$400,000 per year = $33,333 per month

Life would be sweet even on 20,833 a month.

I make just short of that every two weeks and I'm brokedy broke broke living about an hour north of NYC - and I get a once monthly check from the VA for about $1,500 for my disability.

Just curious, not looking for an argument.

I rent a house, drive two cars that are nearly 10 years old, and I have two kids. My wife doesn't work, but she is a full-time stay-at-home mom. I feel like I'm just scraping by here.

I can live very well on $2,500 a month take-home. I do live alone, I bought a small home three years ago and the payments are affordable. My 2004 Honda Civic is paid off. I almost never buy books but I make great and constant use of the local library. I like to cook and don't eat out very often. I have good friends and we get together just to chat or play card games.

I would love to have more money and do a lot of travelling, but since I did travel a fair amount in my youth, this is okay for now.

Like you, I'm not looking for an argument, but Luxury can be in the way you choose to look at things.

I guess it all comes down to what is important to you in life.

I used to have a job working as a production manager for a large online book retailer (I'm not allowed to say anything bad about them because they threatened to sue me if I did) where I was making boatloads of cash. That job was hell, but I had no problems paying my bills and everything material-wise that I wanted was well within my reach. Actually, the stress from the job ruined my life and did a toll on me. I had some PTSD issues from my time in Iraq and stress was causing me to spiral out of control and really exasperating my PTSD. I'd show up to work feeling like I was drunk (even though I didn't drink), all disorientated and seeing things, throwing up, and freaking out on everyone. I actually was suspended for 5-6 weeks, returned to work, then lost my job about 3 months later (I even was on vacation for one of those three months). When I lost my job it was like a switched flipped in my head and my issues melted away. I was unemployed for four months in 2009-2010 and I eventually got a job working for the federal government as a chemist. I took a pay cut, but now I'm not in charge of anyone and I just poke around a lab all day keeping myself busy. I look forward to going to work everyday and my quality of life has improved drastically.

So, yup. You're right. It is all about how you look at things.

I live in NM, and cost of living is generally cheaper
here than other places I've lived -- but it's more about
being able to afford the essentials + a little more = luxury.
Good quality cat food & medical care, really healthy people
food, cozy & warm living space.. the basics + quality. Most
important, the part that's free.. life, each day, breath
coming in and out, sun & sky, hopeful heart.

Supporting my 6 children and grandchildren; we just scrap by every month. If it was just the wife and I we would be so well off. We gross more per month then 4 of my children who have had their jobs over 10 years.

It is sad that the GOP and others have suppressed wages. This year the minimum wage should be $10 per hour and NO person should earn more than the president or $500K. The extra cash should be GIVEN to workers who are more deserving.

I also think al debts public and private should be CANCELED.........

and would be very happy to make that much money.

edit: Granted, I am single and have no children.

In Arkansas, it would be a dream amount of money.

100 miles north of NYC.

Because here you can live well for 2500/month.
You probably live in Dutchess County. Move to Ulster, and see how much less it costs.

I agree with you about Dutchess County costing more.
However even in Ulster County, two can not live as cheaply as one.

Right across the river from Newburgh and I commute to work at West Point. I'd love to live a little further north in New Paltz, but the town is a little too much of a college town for me. Though it is a pretty area. Beacon to West Point is about a 30 minute commute for me. New Paltz and that area is just a little too far for me.

The Hudson Valley is a great place to live and raise a family. I'm glad I made the move to this area

And let me tell you. New Paltz is one of the most expensive places to live in Ulster. So is Woodstock.
I live in Rosendale. I like to call it, "the poor man's Woodstock."

I know that being that you work at West Point, you must be Army, but if you would like to sail, show up at the Beacon Sloop Club on the first Friday night at around 6 or so, and get involved with a lot of good people on the Hudson River. They have a pot luck dinner, (so bring a dish to share, your own plate, and utensils) followed by a meeting, ending up with an old time Hootenanny. The musicians there are quite good, and some are quite famous.
They also do a number of festivals in the park, by the riverfront. They also own the sloop Woodie Guthrie, a 1/3 size gaff-rigged sloop, modeled after the Sloop Clearwater.
And don't worry about kids, the place is quite kid friendly, and prides itself as such.
During the warmer months, they have work parties, and sail the Woodie every week night. The winter months are dedicated to performing necessary maintenance to the boat, as well as other boats that the club owns.
I had a lot of fun there when I lived closer, but these days, I don't get out of work until late.
And finally, don't worry about the cost. It's a "pay what you can" kind of membership.

I actually work for the Department of Treasury. I'm one of the chemist at the US Mint facility there. Unless you are a coin collector, not a lot of people even know that there is a mint facility at West Point.

The general kid-friendly attitude of Beacon was another of the major points drawing us to Beacon. I've been here just about three years now and I completely love it. As far as the festivals go, I love all the stuff they do at the riverfront. It is so cool to go to one of these events and then to see Pete Seeger just bumbling around with his banjo (or whatever instrument he has that day) on his back. Pete Seeger has done so much for the Hudson River, music, and conservation.

As my kids get a little older and it becomes easier for me to take them out with me, I'll have to check out the boat. I've been threatening to do that for a while now.

I can afford to pay more taxes, and would not oppose lowering the $250k threshold to include my bracket.

My wife and I live in DuPage County Illinois (middle class suburbs west of Chicago). Cost of living & propery taxes here are not cheap, but certainly less than NYC. We're better off than most at our income because we owe nothing on our house or cars and our daughter is finished with college ... but a family living here with a mortgage & car payments & one or more kids in college would have to live frugally to get by on our combined income (together, just under 6 figures).

I feel very fortunate that we can travel on vacations (including my senior softball tournaments out of state) and can afford to buy high quality backpacking gear to indulge my other recreational pursuit. My wife is a wizard with coupons and manages our finances very well.

Hell, even $10000/month would be sufficient in my case, since I'm a very frugal individual.

I mean, you got a $10K/month house payment, $3K on all your multiple cars/SUVs, all the hired help (maids and groundskeepers) to pay, "personal expenses", I mean, sheesh.

Where's the money to pay all those extra 3% in taxes?!?!?

You can deduct mortgage interest, wages to hired help, property taxes, charitable contributions, personal and child deductions etc.
Then if your net income is above still $250,000, you pay the 4.6% increase on the portion over $250,000.

I didn't think I really needed to use the sarcasm tag.

if you make $250,001, you only pay the high rate on $1.00. These media whores make so much money it actually DOES affect them. That's why they don't give the details.

I don't care if you save it all or spend it all. If you piss $1m through your hands in four years that's your problem.

Most people don't see $1m in a lifetime.

median income is $50K/year. If we assume a working life of 40 years (25-65) x $50K/year, we're looking at $2 million in a lifetime of working.

Still, your general point is quite valid.

If $50k can be truly considered the median.



Most people don't start off working $50k a year jobs. They probably toil most of their working lives at far less than that.

Anyway - lots of variables. Point being it is saner to call someone making $250k+ a year a millionaire - than calling someone making $50k a year a millionaire.

Very, very few jobs these days even pay 50k a year. Certainly not the new jobs being created. The second income of most households distorts everything. It camouflages how bad a shape this country is in economically.

Try making it in this country being a single person and then having your career taken away illegally and being over 50. Then you will appreciate just how bad it is out here.

I thought the goal was to raise taxes on the wealthy, 250k a year in household income is not wealthy.
btw, plenty of people see 1M in there lifetime, $25,000 over 40 years is $1,000,000.
So i guess you won't ever see 1M, but most will.

Wealthy? I earn just slightly above that and live in a high cost area of the country. I wish I was wealthy. Do I do well? Yes, but I'm certainly not wealthy especially after paying federal, state, city, and property taxes. You clearly don't know what wealthy means.

That said, I don't mind my taxes going up.

He's just saying $250,000 a year is not wealthy, and I agree.

and dryer for $650 in Wisconsin (heat included). Save yourself a pant's load of money. You could live like a king in my neighborhood.

You think renting gets you away from property taxes?

What, you think the owner of that property just eats those costs and doesn't pass them on to the renter?

If you live in a high tax area, your rent will not be $650 ... for any size anything.

so you can breathe a sigh of relief.

all the accountants

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

CNN reported this morning that the 112th Congress is one of the most unproductive since the 1940s. Their approval rating is at 18%. Boehner makes $234,000 a year*. In salary. That doesn't include any perks, like insider info for market trades. Didn't Bill Frist have a stock trader living at his house?

The whole system is so corrupt & compromised.


* They also reported that Biden makes $231,000 & Reid makes $194,000.

...

$33,000 per month.

Depending on where you live, of course...

Roughly 700,000 people make $400k a year.

Or something like that...

in urban areas.

As they fuck over the middle class....

Meanwhile, any talk about those living on a $600 social security check and no annuities? (Rhetorical question, of course!)

$33,333 per month divided by 20 days (5 day week) is $1666 isn't it?

the number...I guess.

This is who both Parties represent.

it's the stark, ugly truth Kentuck

sadly

More in a month than some make in a year.

Let's be clear, 1.93% of all US households earned over $250,000 in 2006, and I doubt it's gotten any better since then - I'm sure the median of that year, $50,533 is higher than today's.

and that isn't much for them. I find it hard to believe that salaries are that high for the "average" office worker or laborer in those areas. Who makes salaries like this? White collar/professional workers? Mid level management? Just who? Out here in the hinterlands, $50K is seen as good money and $100K is wealthy. You can buy a good house for $100K.

I've had that argument quite a few times here on DU, even in recent months. In every case the noble defender of the $250K paupers claims that baseline cost of living demands that level of income, and after taxes and 401k contributions and insurance premiums and so forth they're left with a mere $1600 of loose cash each month.

How do these poor souls get by?

for one they could switch from two $5.00 Lattes per work day to two $4.00 Lattes per day. That would save them about $500 per year.

I'm sure we on DU could come up with several ways to help these poor souls survive.

You don't have to send your kids to private school? You don't have to drive a car with under 50K miles? You don't have to spend $2K a month eating out and another $2K on clothes? I realize that if you live in Manhattan you have state AND local income tax, and if you make $400K and pay 50% of your income in tax that would suck BUT you still have $4K A WEEK to live on. Can you find a nice place to live in Manhattan for $5K a month? According to Zillow you can. Considering that the median household income is around $50k before taxes I just don't see how someone making 8 times that can say that a tax hike of 5% is unaffordable.

by buying all these luxury items. maybe spending tens of thousands to send kids to private school rather than the very good public school. buying designer crap. buying very expensive cars for each member of the family including under 16 year old who just got driver's license.

most people (including DU'ers) think that returning to the tax rates of the 1950's is way too much.
You know, the times when a CEO made approximately 40x what his/her highest paid worker earned. A time when (not racially) people of all incomes were much more equal.
I am definitely not nostalgic for that period in time. I am nostalgic for a tax system that was actually progressive. Cut out the loopholes and lets get rid of this terrible income disparity. Greed is destroying the world.

My husband and I were talking about one of our children who has a job that entails a lot of responsibility and earns pretty good money. She chose her profession at a very early age, never wavered from her determination to get the education necessary to do it and is utterly devoted to her work.

She lives very simply and is extremely generous. But her most striking trait is her devotion to her work and the people for whom she is responsible. Of course, I'm personally proud of her.

But the thing that struck us is that she, like many other people who are really, really good at what they do, is not in it for the money although she is paid well. She is in it because she cares and really wants to help make the world better.

I do not agree with those who think that you have to pay people large sums of money in order to motivate them or give them incentives. I don't think that anyone will turn down a generous salary of paycheck, but I really don't think that is what motivates excellence in the workplace or business.

Some people will tell you they work for the money, but then you look at what they do and how they live, and you realize they are really working to win the game of working. They are investing to win the game of investing. Or alternatively, they are really working or investing because they love what they do whether they will admit it or not.

So, I think that raising the tax rates really won't be a disincentive at all. People for whom earning a lot of money is a reward because it means that they have won the game will be really angry at first, but they will still get their joy from winning and will soon overcome their anger.

For them, making money is like playing a sport. That is something that many of us wage- and salary-earners don't understand. They will keep playing the sport as long as they can regardless of the prize at the end. Well, I qualify that. When I was working, I sometimes decided at the end of one year what changes I wanted to make in my work and set a number goal about how much I wanted to be earning at the end of the year. I made that goal a surprising number of times (although it was always a modest goal). I found the game of it to be fun. It helped me over those rough days when you really don't want to get up and go to work.

We have nothing to fear from raising the taxes of the rich. They have already invested most of their money overseas. Let's make our part of the world a good, healthy, thriving place with what they owe on the rest. Raising taxes is necessary to do that. If the economy gets better, we can lower them again. In fact that is what we should tell the rich.

You help us get the economy going again, get the employment rate up, get education less expensive and the housing market back on an even keel and you can have your lower tax rates back. But until our economy regains its health, we are putting you on a high-tax, lower take-home diet. Thank you very much.

Now that is the kind of compromise that we should be talking about -- working together to make the country better, not taking from a relatively poor group in exchange for lower taxes for the rich.

People often look at hourly wages, especially the working class.

I cannot say how many hours a week these over $400,000 people work, and I am sure that it ranges from few to astronomical hours. But I know that the people I have worked for who are in the high earnings usually 1) show up much later than the workers, 2) talk about all the late hours they work---even if they did start halfway through the day, 3) do the haircut, spa, workouts, etc during the work day, and 4) call golf games and three hour lunches "working".

Every so often I'll ask someone how much they make, but not to tell me the number that comes to mind, as it really isn't my business. And then I'll ask them if the number they thought if is their yearly, monthly, bi-weekly paycheck, or hourly wage. It's simply an interesting way to see how people think of their income.

Me, I can tell you my hourly wage, but I also know what my paycheck is if I have no overtime. Since Thanksgiving I've been working overtime every week, so I've gotten a series of much larger than usual paychecks, which is nice. I actually have to look at my pay stub to see what I make on the yearly basis, because that number isn't very meaningful to me, since I get a paycheck every other week.

$400,000. Those kinds of salaries belong to people who don't have to go through much of a work review or evaluation. They are usually the people reviewing or evaluating others.

If they applied the standard to themselves that they apply to their underlings at evaluation time, the American economy would be roaring.

when I worked at an accounting firm, and I was called on the carpet over my billable hours being too low. I just looked right at the partner reviewing me and told him that problem belonged in his evaluation....it was his responsibility to keep me in work, and if he didn't bring enough work in for us, that did not fall on me.

I don't work there anymore. (But I didn't get fired, I just got lectured.)

$10,000 per month is much more than enough money in most parts of the country.

If you are making more than that, you usually can afford to tighten your belt quite a bit.

The exceptions are people who have a disabled family member or someone with a chronic medical condition that insurance does not cover and people with very large student loans or a large family.

Also, people who are taking the income of their business as personal income and putting it back into the business may appear to have higher incomes than they really do. They can remedy that if they want to.

That $250,000 a year is not that much money because those people are struggling too as though they are only one step removed from the soup kitchen. What does it say when people in the message business are that far removed from reality.

Democrats are a bunch of communists Bennett upon staking his hard earned money...and that they should bleep themselves..

It also depends on where you live. $250K goes a lot farther in Houston than it does in Manhattan. But struggling? I am disabled and living on one third what I grossed in my best year, 2003. If you told me I could live on this in 2003 I would have laughed in your face. You can't control the cards you're dealt, just how you play your hand. But as difficult as my situation is, it's better than my roommate's, so I am grateful. I got a roof over my head (for now) and food in my belly. Everything else is gravy.

If another $125/mo of taxes on $30k/mo of income is putting somebody in the poor house then I guess it's time to stop buying a new Porsche 911 every year.

The end of the payroll tax holiday means they will pay an additional 2% on the first $110K. If they have one earner that's $2200, but if you have a husband that makes $150K and a wife that makes $200K, then it will be $4400.

Someone who has $350K of taxable income will be in the 36% bracket rather than the 33%. Assuming that the top $140K is taxed at 36%, they'll pay an extra $4200. Of course someone making $350K before taxes still has more in their wallet at the end of the day than the average family that's making $50K before taxes.

I think people who work ( and go to school forever and take on enormous debt) should be spared until we go after the trust fund babies and wall street gangsters first.

It is rewarding disruptive non-work financial shenanigans and effectively punishing those who actually work and have earned income. The low capital gains/dividend tax is not incentivizing what we want it to which is real capital investment in businesses, and it is instead primarily funding speculation and disruption.

It's high time we stopped listening to such protestations of poverty from fat cats and reinstitute a real progressive tax structure.

Democracy cannot coexist with plutocracy. We have to choose.

via zip code maps and $150,000 a year in household income (after deductions of course) is enough to get you in many wealthy areas in California including Beverly Hills.

http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com/

250,000 - 400,000 got a sweet deal

$400,000 per year = $7692.31 per week , or $1095.89 per day
-- or --
$250,000 per year = $4807.69 per week, $684.93 per day

But of course, if they referred to it that way then people could more easily figure out just how tremendously they're screwin' their pooches. Might make some folks a little angrier than they already are.

- And we can't have that, now can we?

K&R

their " boss?"

DON'T WE HAVE A SAY IN HOW MUCH THEY GET!!!