Comments | blackflame2180: This article makes me... well, angry.

blackflame2180

This article makes me... well, angry.

Dec 13, 2010 16:30

"Analysis examines what it's like to be a 'rich' family in America"

This is one of those articles that gets me steamed up. It examines what the costs/spending habits of the typical family making 250k would be, more or less an effort to say, "I'm not really rich-- I have all these expenses, you see!"

So I'm going to pick it apart, bit by bit.

( Read more... )

Comments 18

andrian6 December 13 2010, 21:46:32 UTC

You really should write to the Post and see if you can get this placed as a rebuttal to the tone, and thinking, of the article.

the_smith_e December 13 2010, 21:53:26 UTC

Right, let us fire all of those people working for them so they can be out work. People making money at that level are usually hiring people to do all sorts of things for them as they don't have time. Strip that money and that maid, lawn guy and home repair guy get less income.

I have maxed out my 401K since I was 22.

blackflame2180 December 13 2010, 22:10:03 UTC

The fallacy implied in that statement is that the spending of the wealthy creates more jobs than spending of the not-so-wealthy. I.e. trickle-down economics ( ... )

the_smith_e December 14 2010, 18:10:43 UTC

I am not responsible for people who failed to maintain their 401Ks and don't want to pay for their foolishness later ( ... )

blackflame2180 December 14 2010, 20:09:01 UTC

Yes, there are successful business and industry which specifically cater to the rich. To demonstrate that the money is spent more effectively by the rich towards job creation and providing livable incomes, though, you would have to demonstrate that given funds spent by the rich on these goods and services are actually more effectively spent than spending those funds elsewhere in the economy-- that similar funds could not employ more people in other industries for better wages. Or at the very least, demonstrate that these funds employ an equivalent number of people at equivalent wages, and that the jobs hence created were further of more benefit to society than equivalent jobs created in other sectors of the economy ( ... )

Thread 5

toothlesshag December 13 2010, 22:06:08 UTC

I don't really feel sorry for them, but the article shows me that - no it ISNT the Bill Gates's we are talking about.

It's who educated professionals are supposed to be.

That's what I get out of this article. Upper middle class. Not rich.

It's what I would like to be, but I chose to be a teacher, so I'm okay with not getting that. I also won't be choosing to work while I have small children.

They also work 50 to 60 hours a week, and have to pay someone else to raise their kids. I think that sucks.

(Tee hee. My dad's sister's family make more than that...and they live in Des Moines! The country club...is almost a business expense. I am aware that living their lifestyle requires more spending, but it isnt frivolous.)

Frankly, I think that they should get to keep their money, they already pay plenty of taxes. I think that Obama made a pretty nice compromise. Good for him!

But, hey, this is a reasonable thing to agree to disagree with you (and others) about. Really. I'm not all that heated about it.

blackflame2180 December 13 2010, 23:23:39 UTC

See, to me a 4 bedroom home in Bethesda or Alexandria with a housekeeper is rich, not middle class. It's not ultra-wealthy, but it's wealthy ( ... )

toothlesshag December 14 2010, 03:20:31 UTC

Actually think a lot of what you said makes sense and admit that if I call them upper middle, I don't get to be that (and I swore I would claw tooth and nail to stay where I was raised - but hey, my mom clipped coupons and said we couldnt have a vcr - so we were never that. But I did have ballet lessons and summer camp. Somewhere inbetween. Where do you draw the line.

But should the government take the Jones money away? They should be taxed a significant amount more than you or me?

blackflame2180 December 14 2010, 18:40:34 UTC

One statistically reasonable place to draw the line is just simple statistics ( ... )

weasel2000 December 14 2010, 01:58:48 UTC

Don't have to feel sorry for them or cry for them ect...but is it OK to take a even greater share of their money? What about choices YOU have made? Obviously you are no where near the 250,000 number, I assume you are living fairly well...single earner, living in an "affordable" area of the Greater Metropolitan area do you want to make that much? Will you?

The article makes some rather broad assumptions...there are a LOT of people living just over or near that mark in this area. I agree that in the end it is about choices one makes. there was an interesting article written a few months ago by a guy who bemoans the very fact that he makes over 250,000 and it wasn't really that much...and of course he was reamed in comments. I never saved the article but I will try to dig it up. Pretty much the same principle. No int he end I don't feel sorry for them. And most of what you said is correct, it's what I am now trying to live married with one child and figuring out my own expenses now.

blackflame2180 December 14 2010, 19:30:04 UTC

Whether you view it as the government 'taking' their money or the Joneses paying more of their fair share is a matter of how you account what the Joneses fair share really is. That further comes down to how you determine 'fair ( ... )

weasel2000 December 15 2010, 02:12:33 UTC

The article I read back in September is not available in it's original form, but check out this blog, it makes for very interesting reading, as well as Mr. Henderson's responses.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/todd-henderson-we-are-the-super-rich.html

blackflame2180 December 15 2010, 04:24:23 UTC

Henderson really comes off as kind of a douche, and one that doesn't really grasp how luxurious his lifestyle really is from the norm for most people ( ... )

greymaiden December 15 2010, 02:20:42 UTC

How about we totally adjust tax rates to cost of living? If your family makes less than the average cost of living in your area, you pay zero taxes. Nobody can be taxed to less than the average cost of living. Everybody else makes up the difference, giving both the wealthy and the government incentive to drive down the cost of living so there are more people to share the burden? Also, I have sex with a butterfly, and we all sit down to eat Unicorn meat and drink the blood of virgins. /sarcasm ( ... )