Joe Biden to Raise Corporate Taxes and Taxes on the "Wealthy" (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

What I labeled fishing is the attempt to say that there are enough occurrences of people making $400K+ while living paycheck to paycheck in attempt to say those making $400K+ a year AREN'T "wealthy".    In my experience, anytime someone tries to paint the exception as the rule one of two things is typically true:   #1.  They are ignorant about that which they are speaking or #2 they are fishing.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt   

It may be true that one out of a thousand making $400K+ a year aren't wealthy.  For the vast majority, that simply isn't the case and it's perfectly rationale to label those making that much money "wealthy" as a general rule.  Those making that kind of coin will absolutely have wealth far greater than the average joe 99.9% of the time.

I have made 400k.  I am not "wealthy" or at least I don't think so.  I'm doing fine, but "wealth" is not something I would say I have achieved yet.  I know several of my peers that likely are the same.

Are we just a bunch of those 1 in a 1000?  

Are you fishing?  You are all over the place, for damn sure.

eta - all in an attempt to backpedal out of mis-labeling income as wealth.   It is Ok to just acknowledge you guys were mistaken. 

 

[Daywalker]

We make a lot but we spend a lot.

Don’t look at my equity in my million dollar house nor my stock portfolio.  I am paycheck to paycheck spending all my money into my bank account.

 

[The Commish]

I have made 400k.  I am not "wealthy" or at least I don't think so.  I'm doing fine, but "wealth" is not something I would say I have achieved yet.  I know several of my peers that likely are the same.

Are we just a bunch of those 1 in a 1000?  

Are you fishing?  You are all over the place, for damn sure.

eta - all in an attempt to backpedal out of mis-labeling income as wealth.   It is Ok to just acknowledge you guys were mistaken. 

My position hasn't changed.  That you think I said something different and "clarified" it the second time from the first tells me you misunderstood me the first time.  Enjoy the  We can move on from here.

 

[matuski]

My position hasn't changed.  That you think I said something different and "clarified" it the second time from the first tells me you misunderstood me the first time.  Enjoy the  We can move on from here.

So you agree that income is not wealth?  If so, we were on the same page from the start.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I have made 400k.  I am not "wealthy" or at least I don't think so.  I'm doing fine, but "wealth" is not something I would say I have achieved yet.  I know several of my peers that likely are the same.

Are we just a bunch of those 1 in a 1000?  

Are you fishing?  You are all over the place, for damn sure.

eta - all in an attempt to backpedal out of mis-labeling income as wealth.   It is Ok to just acknowledge you guys were mistaken. 

Yes, you were wealthy.  How you felt about it didn't matter.  I'm 315 pounds.  It doesn't matter if I "feel" slim.  Nor would it matter if I made lifestyle choices that meant that I hung out primarily in a neighborhood filled with sumo wrestlers.  I would still be, by any reasonable definition of the term, fat.

 

[roadkill1292]

We tax income in this country, not wealth (save that argument for elsewhere, my liberal friends). Bernie's proposed tax increases didn't even start until taxable income exceeded $600k and even then it only increased by three points up to an even million bucks. His top marginal rate was 52%, way below historical highs.

 

[matuski]

Yes, you were wealthy.  How you felt about it didn't matter.  I'm 315 pounds.  It doesn't matter if I "feel" slim.  Nor would it matter if I made lifestyle choices that meant that I hung out primarily in a neighborhood filled with sumo wrestlers.  I would still be, by any reasonable definition of the term, fat.

I can't believe this many people can't differentiate between income and wealth.

 

[matuski]

We tax income in this country, not wealth (save that argument for elsewhere, my liberal friends). Bernie's proposed tax increases didn't even start until taxable income exceeded $600k and even then it only increased by three points up to an even million bucks. His top marginal rate was 52%, way below historical highs.

 

[The Commish]

So you agree that income is not wealth?  If so, we were on the same page from the start.

I never equated wealth and income.  What you seemed to be taking exception with is the fact that I said there are many who will attempt to say people making $400K+ aren't "wealthy".  Those attempts will be wrong well over 99% of the time, though they will be able to find an example here or there.  As I said...we can move on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I can't believe this many people can't differentiate between income and wealth.

I can’t believe how many people seem to suggest that someone who can make $400k in one year isn’t wealthy. Other than rare exceptions, folks making $400k in single year are also killing it in years past and will likely do so for years in the future.  It’s not as if folks making $60k suddenly have a $400k year, then drop back down into 5 figures. 

Why do people pretend otherwise? 

 

[matuski]

I can’t believe how many people seem to suggest that someone who can make $400k in one year isn’t wealthy. Other than rare exceptions, folks making $400k in single year are also killing it in years past and will likely do so for years in the future.  It’s not as if folks making $60k suddenly have a $400k year, then drop back down into 5 figures. 

Why do people pretend otherwise? 

Like the twilight zone in here.

Income is not wealth.  A high income CAN lead to wealth.  If I continue to be smart with my money (I may never make 400k again), I intend to be wealthy... but I simply am not at this point.

Why and how are so many pretending otherwise?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Like the twilight zone in here.

Income is not wealth.  A high income CAN lead to wealth.  If I continue to be smart with my money (I may never make 400k again), I intend to be wealthy... but I simply am not at this point.

Why and how are so many pretending otherwise?

I know the definitions of wealth and income.  I also know that by any reasonable measure, barring extreme circumstances, the typical person who makes $400k in a single year is wealthy.  Not because if that singular year of income, but the fact that those who make $400k in a given year likely had an extremely high income in years prior, and subsequent to the $400k year.  

 

[matuski]

I know the definitions of wealth and income.  I also know that by any reasonable measure, barring extreme circumstances, the typical person who makes $400k in a single year is wealthy.  Not because if that singular year of income, but the fact that those who make $400k in a given year likely had an extremely high income in years prior, and subsequent to the $400k year.  

OK, so we agree income is not wealth.  Lets keep that as the foundation here so I don't have to keep arguing it.

Now, I agree 400k is a lot of money, and people making that much SHOULD be able to acquire and build wealth.

But it isn't a given.  You see endless examples of multimillionaires blowing it all.  A guy that makes 100M and spends it all isn't wealthy, and if they spent it all before they ever had it - they never were wealthy.  I would also imagine 400k in NYC/San Fran doesn't go nearly as far as it does here in TX.

Which is why we tax income.. the government gets its cut before you get your chance to turn your income into wealth or blow it.

 

[Sand]

I can’t believe how many people seem to suggest that someone who can make $400k in one year isn’t wealthy. Other than rare exceptions, folks making $400k in single year are also killing it in years past and will likely do so for years in the future.  It’s not as if folks making $60k suddenly have a $400k year, then drop back down into 5 figures. 

Why do people pretend otherwise? 

There was an article and graph I posted in one of the financial threads that showed what percentage of people lived paycheck to paycheck.  At 200k roughly 30% spent every penny.  So, yes, it's possible.  Absolutely crazy that that percentage have zero impulse control, but it seems to be accurate.

Which is why we tax income.. the government gets its cut before you get your chance to turn your income into wealth or blow it.

And even then there are a ton of folks with high incomes not named Wesley Snipes or Willie Nelson that end up in hoc to the IRS.

 

[jon_mx]

Which is why we tax income.. the government gets its cut before you get your chance to turn your income into wealth or blow it.

The problem is people like Jobs or Bezos who accumulates vast wealth which never shows uo as income because they keep the stock.  Bezos will perhaps become a trillionaire, but he probably only cashes tens of millions of dollars out per year, so his billions grow and grow without taxation.  Alot of people earning 400k are probably struggling business people who could get wiped out by a bad year.  

 

[Sand]

The problem is people like Jobs or Bezos who accumulates vast wealth which never shows uo as income because they keep the stock.  Bezos will perhaps become a trillionaire, but he probably only cashes tens of millions of dollars out per year, so his billions grow and grow without taxation.  Alot of people earning 400k are probably struggling business people who could get wiped out by a bad year.  

Instead of "stock" I'd say "ownership of the businesses they built".  Stock sounds like a free rider.  Let's face it, Jobs and Bezos had an idea, built it, and reaped incredible rewards from that vision and hard work.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Which is why we tax income.. the government gets its cut before you get your chance to turn your income into wealth or blow it.

That’s not my understanding of the historical reasons that we tax income instead of wealth.  Got a link?

 

[matuski]

That’s not my understanding of the historical reasons that we tax income instead of wealth.  Got a link?

 

[huthut]

Instead of "stock" I'd say "ownership of the businesses they built".  Stock sounds like a free rider.  Let's face it, Jobs and Bezos had an idea, built it, and reaped incredible rewards from that vision and hard work.

They could be taxed at 99% and you could say the same thing though. While I think 99% is hyperbolic (especially as a general flat rate on every dollar which is how people tend to do online tax debates), I think there should be some continuous tax rate where every dollar past X amount (40k? I have no idea) gets taxed at a slightly higher rate, no exemptions for capital gains. It would never reach 100% so there is always some gain for each dollar earned, but if someone is worth 100 bil I want it to be pretty close to 99.9% for their 100 billionth and 1 dollar. 

 

[Daywalker]

I know the definitions of wealth and income.  I also know that by any reasonable measure, barring extreme circumstances, the typical person who makes $400k in a single year is wealthy.  Not because if that singular year of income, but the fact that those who make $400k in a given year likely had an extremely high income in years prior, and subsequent to the $400k year.  

I'm in Scottie Pippen's corner.  His 7/2.8mill deal was criminal. 

 

[Daywalker]

Instead of "stock" I'd say "ownership of the businesses they built".  Stock sounds like a free rider.  Let's face it, Jobs and Bezos had an idea, built it, and reaped incredible rewards from that vision and hard work.

Their ideas were happening.  They worked hard and got lucky.  Online shopping?  An ipod/iphone?  What visionaries.  Please.  

Come up with a vaccine for Covid19 and you deserve 100 billion.