Skip to main content

View Diary: Making it work on $250k/yr (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They said not rich and they are correct. (10+ / 0-)

    If you want to talk reality then stop distorting it.  A percentile ranking only makes someone rich in the world of percentages, not experience or, if you want, reality.  As the gap between classes has widened what defines the middle class has stretched enormously and very much depends on where you live.  If you live in West L.A., a family of 4 making 250 a year is more properly defined as upper middle class than rich.  That family has more in common with a true middle class family than with a truly rich family with an income of a couple of million or more.  

    •  Steele was talking adjusted gross income (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MRA NY, nobody at all, Larsstephens

      $21k a month. What's you're reality? Malibu? beachfront?

    •  in expensive cities, I agree (8+ / 0-)

      well off, doing fine, but not RICH

      when rent is many thousands per month for a tiny apartment, it is not rich in the way we think of rich and normally use it.

      But at same time we have to shock ourselves reminding selves that it's about the top 5% of Americans and the whole rest of us are (much) worse off.

      So I'd like, whenever anyone was arguing it is not Rich, that they also remind selves how well off comparitifvely those folks/themselves are.

      Many of my friends fall into that 250K catagory or nearly so. None are rich BUT they ALSO take forgranted thinking they are average (becasue they are surronded by people like themselves). THEY FORGET how the rest of people live.

      It's easy for them to forget. Even Democrats. Even my family (

      •  EVEN IF rent were $5000 a month that still leaves (4+ / 0-)

        more then my sister made in a year with no benefits, no saving for college, a broken down wreck of a car until we gave her one. I lived in CA and it can be very expensive but 21K a month would do it fine. Most were middle class on 50 to 60K.  Which is 1/4 of that per month. In fact, at that time the newspaper came out with articles about the average income in Contra Costa County where I lived as being around  21000 a year.

        At least until Prop 13 which benefited the  rich and corporate landowners over private homeowners. Because the rich and corps seldom moved. When they built new homes in CA, to make up for the revenue loss, they tacked the cost onto buying a home. I worked at the water wastewater plant as a chemist. I saw the fee for connecting a new home go from 1500 to 13000 for each service in 3 years. When you add in building fees jumping like mad because somethings gotta pay for roads, bridges, police, schools expanding equipment and structure costs you are probably actually in the range of 75000 and up for services that used to be paid for by everyone, not just the new buyers on the block. You could have a couple with identical houses... One paid barely 800 a year and someone who came later (usually younger and broker) and bought the same house paid 3500. Corporations were doing even better. And then like Romney maybe you could hire a lawyer and get you purchase valuation lowered so your basis was lower. Houses just kept escalating in costs. And most of that rise was because  people wanted a ride on the backs of the newcomers.

        Fear is the Mind Killer...

        by boophus on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:58:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  more than me too...but still not rich in the way (0+ / 0-)

          at least I grew up using the I think we all did

          wonder if you even read my whole post. I was only commenting on the use of the word Rich for someone in NYC say who makes 250k

          I lived off less than a tenth of that myself last year. Also in a major city. Believe me I get it.

          I was making a semantic argument. Calling that level of wealth RICH clouds the issue for people. They are well off but not RICH in my mind as I've always thought of the word.
          I did not argue that their taxes should not go up. I think they should. Can't put it on the backs of the poor.

      •  Lived in NYC for half a decade with rent in the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferg, mumtaznepal, mdmslle

        thousands on an income of $50k.

        What were we? Poor?

        This entire question is a joke. By any reasonable standard, ANYWHERE, $250k is RICH.

        -9.63, 0.00
        I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

        by nobody at all on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:27:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  we just disagree on the semantics, then (0+ / 0-)

          i live on one tenth of that myself.

          There are a significant percentage of Americans who do not think 250K range in major city is "rich" but just "well off". So, when we talk about raising income on the 'rich' and 250 k as cut off they bristle and shut their mind.

          it expands the chance of dialogue to get them to acknowledge that their income is in the top two or five percent...Rich when compared to the rest of the people in the US

          including myself, Im living of less than one tenth of that amt.

          I always think of someone like Romney when i think "rich'

          •  That's stretching the bounds of "rich" (0+ / 0-)

            One way to think of being rich:

            Did you eat today?
            Do you own a pair of shoes?
            Do you own a change of clothing?
            Do you have somewhere safe to sleep?

            Okay.  You're rich.

            •  for me, depends on context (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger Fox

              I am "poor" according to American standards
              yet rich when I think of the billions without clean water
              enough food and the other things in your post.

              it's just symantics as I said. If we want the most AMericans possible to listen and get why Dems want taxes to go up on incomes abouve 250K we might do better not calling ALL of those people 'rich" if they don't feel that way themselves.

              Still they need to get how good they have it. We can all use the reminder even those of us who make 1/10th of that or less.

    •  They're correct, but not about inequality (7+ / 0-)

      Your point is well taken.  That said, it is splitting hairs since it doesn't matter where you live, there are many people living waaaay below the 250K income level...probably about 95% of people.  What gets me about the location comment: there are poor and working class people in LA, Philly, NYC, too.  I also don't buy the argument about the 250k family.  Do they have more in common with a family living on 50K year (1/5th of their income)?  I'd argue that the power of disposable income at that level of difference radically affects opportunity and lifestyle in profound ways.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site