Why is $250,000 a year not a lot of money?

[ninety lives]

Wealth and comfort "depends on where you're coming from," said Lois Avitt, a sociologist and founding director of the Institute for Socio-Financial Studies in Charlottesville, Va. To a family earning $50,000, $250,000 is well off, but for the family earning $250,000, rising college and medical costs and dropping home values make the perception debatable.

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/106934/Wealth-Less-Effect-Earning-Well-Feeling-Otherwise

I find this offensive. The implication here is that college is only for those making an upper middle class salary.

If you read between the lines, it sounds as if he is saying that families who earn $50,000 will not earn a college degree.

Are people really this insensitive?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. LOL. It's saying that people who are in the upper category are

paying for college without loans, etc. There is no way that a family making $50,000 a year could pay for college out of pocket.

That's what they mean.

[ninety lives]

2. You can still get loans

When you make that kind of money. Your children just won't get some other financial aid.

It is frightening to think that some people think that just because they have money, that their children have every right to go to college.

[Dr.Phool]

4. Everybody should have a right to go to college.

It should be free. The words "student" and "loan" should never be used in the same sentence.

[KittyWampus]

34. IMO, not *everybody* has the *right* to go to college. Only those who meet academic standards

[w4rma]

132. Why not? Should we make middle schoolers meet certain academic standards to go to high school? (nt)

[anigbrowl]

134. High school knowledge is not as rare as college-level knowledge

There are a limited number of people who are able to teach a subject to bachelor level and fewer still at a post-graduate level. By contrast, there is wide availability of high-school level knowledge and it's considered a basic requirement for most jobs.

[w4rma]

135. College level knowledge could be made common, here, by making it 'free' like it is in Britain. (nt)

[Lucky Luciano]

142. Europe has free college in many countries, but only the best

students get into universities. I know in Germany the smarter kids get into high school and the others go to vocational schools....after that, the ones who got into high school might go to college.

[endarkenment]

143. Germany is somewhat unusual

as it 'streams' children starting in the 4th grade between vocational and academic tracks.

Of course not everyone can go to the best colleges and universities - competitive exams typically sort out which you are qualified for, if any. But if you qualify then the cost is minimal. "Only the best students get into the best universities" would be a more exact way of restating your post, and that of course is true everywhere, and part of what makes an institution one of the best. The difference is that the costs of post secondary education are socialized and paid for primarily through taxes.

[Mamacrat]

150. Elementary school seems early.

Elementary school seems early to make those sort of decisions. There are developmental delays and learning disabilities children often have to overcome that might not yet be diagnosed at that age. My husband was called "retarded" (their word) by his school, but his parents ignored them. He earned a PhD and is a university professor. Good thing they didn't put him on the vocational track then!

[endarkenment]

161. It is and germany is unusual in this aspect of their system

snf it is controversial in germany. But it is also somewhat irrelevant to this subthread discussion of our system of higher education vs 'theirs'. Ignoring the premature tracking in germany, if you qualify for college you can go and the cost is mostly paid out of tax revenue. Across western europe the general situation is that costs are socialized and access is based on merit. Seems like a much better way to do things to me.

[SheilaT]

163. Unless they've changed it, in England

kids take a test at age 11 which tracks them into college prep or vocational schools.

[anigbrowl]

167. I'm from that part of the world. Not everyone goes to college, though.

I do support subsidizing third-level education. But I also support limiting access to it based on academic performance.

[Uben]

5. They do!

Every child has a right to go to college in America. It's the financial aspect of it that is the kicker. I put a daughter thru college on $50K/yr. I had some money saved for it as well, but you can do it. My daughter got her MBA last spring and is now working for a financial company making more than I ever did while working! It takes planning and doing without some things, but it is totally doable!

[ninety lives]

9. Exactly

If people who make under $100,000 a year can get their children through decent universities, then what are people who earn a quarter million so worried about?

If you make that much money, you should use your brain and figure out why you can't seem to hang onto any of it.

There are some people out there who earn what is an astronomical sum by global standards, and all they do is whine in public about how they can't "keep up".

They never ask themselves why their lifestyle is so expensive.

[Art_from_Ark]

139. $50K a year for college?

And to think I made it through State U. on $1500/year plus living expenses.

[JerseygirlCT]

156. Oh yeah. At private colleges now that's pretty common

Some are more. Even state schools are increasing tuition because their funding from states is being cut.

It's a huge investment.

[JerseygirlCT]

155. Yes, long time saving here

and it goes away quickly. But a very good education is an excellent gift - something that will keep on giving for a long time.

[ASUliberal]

8. Everybody should have the right to go to college...

Education should not be a privilege but a necessity.

[Xipe Totec]

17. How are you going to pay the loans on $50,000 a year?

That's the median household income in the USA

Half of the households in this country earn less than 50,000 a year. That's household income (read two paychecks).

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. All children should have the right to go to college

[Norquist Nemesis]

63. Which also means they pay MORE for college if they're able to get the loan

The people making $250K are more likely to have the resources to pay for college and be up to date by the time the kid graduates. Those making $50K...not so much. They will have to pay interest on those loans.

It's also more likely that the $250K family is going to have some "contacts" post-grad (depending on the area of study), so Jr. already has a foot in the door. The $50K family...not so much.

[TBF]

93. Right, they can take out those loans (while they still may be paying off their own loans!)

But your second sentence is the important one. I was a factory kid & got loans/scholarships/grants to go to school and settled for a state school to make it easier. I'd like to see college free for those capable of going, but there would still be much debate on how we choose the kids (test scores, whether they can pay, etc...).

[JerseygirlCT]

154. If their children are qualified for college, why shouldn't they think

them entitled? Any child with the academic chops ought to be entitled to a college education.

[Atman]

3. I know what my son's tuition is costing me.

Believe me, he most likely wouldn't be going to college if it would require we spend more than an entire year's salary.

While I appreciate the point you're attempting to make, reality should enter the picture somewhere; even community college can represent a huge chunk of a family budget when you've only got $50,000 to work with. I don't find the premise offensive. (And for the record, we don't make $250,000 a year, either.)

.

[ninety lives]

7. That is not my premise

My "premise", as you can see, is that families who earn $250,000 a year want sympathy because "college" is too expensive. If those people think that college costs are an enormous burden, they are not managing their money correctly and buying into scare stories.

I don't understand what you are communicating.

[pnutbutr]

6. seems like

the author is implying that people who make $50,000 are not affected by rising college costs, medical costs and dropping home values for some reason.

Turth is, people maintain a lifestyle at their salary range and are unwilling to accept that they must give up some of the luxuries which they have come to see as necessity.

[yy4me]

10. $250,000 a year would make me rich. My SS check for $960

a month makes me now poor. If $250,00 is the new standard then I'm guess being old has its merits. Like most Americans, we educated our kids for far less but proportionally, it was probably the same. Years change the ratio. This comment from the Charlottesville folks makes me hope they are not affiliated with UVA, where one of my children went to college. Fine school, stupid comment by Mr. Avitt.
Sometimes I think sensitivity has gone the way of most of our logic and social graces.

[ninety lives]

13. $250,000

I could easily live off of that for five years.

Also, I am laughing at the other person in the story who is complaining about their "2500 square foot house".

I also live in a 2500 square foot home.

[Evoman]

101. 5 years...I could live off that for 10 years!

[Regret My New Name]

138. I could live off it for about day...

I suck at money management.

[elleng]

11. His/her perspective is WAY off.

250,000 is WEALTHY, and is not concerned about college, meds and home value. Up to 150,000, I'd say, is where those costs are concerning.

Of course, the 'sociologist' should go back to school.

[Lucky Luciano]

136. Hah! Come to Manhattan and see if that comment holds water! nt

[elleng]

145. How many of us live in Manhattan?

I'm in MD, near DC. Born in Manhattan. Not speaking out of ignorance.

[Lucky Luciano]

148. ok...but 250K in the average town in the US is like $550K in NYC.

I was going by an index I saw that rated NYC at 220% the national average (Forbes). I can see how most people here feel like $250K is a lot....I can truly imagine $550K giving the same standard of living in NYC that $250K does in most of the US. Should not be trivialized for those of us that need to make our living here!

[elleng]

149. No intention to trivialize.

I'd be there if I could. (But prolly in Bklyn; MAYBE queens.)

[Telly Savalas]

152. 2.2 times my salary which supports a family of 3 is still well below $250K

And I'm carrying a pretty big student loan burden.

Nevertheless, I feel like I'm doing OK financially. It could be better, but I'm certainly not in a position to complain.

So I just can't get the whining from someone making $250K even in a high cost area like Manhattan.

[JANdad]

12. Perhaps....

I they stop giving 1300 per month to the church (what a fucking waste) they could afford college tuition...

[ninety lives]

35. I have to give them credit

They give a lot of money to charity. Maybe their church does good work.

However, it must be remembered that giving all that money to charity is their CHOICE.

[ninety lives]

14. Another quote

If you thought that the $250,000 a year comment was bad, read this one from the same article:

Mr. Duran said he and his wife earn about $400,000 annually, but "I'm barely getting by." They have high property and state taxes, as well as college tuition and savings to cover. "I'm an Obama man, but this side of him is a difficult pill for me," he said.

Sorry, I didn't get the memo about how we need to save for the impending apocalypse.

[madmom]

51. I have very high property tax,plus a "new" school tax plus state tax plus college tuition, plus

a mortgage,luckily mt 10 year old car is paid off and I/we live on $36000 a year.

[Flying Dream Blues]

121. Now, that is just offensive. "Just getting by" on $400k? If that is his shameful

truth, I sure wouldn't tell it to a reporter. Doesn't he comprehend how enormously fortunate he is?

Edited after reading the article and realizing I was commenting on quotes from two different people.

[zazen]

15. this is what the uber rich want: middle class fighting with poorer class

I've never made 250k, but the point is, especially in some areas where home prices skyrocketed until 2006, that's a living wage requiring two full-time workers, and that what used to be considered an upper middle class wage, with all of its presumed benefits, has fallen far below traditional expenses.

I think the reality of a 250k earning family (excluding the technological breakthroughs and toys only available in past 20 years) is probably closer to the "Beavers" or the "Brady's." I have a masters and my kids' dad has a PhD. We rarely went on vacations, and if so, it was two hours away for two days at Wrightsville Beach. Benefits are thanks to the State of NC and my COBRA, unsubsidized as an ex-wife, is running out. We own old junker cars--fine by me. They work. Child care when I did work cost more than annual tuition at most private universities.

Yes, 250K is a lot more than 50K, but the main point is that the uber rich, who've sucked us all dry the past 20 years, would love everyone to focus on hating the 250K/yr people, who are just pointing out that by the way they aren't evil and spoiled--they're struggling to stay in what we used to define as middle class. The rest of us are struggling not to be foreclosed on and avoid food stamps (my next step).

[ninety lives]

31. These people never ask why, though

They just complain about the situation a lot. In public.

These articles are scare stories. Neither the articles nor the people referred to are asking any hard questions.

[ninety lives]

33. The Beavers

In no way is that close to "The Beavers".

The Beavers today would, as a family, earn about $80,000 a year. The Bradys, with that house and that many kids, would be MILLIONAIRES.
Of course the reality is that few architects earn that much money, but then again Mrs. Brady would have to get a job so who knows.

[endarkenment]

39. divide and conquer keeps the prison easy to control

[blindpig]

42. Those 250K people better decide whose side they're on.

At the end of the day they're just workers too. Yet they consistently identify with and support the uber class. It is this, not their relative wealth, which should be the target of ire.

[zazen]

69. I agree, but lots of lower income and food stamp Republicans sided with the ubers too

Now they're just looking for any populist idiot from Fox News to tell them where to direct their rage, and they're just ignorant enough to conflate their misinformed concept of intellectual elitism with Wall Street elitism and morph "liberals" into the multimillionaires from the East (with hints of anti-Semitism thrown in) who have stolen their wealth/labor over the past 30 years. God forbid they'd look inward, or at their pundits, or their pulpits.

[endarkenment]

75. Again - the facts are not with you either.

Income levels less than 50K went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those between 50 and 200 were generally McCain supporters.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[zazen]

82. delete

[zazen]

83. when does "lots of" equal majority?

Someone was focusing on the 250k set as needing to "come along" with the rest of us, as if the uniformly haven't. I was providing counter examples. The fact that anyone impoverished by the last 30 years would vote against their interests, let alone a strong subset of them, is shocking--it doesn't have to be a majority to support my point.

[endarkenment]

107. Sorry then, I misunderstood your post.

If indeed you did not mean 'a majority' by 'lots of' then I apologize for the misunderstanding. The less than 50k cohorts voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The 200k+ cohort was one of the strongest income cohorts for Obama as well, a fact that some other person is now attempting to squirm out of.

[blindpig]

81. Disagree with your assessment.

It's a two way street. A lot of liberals expect the working class to accept their leadership without giving serious consideration to working folk's concerns. It comes down to "we're smarter than you, trust us", a fine formula for resentment. Fox etc didn't invent this, but they sure took advantage of it. It's all blather on the tube but Fox wins because it strokes the folks while liberals wave their fingers.

If liberals were to uncompromisingly fight for single payer, clearly, with no caveats, then you'd have the potential beginning of the rebuilding of the New Deal coalition. But that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[endarkenment]

74. And then there are the facts.

The strongest income demographic for Obama among those at 50,000/yr or higher was 200,000 and above.

$50-75,000 (21%)
Obama: 48%
McCain: 49%
Other: 3%


$75-100,000 (15%)
Obama: 51%
McCain: 48%
Other: 1%


$100-150,000 (14%)
Obama: 48%
McCain: 51%
Other: 1%


$150-200,000 (6%)
Obama: 48%
McCain: 50%
Other: 2%


$200,000 or More (6%)
Obama: 52%
McCain: 46%
Other: 2%

income levels below 50,000 were overwhelming Obama supporters. The cohorts below 200K and and above 49K mostly went for McCain.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[blindpig]

76. So?

I find that rather damning.

[endarkenment]

78. 200K or greater voted FOR Obama.

What part of that did you find damning?

[blindpig]

87. What that says to me is this.

If this sector supported Obama, and as they do identify with the truly rich, then they must have seen in Obama policies favorable to the uber class. Judging how this administration has dealt with the economic crisis to date and the indications of how it will behave in the future, I'd say that they were spot on.

[endarkenment]

102. The I'm just fascinated with your pending explanation for

$50-75,000 (21%)
Obama: 48%
McCain: 49%
Other: 3%

Go ahead, make my day.

[blindpig]

112. Back to post #85

It's the class resentment fanned by the RW noise machine. If the Democrats had pushed hard for single payer it would undoubtedly have been different.

[HughBeaumont]

169. Ah, the Reaganite middle classers that refuse to accept they're peasants.

Know a lot of those in my city.

[fishwax]

55. 250k would put them in the top 2% of household incomes

If one struggles to stay middle class while making more than 98% of the country then there is something wrong.

[DireStrike]

70. That's not the middle class.

The middle class would be the people making 50k (or even less, I believe.)

The 250k people are a thug class that works for the crumbs of the rich. They're a buffer - they do the work of the rich so the rich don't have to, all for the illusion of being rich. Instead of being happy that they make more than most, they can only feel bad that they are not anywhere near as rich as their masters.

(The thug part is a generalization, sure there are plenty of people making that much who don't fit the description.)

[endarkenment]

77. "The middle class would be the people making 50k (or even less)"

That would be lower middle class. Here, read up, I can wiki that for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

[LooseWilly]

129. Thanks for the link.

I was considering a thread on the definition of the middle class... and now I see that even the ideational taxonomists are incapable of consensus on the subject.

A good thing I suppose, we wouldn't want those making $250k/year to be stigmatized as "rich"...

[DireStrike]

171. Wiki also says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.


50k is middle middle class. For a HOUSEHOLD; that is, more than one wage earner on average. You're implying that one person making 50k would be lower middle class. How?

[blindpig]

116. Actually, it is.

The classical middle class consists of your 'professionals', law, medicine, higher education, administrators, owners of small business. One of the greatest snow jobs in history was selling America on the illusion that we were all middle class. Besides stroking people it made the more accurate term, working class, just about disappear, pretending to negate the necessity of socialism.

However, your assessment of 250K crowd is pretty much true.

[DireStrike]

170. How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States says:

In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.

The people you describe would be upper middle class at best.

[Coventina]

113. It's the Cleavers, not "the Beavers".

I'm a big "Leave it to Beaver" fan, so I'm compelled to point this out.

I'm not trying to belittle you, though.

[zazen]

125. D'oh! I'm not a fan. Guess you figured that out by now. Oops n/t

[Deja Q]

16. Most jobs don't need higher education

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11181-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=179848&start=0

[Midlodemocrat]

127. And there are some people, like me, who value education

regardless of its ability to further my career. I'm not doing what I got my grad degrees in, but I still value the knowledge I obtained.

[JerseygirlCT]

157. Completely agree with you. College isn't just job training

college is life training. You should leave with the skills to do just about anything: critical thinking, written and oral communication skills.

I'm a huge fan of the liberal arts education, myself.

[w4rma]

140. I don't think the author of that is very well educated. (nt)

[loyalkydem]

18. So

Since my daddy made less than 50,000, I shouldn't have a college degree then? Guess my hard work and determination didn't pay off.

[JVS]

20. People making that much should be jailed and their money redistributed to the people.

[loyalkydem]

21. If they take their money off shore

Yes, I agree with you, but I actually know several millionaires in my business who play by the rules. I feel that shouldn't apply to the honest hard working ones.

[endarkenment]

38. I like the quick switch from people making 250k/yr to 'millionaires'.

Hey its only numbers.

Wealth and income are too different things. A family living on 250K a year in a major metropolitan area with little or no wealth other than paper equity in an overvalued house will face bankruptcy and assorted financial disasters after even a short term loss of income. A family with millions in real wealth, say somewhere around 3-5 million in assets other than their primary residence, is in fact 'rich' and is immune to financial disaster caused by loss of income.

Are they comfortable on 250K a year? Of course. But they are not 'the rich'. Should people making 250k a year pay taxes at a higher rate than those making 50K a year? Again, of course they should. But they are not 'the rich'.

The real rich are laughing at us as they play divide and conquer pitting the lower peasants against the upper peasants.

[vadawg]

22. and when its decided anyone making more than $20,000 or even $10,000

where does it end, i think everyone would be able to come up with a figure that they believe justifies jail and confiscation, some would jail people for having a bigger house than they deem neccessary or to big a car, or to many cars. This is a slippery slope to go down.

[JVS]

23. Rich fanboy hoey!

[vadawg]

26. great answer there magnus magnussen

[littlebit]

43. What?

I work my ass off to make what I do. I have built a very successful business. Now why should I be jailed and my wealth be distributed to someone who makes less?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. Well, ok, you get a "get out of jail free" card

You shouldn't be jailed and your wealth distributed to people making less than you.

You should be TAXED and your wealth distributed to people making less than you.

That's instead of the current system, where you're taxed and your wealth distributed to people making MORE than you. Like the CEO's of banks, Halliburton, Blackwater.

I'm not rich, but doing ok. I'd gladly pay more tax, if it was going toward single-payer health care. If it's going into corrupt pockets, not so glad.

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. An optomometrist with $150k in debt should be jailed? On what grounds?

Silly post.

[jmowreader]

119. $250,000 for rare skills is not out of line

The national average for surgeons is about $300,000. I don't begrudge them that money, nor would I expect them to ask for less. If you do ten operations a week, you're holding the lives of 500 people in the palms of your hands. I think it's a fair trade. OTOH, someone who made $250,000 trading naked CDS or flipping houses should be relieved of all his ill-gotten wealth and sentenced to pump grease traps at McDonald's for the rest of his life.

[jmg257]

123. A couple who manage to bring in $250K? Why?

[Lucky Luciano]

137. For fuck's sake...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[hughee99]

162. Why?

What have they done wrong?

[MedleyMisty]

24. My husband and I make about $40,000 combined

I'm sorry, but people who make $250,000 a year are fucking rich and are greedy whiny crybabies if that's not enough for them. If I had that much a year, I'd buy a newer car (I drive a 1994 Thunderbird), pay off the credit cards, save some for retirement (and if I made that much I might get to retire) and donate whatever I didn't need to someone who did need it, or use it to start some community thing.

If they spend it all on material crap and huge houses and expensive cars, that's their choice.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[diamidue]

68. nope, debt-free, but not rich on $250,000

We are doing ok; we are not in debt, but we're definitely not rich. I drive a 1994 car, too. My home is 1,600 sq feet and is 24 years old. Haven't had a vacation in 3 years. I get my hair cut at SuperCuts. It is extraordinary how much we pay in taxes. We put 2 kids thru university & we help out them and family members who are suffering financially. We put money in the bank, but we have no pension coming. We do NOT buy material crap and expensive cars or own "huge" houses. We do NOT live an extravagant lifestyle. We have our modest home paid off.

I am not complaining. I know we have more than most. But to be put in the same category as millionaires; to be called "the rich" is just not accurate. I should also mention that we live in CA, where things are considerably more expensive than in many other states.

[hfojvt]

80. right, so there's no reason for a California family making $60,000

to think that you are rich. Not 'the rich'. Just rich. Because I am quite sure that there are lots of families, even in California making $60,000 or less. In 2000, 55% of California families made less than $60,000. I don't think it is at all unreasonable for those people to think that somebody who makes over 4 times their income is rich.

[JerseygirlCT]

158. What is this obsession here at DU with equating income (or the lack thereof)

with virtue? This idea that people making more money than you do (which seems to be the acting definition of "rich" here these days) are somehow inherently less valued or caring or involved? That a lower salary automatically bestows some sort of nobility?

Judge a person on the person. Judge them on their actions. What happened to that idea?

[notesdev]

25. It depends on the situation

a person making $50,000 in Wyoming and someone making $250,000 in San Francisco are not all that far apart in net means, believe it or not. Between the tax bite and cost of living difference, what's left over is not all that much.

[JVS]

30. Proof please?

Prices might be higher in San Fran, but not 5 times higher.

[AllieB]

54. Housing prices, rent, gas, etc. probably are 5x higher.

SF is one of the most expensive places to live. Even in a down economy, a bedroom house costs over 1 million.

[JVS]

65. Why would gas cost 5x as much?

[AllieB]

79. You want to compare housing prices in WY to Bay Area housing?

http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=250000&city1=55613900&city2=50667000

Cost of Living Comparison:
Cheyenne, Wyoming - San Francisco, California


San Francisco is
116%
more expensive than Cheyenne.

Housing
is the biggest factor in the cost of living difference.

Housing is
377% more expensive in San Francisco.

Cost of Living Indexes
Cheyenne San Francisco
Overall 86 187
Food 106 122
Housing 62 296
Utilities 101 144
Transportation 96 130
Health 102 166
Miscellaneous 97 110


A salary of $250,000 in Cheyenne, Wyoming should increase to $541,150 in San Francisco, California

[JVS]

85. Your new multiplication number is less than 5, which is more reflective of the truth.

Still, I doubt that those making 250K are powerless to make decisions about where they live. I'm still not feeling sorry for them even if they live in SF on that money

[Midlodemocrat]

59. I don't know about that. My brother lives in a house smaller than

mine and he paid almost $1million for it. If I were to buy my house today, it would run about $325,000. When he bought his, mine was worth roughly $250,000.

It's what the market will bear.

[JVS]

64. There are other expenses than housing. People in Wyoming can't send kids to Princeton $8K/year

[Midlodemocrat]

67. Yes, but my point is that housing is an enormous chunk of one's budget

and in some places, $250,000 doesn't go as far as in others.

[JVS]

84. A lot of housing expenses are discretionary.

The reason people end up paying a lot for housing is because doing so allows them to price out the riff-raff. There is no reason that someone who works in Manhattan could not commute in each morning from Harlem, the Bronx, or Queens. But then they would have to live in the ghetto and deal with some of the social problems that the very same inequality that allows them to make $250K each year helps to create. Most people don't sympathize with people who have to drive long commutes because they became part of "white flight". Why should we have sympathy for those who responded to the same stimulus by moving into expensive fortresses of gentrification? About the only difference I can see is that they use less gasoline in the process. Then again that is somewhat offset by them pricing a lot of people out of the market for anything centrally located.

[Midlodemocrat]

88. Have you ever tried to commute into Manhattan? It's a fucking nightmare.

I do not blame anyone in the least for living there to avoid that commute.

And, it's a question of size of area as well. Santa Barbara, CA doesn't allow new building every once in a while, so of course, the prices of existing properties skyrocket.

If your job is in NYC, I cannot begrudge you not commuting. I did it. It sucked.

[JVS]

89. From Harlem or the Bronx? A nightmare? Are you fucking joking?

Are you telling me that to work in Manhattan you have to live below 85th street or it's no dice? from 95th to 150th street would be impossible to swing?

[Midlodemocrat]

90. I'm saying that to get a decently priced place, you would have to

commute from further out. My brother's apartment in Brooklyn, 2 bedrooms, very low tech was over $3000 a month. That's three times my mortgage.

I commuted from CT because I couldn't afford to live closer. Plus, if you live in NYC, you have to pay tax. I don't remember the amount, but it's kinda hefty.

[JVS]

94. You realize that the rents would never have gotten that high without the massive inequality in the..

first place? The reason that that place costs so much is that there are people with lots of money who are willing to use the money to make sure that they get it. In fact, they're even willing to get a bit ripped off if necessary if that means that poorer people cannot afford to move in and diminish the status of the neighborhood.

I didn't include Brooklyn on the list above because it has seen some major gentrification.

2 BR in harlem on 133rd for $1200 http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/abo/1131211858.html

[AllieB]

91. It sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder, which impedes you from

participating in a reasonable discussion on this matter.

For the record, I am not defending those that make 250K. You are being judgemental toward those that do, saying they should be frugal and live in a neighborhood where they may not have family, friends, or connections. Do you think it's a bad thing that some of those people may want to live near an elderly parent, or close to their jobs, or near better schools?

And Midlo is right about commuting. I live 20 miles from Boston and if I drove in the morning, it takes on average 1.5-2 hours each way. I take public transportation and it only takes about 1 hour each way. That sucks but I can't afford a house in the city I grew up in (Cambridge) and ironically, where I work today.

[JVS]

95. Did you get your psychology degree from Dr. Laura or are you just upset that I'm not willing to...

to defer to richer people as my social betters?

[Midlodemocrat]

97. I don't think anyone is saying that rich people are better than anyone else.

And, in all honesty, I don't think a salary of $250,000 makes a person rich.

And, for the record, I work with millionaires and multi-millionaires. Most of the ones I work with are damned generous people.

[JVS]

98. Dismissing someone as jealous and having a chip on their shoulder is a naked exercise of class...

privilege. It happens here and it is a result of not being willing to show deference to "superiors". It's a lot like the "angry black man" or the "humorless/unattractive feminist"

[Midlodemocrat]

100. I didn't do that.

I wouldn't do that. Especially not to you.

[JVS]

106. That is true, you didn't. And I appreciate it.

[AllieB]

104. I grew up on government cheese in a working class family.

So am I traitor to my class because I don't have a black-and-white view like yours? What if someone who dedicated their lives to union organizing or a worthy charity earned more than 250K annually (and some do)? Are they part of your problem?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. This from someone who wants to jail people making 250k. Yeah you are credible.

[AllieB]

99. If you can't discuss this subject in a reasonable and rational way

without resorting to a broad-brush characterization of a group of people-in this case based on income level rather than gender, race, or political affiliation, then maybe you should explore where that hatred and resentment comes from. No I'm not Dr. Laura :eyes: but blaming all people who make over 250K for the ills of society is rather odd.

[endarkenment]

103. actually Princeton would make sure that they could.

so go invent another factoid.

[Midlodemocrat]

111. One of the least known facts about financing college is the college

endowments, amounts of which are available on the net. If you are strapped for cash and head to one that has a big endowment, you will be good to go.

A friend of my daughter ended up at either BU, or BC, the expensive one, and didn't have to pay more than $3,000 for the year. And, that family lives a lot better than I do, LOL.

[old mark]

28. Are people really this insensitive? You Betcha! Even more...

Many feel that life is ALL ABOUT MONEY!
Posessions determine who you are, your value or "worth", your very personhood. Ask the GOP.
But remember there are no social classes in America, only the well-off who god favors with wealth because they worked hard and deserve it and the unfortunate who are not willing to work and thus are not on god's good list.

Ask any "good" republican.
Hell, ask my dad!

mark

[crim son]

29. I know, isn't that stupid?

I was listening to the radio the other day and they were talking about legal representation for indigents. They had trouble finding lawyers because the state paid them fifty bucks an hour "which really isn't much," said the commentator.

I live on under thirty K/year. I have a house and three kids, and a single shit car. We don't go to Florida during spring vacation but I can't say we're suffering.

[Waiting For Everyman]

46. How is someone who makes $8/hr. supposed to pay someone who makes $500/hr.?

All "professionals" are unpayable now, for most people. The top tier doesn't see a problem coming with that yet - they're too busy justifying it.

How do they think that is supposed to work, for very long? It's refusing to recognize basic math and logic.

[bemildred]

32. Yes, yes, being rich does cost a lot of money. nt

[ninety lives]

37. I am "poor" right now

But I do not think that $250,000 is "rich". However, I do think that it is upper middle class, not plain old "middle class" and most of the literature I have
read will tell you the same thing. It's not that I am protesting that these people are "rich", it's that if you are upper middle class and complaining
about money in public, maybe you ought to think about how you are spending it.

[bemildred]

41. I once made $130K/annum (1990s).

I literally did not know what to do with that much. I owned a home in Los Angeles and had two new cars, commuted, wife & kids etc. But my tastes are simple and I don't care for conspicuous consumption in the way one has to do it to blow through more than $250K.

[DFW]

36. It's easy to make assumptions and run with them

First of all, every college I know of asks all applicants if they will need financial aid,
and most colleges grant some to half or more or their students, up to and including full
scholarships if they need them. Second, some people have more than child in college at one
time (I sure did). That put me back about $90,000 per year while it lasted, and if I hadn't
budgeted for it WAY beforehand, it would have been painful. As I did make allowances for it,
did stuff like keep a car for 17 years, etc., I refuse to ask for financial aid where some
kids absolutely NEEDED it, and we did not. As it is, the one child that graduated just lost
her first job (company went belly up), so I'm temporarily back in the child support biz. It's
OK, I can handle it. College was more expensive.

If you make a gross of $250,000 in New York City or the Bay Area, you are left with maybe
$150,000 after federal and state taxes. That's still a fair chunk of change, but if you are
also paying out $90,000 or so in tuition, it's down to $60,000. That's STILL plenty to live
on, but don't be into new cars and too nice digs unless you really do live in Wyoming, and
don't take any extended vacations in the Euro zone or Japan unless you stay with relatives.

There are all sorts of variables that enter into a discussion on any one family's situation.
Generalizations on subjects like this are usually inaccurate when applied to any one individual.
Add to that the minor detail that there are a whole lot of people out there who USED to make
$250,000 who now make exactly zero, with no dip in their bills. I have no idea what unemployment
insurance pays, but I'll bet it doesn't cover many of them.

[CBGLuthier]

40. Is "reading between the lines "

code for making shit up that isn't in the article so I can be offended?

Seems to me that some just want something to complain about and I am not talking about the "wealthy" people.

[ninety lives]

44. sorry

I am sorry that I was quick to take offense, I see your point.

[Waiting For Everyman]

45. The wage gap is too wide, that's the problem.

1/3 of our population makes less than $25K now. That's just wrong. The top needs a tax-cap on it to bring it down, and the bottom needs a higher minimum.

Too many people can NOT participate in the economy. AND it's just wrong.

Nobody is so much more talented than the norm, or their time so much more valuable to warrant this. It's stealing from the majority who are underpaid to fund it. Period. That's the reason for the anger today, and it's justified.

[On the Road]

47. I Thought the Point of the Article

was that those with an income of $250K should not be in the same tax bracket as those making $20M, and that higher brackets are needed. I agree with that.

In cities with expensive housing and high state and property taxes, a family with $250K can be affluent but by no means rich.

I don't believe there was any hint at all that rising college costs affect only the affluent, just that they are affected like anyone else.

[ninety lives]

50. Of course they are affected

But if they are going to use the media to air their gripes, they should make it clear that they are doing something about it besides complaining.

Are they seeking solutions? Do they understand why they are feeling pinched? Or do they see this as a progressive situation that cannot be remedied?

Who is their intended audience?

Someone who earns $250,000 a year plays an important role in our economy. They ought to be able to speak more intelligently about it in the media.

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. So, you think a few $250K earners decided to write an article?

Looks to me like they were INTERVIEWED for an article, and they were probably asked questions about their
status.

The intended audience is everyone, although if I'm in Congress, I'm reading carefully.

[DireStrike]

73. Lol... congress and "reading" in the same sentence

They just do what the lobbyists and other people who buy them lunch tell them to do.

[DireStrike]

72. Is that the point?

The author did a terrible job making that point.

Any rational person should agree with that point.

[soothsayer]

48. Dunno. Depends if you live in Manhattan or Arkansas

and if you are insistent on keeping up with the Joneses or if you are thrifty.

[dysfunctional press]

52. families making $250K also have a lot fewer options for financial aid...

and in that sense, a sudden drop in income can cause some problems.

[Midlodemocrat]

58. As in none.

And paying for college out of pocket for your child is a huge expense. Our daughter's college fund was fully funded until last year when it went down over 60% with the drop in the market. So, we got screwed. We had saved for years for her and just watched that cash fly out the window. So, we bit the bullet and paid for her while rolling her fund over to her brother's in the hopes that it would recover a bit.

Trust me, even a state school ain't cheap.

[endarkenment]

105. yes but you will soon be told that college is a luxury that you don't need

and that it is your choice so shutup you thug.

[Midlodemocrat]

115. LOL. Probably true. I buy a lot of things I don't 'need' I think we all do.

For me, though, with two graduate degrees and former teacher, education is a pretty top priority. I'd give up a lot of other things before I wouldn't pay for college.

[Dreamer Tatum]

56. Are reading comprehension skills THAT bad?

Money quote from the article: "But some polling data suggest households that earn above $200,000 went heavily for Mr. Obama in November."

If you read the article instead of sharpening your pitchfork, you'll see that there it has a simple premise: (a) there are a lot of people who earn around the threshold for potential tax increases, and (b) those people aren't so wealthy that they will never miss the money, primarily because of the destruction of wealth over the last couple of years.

There is a huge distinction between someone worth $10 million and someone who makes $250,000, but the putative marginal tax rates may very well be the same. If you've seen your home value and your 401k cut in half, you're simply going to feel poorer if you're not already wealthy. That's all the article is trying to convey. No one said anything about who should be going to college.

If your attitude is "fuck them, they make more than me, so they belong in jail," then see the quote I posted and think again.

[progressoid]

57. Oh, boo fucking hoo Ms. Parnell.

For the Parnells, their perception of themselves is based on the math. The value of their house is down $60,000. Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.

"I'm not after sympathy. We are blessed. What I want is a reality check on what rich means," Ms. Parnell says. "I can pay my mortgage and I can buy some clothes. I'm not going without, but I'm not living a life of luxury."


Face it Ms Parnell, you may not want to sound like you're after sympathy, but you are. Your problem is you aren't as rich as you want to be. And you could be a lot richer if you didn't have to pay taxes like the rest of the world.

Fuck you.

[hileeopnyn8d]

92. That's the part of the article that

bothered me the most.

After taxes, medical, 401k and other deductions they have about $12,000 left. boo-hoo

Then after a large tithe, two mortgages AND land, college funds, car payments, insurance, utilities and what appears to be all other monthly bills - they have about $1,200 left each month.

That's $14,400 (though I'm guessing it's more, because people lie) a year left, after fully funding 401k's and college funds, along with a bunch of other things that THEY see as necessities, but a growing number of this country will never attain no matter how hard they work.

These people live in Tennessee, not a super high cost of living area.

One thing I've noticed from being on message boards and interacting with a diverse demographic, is many of the people that rail on about taxes, are looking at their take-home pay after all deductions, and lumping all the blame for that bottom line number on taxes only.

Whereas people who are truly middle-class tend to look at what they're paying out for healthcare, while they nervously cross their fingers and hope that the measly amount they are able to put into their 401k, along with social security, will someday allow them to retire.

[jmowreader]

120. The "tithe" is actually right about where it should be

Tithe means "tenth"--Christians are expected to contribute one tenth of their income to the church. Hence, if you make $12,000/month you're supposed to tithe $1200. They're doing $1300, which makes it a "contribution" instead of just a "tithe."

Hey, it beats what many Fristians do when it comes to tithing, which is to go into an empty room with their money, close the door, look up and say, "Lord, I'm going to throw this money up into the air. Grab what you want."

[Mamacrat]

151. Money left over.

I'd say that anyone who has money left over at the end of the month has a pretty good life. Maybe they've had to cut back on some luxuries, but probably don't realize that being able to buy enough food or clothes for some people is a luxury to them.

[Telly Savalas]

160. Yeah, that blows my mind too.

How can anyone meet all of their living expenses (including profoundly non-essential items like a $1.3K/mo tithe and a payment on land), have $1,200 a month left over to do whatever they want with, and have any complaints about their financial situation?

That is simply insane.

[kentuck]

61. A $1,000,000 a year might not be a lot of money if...

you have three homes to take care of and a personal jet with personal aides. It is all relevant.

[tabbycat31]

62. it's all relative to the cost of living

[tjwash]

66. Yes...we all have our different level of "hand to mouth" plateau in America don't we?

Another old saying comes to mind as well..."you always spend what you make."

[DireStrike]

71. If you can't live on 250k, ANYWHERE in america, then you are a fool

A poor shopper no doubt. You want to pay for prestige and position rather than value.

Live in NY? Send your kids to CUNY, about 2000 a semester. I can almost pay for it working a minimum wage job on the side.

Expensive apartment in manhattan? Move to another borough.

Eating at exclusive restaurants? Try cheaper ones. Food is food, you'll get used to it.

Car payments? Insurance? Lose one of your multiple cars. And we know you're insuring out of state anyway.


You can only be throwing away money if 250k isn't cutting it.

[JVS]

86. Amen

[SheilaT]

96. The real issue is that most people

live on whatever they earn, whether it's minimum wage of millions of dollars a year.

I recently went from being reasonably well off (exact yearly income isn't important)to just scraping by. Luckily, I had do debt, so I'm not struggling with a car payment or credit card bills. I'm amazed at what I can do without and still have a decent standard of living. I never eat out any more, I get books from the library instead of the bookstore or Amazon, I don't have cable, I have lots of yarn and embroidery projects purchased when I had more money so I have enough of that to keep me occupied for years.

How well off someone else is depends a lot on where you already stand. Right now I'd be immensely thrilled to start making 50 grand a year. If I got 250k, even with whatever I'd give up in taxes I probably would not know how to spend it all. Someone already making, say 350k a year who has a high mortgage -- maybe even two of them, a couple of new SUVs which means gas costs them a lot more, expects to go somewhere expensive for vacation several times a year and maybe even has a kid or two in college, that person is hurting. And probably has no idea how to cut back. If you live in a neighborhood where everyone else has two or three SUVs, a gardener, a daily cleaning service, you get your hair done (cut and colored for the women) every few weeks, acrylic nails, new clothes practically weekly, eat out at least four or five nights a week, and so on and so forth, you're out of money before you realize it.

I'm finding that my new economic straits has almost completely broken the urge to consume in me. Of course, not watching commercial television also helps a lot since I'm simply not exposed to the advertising.

Anyway, while I don't think we should necessarily feel sorry for the poor unfortunate making only 250k per year, we all need to have an understanding that the person with that income may not actually be rich. Heck, what if the 250k is down from double that two years ago?

[redqueen]

108. oops

I searched for the title of this article and the names of the two people first mentioned but didn't find it so I posted it again.

GRRRR

[backtoblue]

109. offensive

I have a college degree, make less than 30,000K a year, and am a single mother. I also have a mortgage, college fund for my child, and student loans to repay. If I can make it, I'm sure those making 250,000 or more are just going to have to live less luxuriously. I am offended by a richer person who didn't manage or save their money well to whine when they still have money for frivolous things...

[demodonkey]

110. I'd GLADLY take $50K or even a fraction of it...

...defending election integrity is not a high-income endeavor in this country.

[LaPera]

114. If my family was making over a million dollars every four years, That's well off!

[Midlodemocrat]

126. Not if your living costs eat it all up, you're not.

$250,000 in New York City or Chicago isn't what it is in a rural town in Oklahoma. Not even close.

[kentuck]

141. Unbelievable !

:-)

[GreenTea]

147. Move to Queens & take the subway....over a million bucks every four years is fucking WELL OFF!

That's a lot of fucking money!

[Initech]

117. I will never understand economics as long as I live.

Fuck, I'd gladly take $50k no matter what the job at this point.

[jmowreader]

118. Let's read between the lines a bit, as you suggest

John Jones' family makes $50,000/year. They're doing okay. They're making their house note, their car note, putting two children through the University of Tennessee (a very good school, don't knock it) on scholarship and they take a one-week trip to one of America's great golf destinations every year. They know Jack Smith's family makes $250,000/year and think, "Jack has it made. He doesn't have to worry about anything."

We know Jack Smith's family makes $250,000/year because we already discussed that. But Jack's house is bigger, he drives a car that's five years newer than John's, he's putting two kids through Duke, one through MIT and one through Caltech on smaller scholarships than John's kids have because the good ones look at "need" and, after all, Jack DOES pull down a quarter-million per year...plus Jack's wife has an expensive medical condition that passed its lifetime coverage limit about ten years ago and his stock portfolio, thanks to the worthless bastard Jack voted for in 2000, is worth a tenth of what it was during the Clinton Administration. Thanks to Jack's bills, his "vacation" consists of laying out behind his house for a week with a cooler full of beer and a pad of paper on which he's writing folk songs for the non-downtrodden.

It's the "grass is always greener" phenomenon with numbers attached.

[jmg257]

122. He explains it..."because upper-income earners are much less likely to receive...financial aid"

"Education costs, which are far outstripping wages and income, are especially worrisome for this income bracket because upper-income earners are much less likely to receive the kind of financial aid that lower income levels can expect."

And he is right, of course.

[hileeopnyn8d]

128. Well

we make (much)less than half of that, and the only "financial aid" we are eligible for is a ParentsPlus loan.

Which I don't consider financial aid at all.

[endarkenment]

144. Apply to a private university with a good endowment.

They will accept you on merit, not financial status, and they will arrange a financial aid package that you can afford that will be a mixture of grants, work study, and loans.

[w4rma]

133. Fine, then. We should make public colledges free as public schools are. (nt)

[JerseygirlCT]

159. Exactly. nt

[SheilaT]

164. On the other hand, real bright kids

from upper income families might get enough merit aid to make a difference.

My younger son, not eligible for need based aid, was simply offered some free money (financial aid) at two of the schools he'd applied to. I got the one he preferred to go to to up their offer.

In fact, I had just picked him up from school, started lecturing him about how he should be getting better grades and should have done better on his standardized tests, and what a shame because he could probably get some scholarship money with better grades and test scores. "And oh, by the way, here's a letter for you from one of your colleges." He opened it and started reading: "Congratulations! You have been awarded a scholarship worth $8,000 per year, renewable for a total of four years." I thought he was making it up. Nope, he wasn't. Two days later the second school came through with some money. Without him ever applying for it. I was hornswoggled.

[Stinky The Clown]

124. Without even reading the link I'm suspicious

Charlottesville, VA

University of Virginia - pretty much a good thing.

Heritage Foundations - not so good. And the name of this organization sounds very right wing (which is to say so benign and warm and fuzzy)

[JI7]

130. the 250k assholes think they deserve to live a more expensive lifestyle than others

even if it's beyond their finanacial means .

[Karenina]

146. Americans are so poorly educated about money...

Legions who have just received a TAX CUT holding racist signs denouncing the one who PUSHED IT THROUGH FOR THEM!!! :shrug:
If you make 12K a year and grok how 250K is chump change, gimme a holler! :evilgrin:

[JerseygirlCT]

153. Consider that at that level, college is likely being paid

at 100% tuition, out of pocket. Financial aid is not going to be a part of it.

You also have to consider COL in any particular area. 250k in the middle of the country might be a whole lot of money. It buys you much less in the northeast or in CA.

I'm one who firmly believes in a college education. I think it ought to be completely accessible to every student who wants it, and I think we're not doing enough, as a people, to make that possible.

[Pubslayer]

165. S.F. isn't Kansas

$250k isn't rich. These are people who are good at working, same as at the bottom; if you want to "hate the rich" at least move onto people who get money for free, like hedge fund managers, actors, politicians, etc. In San Francisco a small single family home starts at $800k, and I'm talking right now - after the housing price sag. So you put down 20% - that's $160k in cash, and still have a mortgage of $5000 a month. Your property tax will cost 1.25%, or $10000 on top of that. Insurance will cost that again. What do you get for $800k? A 1300 sq/ft 80 year old house with 1 parking space. If you have to park in a garage for work you will pay at least $18 a day, and $5 to cross a bridge. Childcare for me costs $1000 a month. My workplace offers childcare, but they charge $1800 a month. These are all big numbers, and when stuff doesn't go right it all implodes very quickly, so you get pretty obsessive about numbers. It isn't your salary that defines your wealth - its what's left over.

[JerseygirlCT]

166. Did you think that I was arguing a different point here?

Or was your post in the wrong place.

I've already said that 250k in CA or the northeast is quite different from 250k in the middle of the country. It's not poor, for sure, but it doesn't go nearly as far.

I'm going to assume you were responding to the people in this thread carrying a chip on the shoulder about anyone making 250k or more; I'm not one of them.

[endarkenment]

168. 'what's left over' - indeed wealth is not income.

The rich have that incredible luxury - financial independence that results in freedom from economic insecurity.

I have a very simple definition of rich: 'freedom from economic insecurity'. I know one family in that situation. Everyone else I know, regardless their annual income, is just another working stiff a few paychecks away from homeless.

The funny thing is that with a few relatively modest changes to our economic and political system we could all have freedom from economic insecurity. We could all be effectively rich.