What do you consider rich?

[johnstown_johnn]

In my borough you are considered rich if your income is over $35,000 a year. So, if you make $36,000 you still pay a school tax of $1300 per year.

So, from a bureaucratic standpoint $36,000 a year is rich.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In my borough you are considered rich if your income is over $35,000 a year. So, if you make $36,000 you still pay a school tax of $1300 per year.

So, from a bureaucratic standpoint $36,000 a year is rich.

Bill Clinton used to say, “Why as Governor of Arkansas, I never made more than $30,000 a year.”

Of course, he lived in a mansion, with servants, gardeners, and had a chauffered car to take him wherever he wanted to go.

Which explains his ideas on taxes – if you can have all that on $30,000 a year, you must be rich.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In my borough you are considered rich if your income is over $35,000 a year. So, if you make $36,000 you still pay a school tax of $1300 per year.

So, from a bureaucratic standpoint $36,000 a year is rich.

Right you are.

The problem is that bureaucrats and politicians conveniently overlook that they have taxpayer-paid pension plans and medical benefits (and now paid family leave). Plus paid vacation.

A lot of people in the private sector don’t have all that. AND a lot of people in the private sector have NONE OF THAT.

Those benefits are extremely expensive, but they ARE FREE to the government employees and to the bureaucrats and to the politicians.

And without thinking, they ASSUME everyone in the private sector has them. But the private sector folks DON’T.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In my borough you are considered rich if your income is over $35,000 a year. So, if you make $36,000 you still pay a school tax of $1300 per year.

So, from a bureaucratic standpoint $36,000 a year is rich.

Right you are.

The problem is that bureaucrats and politicians conveniently overlook that they have taxpayer-paid pension plans and medical benefits (and now paid family leave). Plus paid vacation.

A lot of people in the private sector don’t have all that. AND a lot of people in the private sector have NONE OF THAT.

Those benefits are extremely expensive, but they ARE FREE to the government employees and to the bureaucrats and to the politicians.

And without thinking, they ASSUME everyone in the private sector has them. But the private sector folks DON’T.

It’s ok, fine, to have them. But they shouldn’t be making tax policy as if the folks in the private sector DO have them.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In my borough you are considered rich if your income is over $35,000 a year. So, if you make $36,000 you still pay a school tax of $1300 per year.

So, from a bureaucratic standpoint $36,000 a year is rich.

Right you are.

The problem is that bureaucrats and politicians conveniently overlook that they have taxpayer-paid pension plans and medical benefits (and now paid family leave). Plus paid vacation.

A lot of people in the private sector don’t have all that. AND a lot of people in the private sector have NONE OF THAT.

Those benefits are extremely expensive, but they ARE FREE to the government employees and to the bureaucrats and to the politicians.

And without thinking, they ASSUME everyone in the private sector has them. But the private sector folks DON’T.

It’s ok, fine, to have them. But they shouldn’t be making tax policy as if the folks in the private sector DO have them.

 

[mary_bobo]

Right you are.

The problem is that bureaucrats and politicians conveniently overlook that they have taxpayer-paid pension plans and medical benefits (and now paid family leave). Plus paid vacation.

A lot of people in the private sector don’t have all that. AND a lot of people in the private sector have NONE OF THAT.

Those benefits are extremely expensive, but they ARE FREE to the government employees and to the bureaucrats and to the politicians.

And without thinking, they ASSUME everyone in the private sector has them. But the private sector folks DON’T.

It’s ok, fine, to have them. But they shouldn’t be making tax policy as if the folks in the private sector DO have them.

Then how are they going to pay for all those earmarks?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The “Poverty Line” is established at $30,000 per year. If you make $6,000 over that…well, you are rich. The tax man cometh.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The “Poverty Line” is established at $30,000 per year. If you make $6,000 over that…well, you are rich. The tax man cometh.

Actually, the poverty line as established by the Federal Government is set at much lower than $30,000, but it does very by household size.

Now, just to be difficult, let me ask the following question. How do we know that $36,000 per year is not rich? My point is, that it seems that we are running into the problem of determining who is rich subjectively. And our subjective definition of rich, never includes ourselves. Perhaps there should be an objective definition of rich, we might not fare so well under that measurement.

For example, someone earning $36,000 per year is probably richer than many of the rich people during the time of Jesus. So if we were to measure who is rich objectively, should we consider living standards in our generation or previous generations?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, the poverty line as established by the Federal Government is set at much lower than $30,000, but it does very by household size.

Now, just to be difficult, let me ask the following question. How do we know that $36,000 per year is not rich? My point is, that it seems that we are running into the problem of determining who is rich subjectively. And our subjective definition of rich, never includes ourselves. Perhaps there should be an objective definition of rich, we might not fare so well under that measurement.

For example, someone earning $36,000 per year is probably richer than many of the rich people during the time of Jesus. So if we were to measure who is rich objectively, should we consider living standards in our generation or previous generations?

As we become more wealthy, our wealth consists not of more land, sheep, and jewels, but of things that never existed before – automobiles, air conditioners, televisions, computers.

It is tempting therefore, to compare ourselves to people living thousands of years ago, but at some point the comparison fails because our world is so different from earlier worlds.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Actually, the poverty line as established by the Federal Government is set at much lower than $30,000, but it does very by household size.

Now, just to be difficult, let me ask the following question. How do we know that $36,000 per year is not rich? My point is, that it seems that we are running into the problem of determining who is rich subjectively. And our subjective definition of rich, never includes ourselves. Perhaps there should be an objective definition of rich, we might not fare so well under that measurement.

For example, someone earning $36,000 per year is probably richer than many of the rich people during the time of Jesus. So if we were to measure who is rich objectively, should we consider living standards in our generation or previous generations?

this sounds loke socialistic jargon. wow!

 

[stinkcat_14]

As we become more wealthy, our wealth consists not of more land, sheep, and jewels, but of things that never existed before – automobiles, air conditioners, televisions, computers.

It is tempting therefore, to compare ourselves to people living thousands of years ago, but at some point the comparison fails because our world is so different from earlier worlds.

Certainly, our world is different from their world, but it is not because we have less than they have, but because we have more. They had housing, we have higher quality housing. They had methods of transportation, we have faster and better methods of transportation. They had food, we have cheaper and more variety of the food we eat. The comparison may not be easy, but it can be done.

 

[stinkcat_14]

this sounds loke socialistic jargon. wow!

Interesting, I have never been called a socialist before. Would a good socialist have money in the stock market?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

With a $36,000 GROSS income try planning a Hawaiian vacation.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Interesting, I have never been called a socialist before. Would a good socialist have money in the stock market?

many politicians have blind trusts in the stock market and many have net woth over $1 million. And it is THEY who puch socialistic legislation.

Does that sound like you?

 

[stinkcat_14]

many politicians have blind trusts in the stock market and many have net woth over $1 million. And it is THEY who puch socialistic legislation.

Does that sound like you?

Not in the least, if you read my posts here on CA, I have never advocated socialist legislation. Second, all I did is question how we define rich. What I pointed out is that we are all defining rich subjectively, and I suggested that perhaps with a more objective measure, $36,000 per year could be considered rich. Now, the only response that I have had is to be called socialist.

 

[stinkcat_14]

With a $36,000 GROSS income try planning a Hawaiian vacation.

Is this the definition of rich, to be able to vacation in Hawaii? Would vacationing in Hawaii be impossible on $36,000 per year? I don’t think so, it would just entail some sacrifices. For example, I once spent two weeks in Taiwan when my gross income was $35,000 per year. I don’t imagine Taiwan is much less expensive than Hawaii.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Is this the definition of rich, to be able to vacation in Hawaii? Would vacationing in Hawaii be impossible on $36,000 per year? I don’t think so, it would just entail some sacrifices. For example, I once spent two weeks in Taiwan when my gross income was $35,000 per year. I don’t imagine Taiwan is much less expensive than Hawaii.

OK, OK, you win. Your facts are irrefutable. You are so convincing. I should be ashamed of my relative wealth.

But I won’t play the stock market to get richer…I’ll just go out and purchase some sheep and goats. Thanks for the enlightenment. I realize how wrong I was.

 

[stinkcat_14]

OK, OK, you win. Your facts are irrefutable. You are so convincing. I should be ashamed of my relative wealth.

But I won’t play the stock market to get richer…I’ll just go out and purchase some sheep and goats. Thanks for the enlightenment. I realize how wrong I was.

First of all, I don’t know how much wealth you have, so I did not make any judgements about you. I just questioned how we measure who is rich. I also, did not raise any objection to having money in the stock market, some of my wealth is in stocks.

I just suggested that we might be measuring wealth using the wrong scale. For merely asking that question, I get accused of floating a socialist idea. Then you proceed to argue that being rich means that you can vacation in Hawaii. You suggested that it was impossible for someone earning $36,000 per year. I conceded that it wouldn’t necessarily be easy, but it would be possible.

You have not offered any proof of your assertions. I guess you are conceding that there is no proof for your assertions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Certainly, our world is different from their world, but it is not because we have less than they have, but because we have more. They had housing, we have higher quality housing. They had methods of transportation, we have faster and better methods of transportation. They had food, we have cheaper and more variety of the food we eat. The comparison may not be easy, but it can be done.

I don’t agree – there is such a thing as a difference in quality being so great as to constitute a difference in kind. A burro isn’t a car just because we call it “transportation.”

A computer isn’t the same – even remotely – as a wax tablet and stylus. Nor is a telephone the same as a papyrus scroll.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t agree – there is such a thing as a difference in quality being so great as to constitute a difference in kind. A burro isn’t a car just because we call it “transportation.”

A computer isn’t the same – even remotely – as a wax tablet and stylus. Nor is a telephone the same as a papyrus scroll.

Thank you for proving my point. A car is much different from a burro, and it is only different in one direction, it is better. So the car is a qualitative improvement over the burro, which means that in that dimension, we are better off than they we 2,000 years ago. After all, we still have the option to use burros for transportation, we just choose not to.

Same thing with the computer and the wax tablet. They are both used for communication, but one is just much more efficient.

The point is, that in every instance where there has been a change in technology it has allowed the masses to have access to things that only the rich would have 2,000 years ago.