planned for the worse, like I do.

Doesn't matter anyways, like I said in my above post. Everyone will have their taxes raised in a year or two.

Atleast the lower income folks will have a little breathing room until then.

With the tax increases in NY State and California - which both states have already passed - even people nmaking half of what this thread is about in those two states will be "gifting" the government with half their gross income - that doesn't include the social security, medicaid/medicare and city and county witholding taxes.


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

If I remember correctly the percentage of Americans making over $250,000 is around 4%.

If this is in fact correct then surely, comparatively speaking, making over 250k would qualify one as "rich."


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:56 PM
The reason some of you thing 250000 is a huge amount of money to make a year is because the standard of living in the USA has declined dramatically. Also as someone mentioned before, the USA is a huge country where the cost of living varies a lot from one place to another.

The super-rich who run the world have been exposed more and more over the last few years. Their insane greed and corruption is known by most people now, and they may have decided it was only so long before the people of the world fully revolted against their small group of money grubbing elites.

By creating a campaign to demonize those who make 250000 a year as the greedy rich money hoarders, they are taking the heat off of themselves. It's a lot easier for a poor working class person to be angry at the man they CAN see driving a Lexus, instead of the man they CAN'T see flying his private jet.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:20 PM
Ideology aside, this is fairly simple: Our country is in danger of bankruptcy, and we're going to begin defaulting on our national debt, unless we can come up with the tax revenue to cover it. We have known this since before the election. Multiple analysts project us to go into default later this year.

Believe me, you do not want that to happen. The aftermath could potentially make the Great Depression look like Disney Land. Just ask the people in Argentina how much fun it is to live in an insolvent country.

So, we have two options:

1) Fleece taxpayer
2) Cut government spending across the board: military, social security, medicare, science and education funding, etc.

The first option leads to angry taxpayers, the second option leads to mass riots and an underfunded military, when we're in two wars. Understand this, and you'll understand why you're going to get fleeced by the taxman. Uncle Sam is asking everybody to take one for the team.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by theWCH]

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

So by comparison, someone who makes 10 million per year would be considered rich, while someone makes 250K per year is poor

My point is not that 250K isn't a nice household income comparitively. My point is that the Obama administration has chosen an arbitrary cut-off amount to define who "rich" are in the U.S.

While 250K is great, it is by no means what I consider rich enough to be able to quit working and retire after a couple years of making that kind of money.

Based on this, I fear the next step will be to reduce FDIC insurance on how much money one has in one or multiple banks

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Based on this, I fear the next step will be to reduce FDIC insurance on how much money one has in one or multiple banks

That may actually be a smart move, given that the FDIC is within spitting distance of insolvency.

If you're worried about marginal tax raates and how many of your accounts will be FDIC insured, you're probably being over-optimistic in regards to our economic condition.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by theWCH]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in