The Overtaxed $250K Couple: ‘We’re Not Rich’

“I was amazed when I saw people earning $200,000 described as “the wealthy”.”

It is a lot of money, though I don’t know about “wealthy”. There is no reason for a couple making this much money to live in NYC and complain about it; the suburbs (connected by highways, trains, and ferries) have many people living in them at a fraction of the cost while still working in NYC.

I think about how much income my wife and I have (far less than half of what these people have), then think about all of the extra money they would have to play with if they kept it simple (which apparently they don’t). I don’t want their taxes increased, but I don’t want to hear them complain either.

The 2012 election showed how few voters are left in this country that ever think they’ll even earn $100K. Every job that people put forth as “where the money is” have companies scrambling madly to either outsource the work or import foreigners to do it; the companies have no interest in paying a “market rate” according to supply and demand within the US (see tech, nursing, financial sector). People of all ages are watching our standard of living plummet, and simply didn’t believe Romney would address it (Bush certainly didn’t). It is a shame that so many think communism will help them; it never helped anyone but the upper party members.

This is all just part of THE BIG DEMOCRAT CON GAME.

I was just watching the news and they are talking about hitting the "rich" by getting rid of the home interest deductions. They were saying that only 27% of the people itemize, and most of them are "rich," so they would be the ones hit by ending this deduction.

I make LESS than what this lady pays in taxes, and I have been itemizing for YEARS to avoid paying too much in taxes. With most of my children out of the house, I am now about to be hit with the ATM, so if they ditch this deduction in an effort to hit the "rich," they are going to be PUNCHING THE HELL out of a whole bunch of us middle-class people!

How many of these "tax the rich-liberals" do you think are really paying attention to these negotiations and won't even realize the wool is over their eyes until it is TOO LATE?!?!

You two have touched upon something that's had me scratching my head recently, in the jealousy area. Why is is there are so many who begrudge the earnings of CEOs today, while no-one makes a big deal over the earnings differential between A-list stars and average actors? Or, for that matter, the pay differential between NHL stars and the average minor-league player?

Why is it that no-one pines for the "good old days" when NHL stars pulled in ten grand a year (less than $100,000 in today's dollars?)

It's a telling inconsistency. One the one hand, CEO salaries have skyrocketed. On the other hand, an NFL or NBA star has enough swag to become next-door neighbours with the CEO of a major listed company. Back in the "good old days" of the '50s and '60s, their chances of moving into the CEO part of town were zero. Only top-level Hollywood actors could - and they didn't, preferring Hollywood.

It's an inconsistency we take for granted. The only rancour over high Hollywood salaries I've seen here is because of their left-liberalism and support for higher taxes plus the economic jealousy that fuels them. That's not really jealousy of the rich actors, it's the calling-out of performative hypocrisy.

And yet, even for some here, there's a lot of rancor over high CEO salaries. It's one of those taken-for-granted inconsistencies that's hard to spot and puzzling when it's spotted. No-one here, including me, begrudges any star athlete his/her good fortune - even though pay packets for the best have risen longer and stronger than CEO pay packs. The pro-athlete and Hollywood-star "pay revolution" got rolling in the 1970s, not the 1980s.

Is there a professor-level economic historian in the house? If so, you've got a "cool"-level paper waiting to be written. "The Pay Revolution 1970-2000: How Top Pro Athletes, Hollywood Stars And CEOs Skyrocketed Their Income And Jacked Up The Pay Differential Between Their Select Top-Level Group And The Norm."

Interesting points. It’s true: why do celebrities (sports, movies, TV, the Presidency) get to pull down huge salaries and perks without a complaint from people who work much harder and earn far less, while people who build a business or invest in their futures -and have spent years studying or preparing to do so - and earn what is by celebrity standards a fairly modest income are portrayed as evil bloodsucking leeches? And are even perceived as such by many on FR, who should know better?

The reason Obama has gotten away with all that he has is that he has been projected as a celebrity. This is a term that is hard to define, and maybe the same doctoral dissertation should look at this area...

There’s no question that people choose to live in high cost areas because of culture, nightlife, jobs lots of reasons. I live in Chicago costs a lot for a place to live but then again I don’t need or want a car. Saves a lot of money. That said all the smugness on this thread may be short lived. Your think the feds are going to stop at $250.000.00 a year..???? LOL. They’re softening it up they want a lot more from all of us. And for those who think because they live in less expensive areas all is well??? Well guess what? The IRS is a step ahead of you. They already have what’s called” maximum allowable expense’s” tagged to where you live. If you don’t think there’re already thinking about it ...Wake the heck up it’s the new normal. You’re going to be taxed more just because you chose to live in a low expense area.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.