First Student Loans and now Mortgages

[SuzySunshine]

When is $250,000 going to stop being considered RICH?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/15/news...dex.htm?hpt=T2

[Michele]

That's a good debate idea...what income level should be considered rich? Should it be state dependent or national? Cause 250K would be rich in some states.

[diggitydot]

In vast swaths of the country $250K will always be considered wealthy. Perception follows cost-of-living. In NYC, $250K doesn't carry the same weight that it does in the Midwest.

[Michele]

I used the cost of living calculator on CNN.com. 250K in Shreveport Louisiana would be comparable to 570K in Manhattan.

$250K is very upper middle class, bordering on wealthy in the midwest. I'd say most of our neighbors (largely two income households) bring in about $150 to $175K combined. It's not "rich", but it sure as hell is a lot better off than the majority of Americans.

It won't go through -- but really -- at some point, taxes will have to be raised if we're going to ever reduce the deficit. We can't keep hearing about responsible spending and deficit reduction, while only being willing to cut programs AND wanting to continue cutting taxes. I suck at finance and I know that won't work.

[DCJenn]

250k here in San Antonio is considered a vast weath- in DC it'll barely get you a starter home. So, to answer the question, 250k will stop being considered rich when $49,777 is no longer the median income of the United States. (Median income information I just got from the latest census report on www.census.gov. The most recent data is from 2009.)

250k IS rich. What usually happens though is that your expenses match your income so it doesn't feel any different. and for those of us with military physician spouses, a lofty number, indeed...

Jenn

[weeniegeniewife]

This topic gets me fired up. $250K is SO NOT rich!! I consider any income above 1M per year "rich", or getting closer to it. But $250K? Nope. Not after taxes, taxes, taxes (at least in my state with horribly high property taxes, income taxes, and this lovely tax our voters passed last year for people who make over $250K). I have more opinions on this but I am going to stop there before I get too fired up.

[DCJenn]

Seriously? Most Americans think getting to 100k is a flippin' pipe dream. I make $43,000 with a Master's Degree and 25 years of experience. (My salary is public- we're a government funded agency and it's a requirement- no secrets, here!)

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

I used to consider 250k rich too. The problem is that after taxes and paying down student loan debt, it isn't rich like you would imagine. Many of our neighbors earn 100k and get much of what they have paid in taxes back. We pay the max in and still owe every year. I think instead of raising taxes, everyone should first have to PAY taxes. The top income earners foot the bill when it comes to taxes. Let's have all corporations pony up ... and all Americans.

The first 5 years we were out of fellowship we owned almost nothing to put in our home. We had lawn furniture in the front living room. Our home was the avg price for our area.

Taxes. Everyone needs to pay. No returned money.

[weeniegeniewife]

I make less than you Jenn in the same field, with masters degree as well. Maybe it's just where I live, but the "rich" are expected to pay for everything. My town is known for its laziness and most people have an entitled attitude when it comes to what they are "owed by the 'rich'". That kind of attitude makes me sick...I'd never expect anyone to pay my way in life...I've always done it myself. I would never expect someone who worked their asses off in school for years and years to then pay my way. Ugh, it's sickening. That's the general attitude in my town.

[Vanquisher]

I think it really depends on your definition of "rich." It's easier to define rich as anyone making an income of over 250K for people who make closer to the median income. However, when you include debts in there, it really pulls down that take home amount.

We are doing well now, and I think a lot of people would consider us rich. However, our net worth is negative. Just because we make above a certain salary, doesn't mean that we are rich.

The way I would define rich is when you aren't working for money, money is working for you. I definitely would say we are upper socioeconimic income level, but we are not rich.

Yes, my taxes are higher now than they have ever been and are higher than our annual income for many, many years, but I am okay with that. I think people that make over a certain income level should pay more in taxes. I am not sure that 250K is the right number for that.

[weeniegeniewife]

The top income earners foot the bill when it comes to taxes.

This. The top 2% of income earners pay 98% of everyone's taxes. Ridiculous.

[PrincessFiona]

Here is something that bothers me. I have a friend who is an actress in NY (by personal choice). She just posted something about how horrible republicans are on FB. She is as liberal as they come (and I have a fairly liberal voting record tbh), but ... She gets unemployment between all of her theater gigs. Instead of looking for work to support herself, she thinks it is her right as a theater person to collect benefits and healthcare from the state and at the same time, she resents the hell out of people not wanting a tax increase.

If our taxes are raised any more, we will have zero disposable income. Our home's value has fallen. We won't be able to sell it. We won't be buying things, remodeling or even driving in trips. I imagine it will be that way for many. What happens to the economy then? More bailouts? More welfare for businesses not selling enough? More laid off workers?

Bottom line? We need to cut spending just like we do in our personal households when we need to pay off debt. Painful, but true. Frankly, it doesn't matter if 250k is rich or not. Cut spending and let people keep the money they have EARNED.

[diggitydot]

There was a study on taxes published a while ago. I'll have to see if I can dig it up to post it here. They looked at all taxes (not just federal) paid by socioeconomic groups and compared them by state to which states were most fair in the percentage of income paid to taxes. I was surprised to discover WA was one of the least fair. Those in the lowest socioeconomic group paid the highest % of their income to taxes.

[ladymoreta]

I'm with Kris. If everyone paid taxes, I think we'd be better off. People who don't pay taxes don't take ownership of how tax money is spent, so of course they're for more spending. If it touches their pockets, they'd be less likely to want as much government spending.