Democrats: $250K isn't rich - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Democrats: $250K isn’t rich - Manu Raju

Meme Inflation is quite high today

Politics • October 2011 • Views: 1,199

My question is this based on economics or politics? Political solutions may not become real improvements in the economy.

politico.com

That figure — $250,000 for a household — has been at the tip of the tongue of so many Democratic candidates and lawmakers in the past few elections that it’s become ingrained in the party’s tax philosophy. But they’ve taken a beating from Republicans and have grown increasingly divided on the issue, since that income level would not only cause tax increases for some small businesses but also hit upper-middle-class suburban voters in swing states.

Income Level Meme

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

4 comments

elizajane Oct 6, 2011 9:28:37am

And God forbid we should hit upper-middle-class voters! Those people who whine that $300+K isn’t much when you have 2 kids in private schools and a boat to maintain, and a $500K mortgage on your million-and-a-half-dollar home. Oh make me weep.

Anybody who makes $300+K a year and thinks they aren’t rich needs to make some friends outside of their little bubble of fellow 3%-ers. They should spend some quality time talking with the people who clean their home, manicure their lawn, and bag their groceries.

By the way, in exactly which suburbs in which swing states is $300K not enough to be rich on? I thought it was only in California and New York that you were allowed to be “middle class” on a top-3% income?

The whining of the upper class in America really annoys me. This is what comes of, among other things, housing patterns that completely separate people by social class. People at the top have NO CLUE what it’s like for those in the classes beneath them. I speak, mind you, as one at the top, but at least I have a clue.

Rightwingconspirator Oct 6, 2011 11:12:39am

re: #1 elizajane

To me arguing who should or should not pay on these arbitrary levels is completely missing the point. What we need to do base this on actuarial data. What tax structure (somewhere close to what we have in structure) would best serve the economy? Growing economy means growing revenue.

Take the emotional appeals out. Dump the class aspect entirely. It’s actually not a political problem, it’s an arithmetic exercise.

I find it unlikely ending the Bush tax cuts correctly satisfies the economic needs.

I find it very likely the Bush tax cuts are a fine effective hammer with which to beat the electorate into further political meanderings instead in wise economic ones.

My idea is an “infinite” progression through upper income brackets and instituting one for corporate profits.

lostlakehiker Oct 6, 2011 11:19:04am

re: #1 elizajane

And God forbid we should hit upper-middle-class voters! Those people who whine that $300+K isn’t much when you have 2 kids in private schools and a boat to maintain, and a $500K mortgage on your million-and-a-half-dollar home. Oh make me weep.

Anybody who makes $300+K a year and thinks they aren’t rich needs to make some friends outside of their little bubble of fellow 3%-ers. They should spend some quality time talking with the people who clean their home, manicure their lawn, and bag their groceries.

By the way, in exactly which suburbs in which swing states is $300K not enough to be rich on? I thought it was only in California and New York that you were allowed to be “middle class” on a top-3% income?

The whining of the upper class in America really annoys me. This is what comes of, among other things, housing patterns that completely separate people by social class. People at the top have NO CLUE what it’s like for those in the classes beneath them. I speak, mind you, as one at the top, but at least I have a clue.

Try this: a $800K mortgage on a $600K house (everybody’s underwater) , no boat, no kids in private school, and another several hundred thousand in non-dischargeable loans for the education that made that income possible. So, yes, these folk can afford to pay a lot more taxes. They won’t starve. They’ll lose their house, true, but that’s only fair.

People at this version of “the top” are holding on, with little margin, to a lifestyle that turns out to have been something of an over-reach. They’re putting in longer hours than most everybody else. If it is to be absolutely, categorically impossible to have anything more than average, (unless you already have it) then what possible point can there be to working more than almost anybody else, after having given up nearly a decade of earnings, and borrowed another several years’ worth, to get to where that income might start rolling in?

People at this version of “the top” have lived, for all of their childhood and much of their adult lives, at a lower standard. Their brothers and sisters, parents, nieces and nephews and cousins, are facing their own struggles. People at this version of “the top” know that their own troubles are not the worst that could transpire.