Vanity Fair/ 60 minutes Poll Most Americans want the rich to pay higher taxes- much higher

[grantcart]

Poll

If the Obama administration proposed a TAX OF 50 PERCENT OR HIGHER on the incomes of the wealthiest millionaires, would you support it?
. . . . . .TOTAL. . . UNDER $15K. . .$15K–$30K. . $30K–$50K. . $50K–$100K . . $100K+. MEN. . WOMEN
Yes. . . . .51%. . . . .61% . . . . . .51%. . . . . . .59% . . . . . . .54%. . . . . . .32%. . . .46%. . .57%
No . . . . .45%. . . . .36% . . . . . .46%. . . . . . .35% . . . . . . .43%. . . . . . .64%. . . .51%. . .39%


http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/11/60-minutes-poll200911?currentPage=6


Pretty radical resutls considering a top rate of 42% would likely fund everything.

[sui generis]

1. time for some tough love

Remember that promising a chunk of that 42% back will fund the republican party for the next century.

That was the first thing.

And

Why are we always so STUPID as to use the phrase "the rich".

Can you imagine singling out "the poor"? Do people not get that class wars against "the rich" are as ignoble as class wars against "the poor?". Or is that just too progressive?

There is a right way and a wrong way to get the desired result, and clue: this ain't the right way by declaring class war on the faceless "rich".

Fair taxation - that's a concept I could get behind, with none of the particulars changed. But going after the "einviger jews", oh I'm sorry, "the rich" is in pretty poor taste.

And it makes us look really small as a party to have to frame it this way.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. If the rich could no longer dodge their taxes

They wouldn't have as much money to fund the Repuke party.

[sui generis]

10. well the poor are stupid stinking retards who should earn more money

nice huh?

really, it's about that lame to hear it about "the rich". Can't we be a little more adult?

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. I don't need to make the argument for taxing the rich.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Jay Rockefeller have already done so. And when three of the richest guys on the planet are saying "Please, fucking tax us already", who am I to tell them they are wrong?

[sui generis]

67. I'm not talking about the principle of it

I'm talking about our peasant attitudes towards "the rich", the nameless, faceless rich, as nameless, faceless evil.

It's really shabby for a progressive to play at class war. I'm not defending people who don't do their part, just not saying that "the rich" are like "the jews" or "the blacks" or whatever other social ill and evil tiny minded people conceive to paint their problems with.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. The class war is being fought with or without progressives participating.

I, for one, prefer to be more than just target practice.

[sui generis]

69. ugh.

Well I don't have to put up with it, so be prepared. I am not tolerant.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Consider me warned.

:scared:

[sui generis]

71. not you - the "collective" you

sorry didn't mean to be penny-opera sinister. I think we do a disservice to ourselves by allowing ourselves the indulgence of going after a group of people on the basis of our moral judgment about who they are.

Rich isn't well defined.

"The" in front of any class group gives me the deep down creeps. There are people who will lynch any group starting with "the" and they wouldn't stop with "the" rich any more than the french revolution stopped with the aristocracy. It was just an excuse to separate people from their things and their heads.

We can be smarter. We don't need to name groups of people vindictively when we can address the real problem - we all need to pay more taxes in order to exercise our social values more effectively, and that certainly includes high income earners too, without exception.

We can do this with a little more grace than we have been.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. I can align myself with that concern.

A progressive tax code that reaches the 70-90th percentiles and treats dividends as income removes all necessity of using definite articles in front of classes and groups.

I will add, however, that I don't see "The Rich" as a pejorative, although your point of ill definition rings true. On the flip side, "welfare queen," "lazy," "communist," etc, are routinely used as talking points.

My point was that whether you like it or not, there is a centuries long commitment by a certain class of persons to guarantee that another certain class of persons shoulder a larger proportional burden of pain than themselves. Where is the grace in that?

[jotsy]

52. And another thing, about your sig line.

I'd be hard pressed to describe anyone who doesn't understand that imagination and intelligence aren't warring concepts but designed to work in unison as "adult".

Fixing the laws to accomodate same sex marriage isn't necessary IMO, as consenting adults, it has always been within their right to do so.

[sui generis]

66. now you done did it.

My sig line is because we're going to make it happen, whether your IMO believes anything is necessary or not. You are on DU. If you don't like the idea of same gender marriage, you had most certainly better not ever speak to me again, and that's the ONLY civility I will give you on that topic. Here's your one free pass, don't waste it.

[scubadude]

16. I agree, terms are important. We should "roll the tax rate back" to the 1957 rate.

91% for all earnings above $400,000. To be fair, we should adjust that figure for inflation.

Scuba

[sui generis]

18. brazilliant.

Oh wait, then we'd be living in the fifties. We should also start randomly lynching people and shooting scabs who cross the Ford picket lines.

:eyes:

[scubadude]

21. I sugest we correct a vast injustice, you reply that action would turn back time...

I don't find it particularly ironic that your mumblings are in favor of the rich, thoughts of such nature are far from unique. Generic actually.

Scuba

[sui generis]

64. my mumblings are in favor of not using phrases like "the rich"

quite generic actually.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Shooting scabs would be a bit extreme

But they certainly deserve to get their asses kicked.

[Hannah Bell]

43. because taxing the rich leads to lynching & murder of scabs. funny *you're* the one

using the rolly eye thingee.

[sui generis]

65. the rich the rich, the rich

the evil rich, the evil poor.

DOES ANYONE WHO USES THE PHRASE THE RICH not understand how fucking stupid you sound? As stupid as someone using the phrase "the poor" in a negative light.

Please use your ignore button.

[me b zola]

72. You sound as though being rich is a burden

It must be horrible. I'm in favor of alleviating people's burdens.

[sui generis]

73. no I'm in favor of eliminating stupidity

Fortunately for most, being stupid is not a crime until it becomes a darwin award.

I had no idea there were so many petty nasty little people who call themselves progressive. I guess progressive is just another shepherd for the sheep who got bored with the freep.

[conflictgirl]

38. Hey, I'd be happy even to go back to the tax rate under their beloved Reagan

We'd at least have more tax revenue coming in then.

[One_Life_To_Give]

41. How will Ball Players and Rappers survive?

Actually I suppose they will for corporations, "Tom Brady Inc." which will bill the Pats 15million a year but have expenses for Security, media relations, etc. So Toms income will not be 15 mil but something much, much less. Although from an outside view one probably won't be able to tell.

[jotsy]

49. They declared war on us as the New York times explained in a series of articles from June, 2005.

Check it out and catch up!

What I recall of the highlights are that as of then, the hyper-rich had already dispensed with the middle class, and was preparing to take aim at the merely rich. So, IMO, whatever the citizenry can make happen is a corrective measure, in response to decades of the public will being usurped by the affluent.

The manner in which you make the points of your post is both telling and tactical. In just seven short statements you have called us stupid, small, parted with a racial slur and used fear to suggest we're funding a century of RW dominance.

The frame of your arguments don't speak to an independent thinker mindset, but rather a nay sayer doling out doubt along with some well placed disingenuous digs.

[Overseas]

60. Want a better definition of "the rich," do you? Okay-- let's look at The Top 1%

In its volume "The State of Working America, 2006/2007," EPI (the bipartisan Economic Policy Institute) estimates that the top 1% of households controlled about 34.4% of all net worth in the economy with each household averaging about $15 million in wealth in 2004. Between 2001 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1% grew by about $1.25 million, and that group of people hold an average of $3.3 million in stocks. By 2004, the top 1% of households owned 190 times what the typical, middle-income household owns.

By contrast, the bottom 90% controlled a mere 19% of all financial assets. Nearly 1/3 of US households own $10,000 or less in wealth, with slightly more than half of that group in the red. In fact the average wealth of the bottom 20% shrank between 2001 and 2004 by almost $3,000 to -$11.400. That's right, negative $11,400.

from: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/4007/1/43

There definitely has been a class war going on since the 1980's when Reagan came in and slashed the taxes for the top few percent, telling the rest of us to wait for the good fortune to trickle down. As you can see, as of 2004, we are still waiting.

And if you feel reluctant to take my word for it, don't forget Warren Buffett's comment:

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

[MrScorpio]

2. Eat the Rich

They should be pretty plump and juicy by now.

[Dr.Phool]

13. Last time I tried that, I had the shits for 3 days.

Too much fat and grease.

[sui generis]

19. well eating the poor sucks for exactly the same reason.

add to that faint the aroma of shit, downunda and cheetoes.

Really? :shrug:

This part of DU is just stupid and gross.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. Wealthiest Millionairs is what income of $100Million per Year and up?

Actually the most interesting tidbit in this is the anomaly in the $15-30K bracket. Perhaps there are a number of recent college grads in that group?

[grantcart]

6. actually I thought the anomaly between the sexes even more interesting

[unpossibles]

7. that, and also probably that group of Republicans

who think they are rich, but live on credit in mom's basement....

They also tend to think they were in the military and that protesting keeping Americans healthy is patriotism.

[unpossibles]

5. gee, the only segment which doesn't want it

seems to be those who make $100K+

I find it sad that conservatives have taken over the discussion by making average Americans forget that we get many benefits from our tax dollars, so instead of seeing taxes as a part of society, they see themselves as burdened, despite the fact we have lower taxes than most industrial nations, and one of the lowest rates in our history.

To add insult to injury, look at how as the conservatives have successfully slashed taxes for the wealthy over the past 2-3 decades, we're seeing the results come home to roost, yet they still manage to make people believe their bullshit despite the crumbling infrastructure all around us, our jobs being sold to the lowest bidder overseas, and our cities/states unable to maintain even basic services. It's amazing, really.

[Stand and Fight]

12. Some who make 100k+ live in expensive areas.

So, I have to disagree with your logic. For example, I have lived in San Francisco and currently live in the DC metro area, and I can assure you that $100k a year in both of these places is NOT a lot. Likewise, I do not think the rich should be taxed at the levels being brought up here -- though I myself am far from rich. Maybe two paychecks away from disaster.

[unpossibles]

14. I live in NYC, so I get the point

although I will add that $100K+ is a laughable category for that same reason.

That said, even in an expensive market like NYC or San Fran, please don't act like $100K a year is not good pay.

[Stand and Fight]

26. No one is acting like it is not good pay, but it is a HUGE dynamic in this poll.

Drawing the conclusion that those who didn't agree with a tax hike with incomes greater than 100k is a logical disconnect. Why? Let's say they specifically polled people in New York, Washington, or San Francisco, I don't think the majority of us making over 100k are going to say that taxes should be raised above 50%. Not only that, the poll is open-ended and relative as far as interpretation goes -- because the premise of bringing up income and grouping responders by income doesn't make sense if you're not going to use hard numbers to define things like "multi-millionaire."

[Stand and Fight]

31. Another thing...

Something else occurred to me, it's not that I'm acting like 100k isn't good pay, it's that I'm in that income bracket where there is the real potential for me to increase my income even more through working hard and applying myself. The other potential is that it is all too easy for me to lose everything because while my compensation is fine, I know I am only a few missed paychecks from disaster rather than one as I was only two years ago. Tied in with both of these potentials is the fear that even 28% is still a lot of taxes for me right now. If I continue to excel in my field as I have the last several years, I can break an old family tradition of being poor and broke and join the ranks of the wealthy. I don't have an "I've got mine, so screw everyone else attitude," as I strongly believe in social programs to help the less fortunate, but I also don't believe in penalizing those of us who have done well for ourselves despite circumstances. I do believe that the wealthy need to lose all the damn loopholes they have to avoid paying their fair share.

[unpossibles]

39. I guess for me the problem is we need to stop looking at taxes as "penalizing" success

In other words, we not only get much value for our tax dollar really, but that those who are successful are not so in a vacuum; we succeed within the framework of the society which allowed our hard work/good ideas/determination/whatever to work. If you started out with the same idea/hard work in a society where there are no taxes or laws, what would you likely get?

I am not disparaging anyone for the income they are able to get. In fact, having grown up without economic security myself, I know full well the costs of said disaster which is potentially a paycheck or three away.

My point is that we're stuck using the rightwing's paradigm: that taxes are a burden or a penalty, instead of seeing them as essentially the fee we pay to get into a nation where upward mobility is possible, even if unlikely. I don't like paying taxes - as most don't - but I do see them as an essential part of my being an American, and damn it, if I am lucky enough to become rich enough to enter a new tax bracket, then I figure I can afford to pay that to keep our society moving forward.

It's not a penalty for success at all. Come on. Let's discuss this without falling back on Reagan's propaganda.

[Stand and Fight]

40. Hmmm... No one said it was a penalty. YOU SAID THAT.

You are the one bringing up Reagan tax strategy. Not I. Stay on point. You brought that "argument" up -- not I.

Once again, 50% is too much -- hell, I believe 38% is too much. The root of the problem is all of the loopholes that the rich are able to use to get around paying taxes that everyone else pays. So, more directly, as long as the loopholes remain in place, it doesn't make a difference how high of a percentage of their income you take -- they'll get around paying their fair share and thus defeat your tax hikes. Republicans will continue to get big doners if Democrats are foolish enough to raise taxes on the so-called "rich". Mark my words. Want to solve the problem?

Close the loopholes and keep the taxes moderate -- at current levels or lower -- and then you'll solve this issue. Taxes are fine, but it is not right that some people can get around paying their fair share. Raising taxes is not the answer to solving the nation's fiscal problems. This meme by members of our own party is every bit as foolish as the Republican meme that lowering taxes will help the economy. The answer is to make sure we're on a level playing field by removing the tax loopholes.

Lastly, folks like yourself don't help the discussion by putting words in people's mouths and saying they're throwing around Reagan propaganda when it is you who brought up said propaganda in the first place. So, to reinforce my points again:

1. GET RID OF THE TAX LOOPHOLES THAT THE RICH ABUSE
2. KEEP TAXES AT CURRENT LEVELS OR LOWER
3. THIS WAY THE "RICH" PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE AND ARE NOT ABLE TO EVADE PAYING

[unpossibles]

47. I agree we should close the loophole, BUT you did say it's a penalty

Perhaps you don't realize it, but that's exactly what you said.

I strongly believe in social programs to help the less fortunate, but I also don't believe in penalizing those of us who have done well for ourselves despite circumstances. I do believe that the wealthy need to lose all the damn loopholes they have to avoid paying their fair share.

Heck, the fact that you don't even realize you said it shows how deeply ingrained that kind of thinking is, and how successful the anti-government marketing really is if we progressives are repeating it subconsciously. I'm not picking on you, I'm just tired of that old saw.

[Stand and Fight]

48. No, no, no. That is NOT exactly what I said. You have INFERRED a different meaning.

So, allow me to be more succinct: I believe it is penalizing those who have done well for themselves to raise their taxes to the levels (50%+) that are being discussed here. Once more, CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES. The loopholes are the problem -- closing the loopholes are the answer. Raising the taxes is not the answer. Raising taxes will help the Republicans for generations if Democrats are dumb enough to adopt tax policy that involves raising taxes to the levels some have suggested here. Nice strawman you had at the end there -- there is no engrained thought. Unlike yourself, I see the folly in both of the most heard arguments from both political parties -- Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to RAISE taxes, Republicans want to LOWER them (on the richest at least) -- both viewpoints are wrong.

[unpossibles]

50. lol. ok. Whatever.

My point is simply that we as Americans have a skewed viewpoint on taxes, and we see ourselves as burdened by them. Europeans who pay much higer taxes generally don't complain because they see the value of society. Wealthy Americans 50 years ago who were paying ungodly tax rates (which even I agree were too high) still managed to make ends meet and be rich.

Taxes do not penalize success. As if I would decide I don't want to try and be wealthy just because I may have to pay half of it in taxes. I should be so lucky. Or maybe the people complaining about having to live on a mere 50% of what most of us consider a lot of money, should count their blessings. How many people do you know personally who live anywhere near or below the average, or worse the poverty line? Again, I should be so lucky if my main financial concern was that the IRS was taking half of my wealth to pay back into the society which gave me the opportunity to succeed.

FWIW, I agree Democrats raising taxes is a bad electoral strategy, but I think so because we've been brainwashed into the conservative way of thinking, that taxes are stealing what is rightfully ours. Sorry, I don't necessarily buy that whole line of thinking.

[Stand and Fight]

54. Lively discussion with a black spot upon it given your reply's subject

"lol. ok. Whatever." is so totally juvenile. Luckily, you came back with an awesome reply, so I won't count that frivolous use of language against you. :D

Nonetheless, we shall have to agree to disagree. I think a 50% tax rate is ridiculously high. I also don't think anyone in their right mind would not try to be wealthy even with that ridiculous percentage; however, taxing people more because they -- for whatever reason -- earn more is not equality as I see it. In my mind it breaks down into percentages. Let's look at the numbers...

As reported by the US Census Bureau, the real median household income was $50,233 which is what Family A earns -- let's just go ahead and say $50k. So, let's say the tax rate (all inclusive -- state, federal, local, social security, etc.) was 20%. That's $10,000 out of the pockets of Family A. In my opinion WAY TOO MUCH since it leaves only $40,000 for junior's college fund, housing payments, bills, food, etc... Ouch.

On the other hand, let's say you have Family B making ten times that amount at $500,000 with a tax rate of 20% across the board. Likewise, they pay $100,000 in taxes -- and this is where I think we quite agree... Even with all of the other expenses, they still have more money left over to get by than Family A. So, as you see it Family A should have no problem paying 50% ($250,000) in taxes because they'll still have $250 left over?

Hmmm... I understand where you're coming from, and I once felt that way myself, but if we want to get into equality, I cannot support a tax system that takes more from the those who would already be putting more in that the average individual/family just on the basis of how much money they are making. That is, while Family B is making ten times more than Family A, by simple math alone (and a FAIR TAX SHARE I might add) they are paying more into the national wealth. On that same token, they're also less likely to to advantage of the money they have paid into the national wealth, because they are less likely to use social security benefits, government loans, food stamps, etc. So, as you see it, despite the fact that Family B has already paid their fair share with a broad tax of 20% -- and I'm aware of the fact that taxes are more than that -- they should pay even more just because they earn more even though they are paying more on the basis of the fact that they earn more under the current system?

This is fun... I like discussing this with you. Your move...

[unpossibles]

59. my move: you are against a progressive tax it sounds like

Here's how I see it: we have x amount of dollars we need to raise to keep this thing going, and 90% of the people are not going to be able to foot the bill and still manage to be active citizens with any kind of life or hopes to better themselves, therefore the richest 10% generally take up the slack, but not only because they can. Is it "fair" for them to have to pay a larger percentage? Maybe, maybe not.

Let's say I am one of the top 10% and I made my money not through inheritance or the lottery, but through hard work and some great idea I had: I sold a gazillion of Widget Z to millions of satisfied customers. First of all, how did I likely get the news out about my fabulous Widget? Odds are good, it was advertising, and likely it was at least carried on public airwaves for radio and TV audiences, as well as some private things like cable, and perhaps even the internet, which is a mixture of public and private in all reality.

Ok, so my ads are out there, and people are buying my Widget over the phone, through the internet, or driving to my store! Fantastic! How do I get my millions of widgets to them? Shipping, which again means that I am making money largely because I am able to use publicly funded roads and rail systems, as well as maybe water shipping which is kept safe by other public funded things like the Coast Guard.

Furthermore, let's say that suddenly 90% of my customers have to take up 90% of the cost of running the country because the 10% at the top decided that it wasn't fair to ask them for extra. Will my customers be able to afford my Widget any more? Probably not. So, I've saved some of my tax "burden" now by shifting those costs onto my customers' taxes, but perhaps I've lost a LOT of money when my sales plummet.

To make things worse, because tax revues are down - I had to lay off employees due to my sales loss, people are not spending money because they can't, etc. - suddenly many public services need to be cut. People are getting sick, food-borne illnesses are up, and other problems are getting worse because we can no longer afford basic infrastructure. But at least I saved on some tax money, money which I did not really need to live on anyway, right? I mean, sure I earned it, and why should I share that with anyone? Or perhaps am I missing the larger picture?




Do you see what I am getting at with my hypothetical scenario, a scenario which strangely sounds a lot like what has happened in California and in the country in general?

Not only do the publicly funded elements of our infrastructure directly support my money-making ventures through things like shipping, roads, and communication lines, but also indirectly through things which keep my customers happy, healthy, and able of buying my products. By me supporting more than my fair share, I am directly enabling my customers to buy my stuff, right?

Back when the tax rates for the wealthy were higher than 50%, people still managed to become and stay wealthy. In fact, they often reinvested directly into infrastructure as a way to (a) keep the gravy train flowing and (b) as a write off for their taxes.

The reason I brought up Reagan is because I think he really managed to change the conversation. He sold us some quack medicine (which I may remind you, even his fellow Republicans scoffed at) by telling us that by giving breaks to the rich, then the rest of us would be lifted as well. And to some extent we were, but to a VERY small extent. Look at how the income gap has widened and how many states are dealing with solvency issues to see some quick evidence that (a) they have not reduced spending (b) they have not increased revenues and (c) they're screwed over not only most of the country, but that in some ways they are hurting their own businesses. That last point is a bit less obvious as they're enjoying their golden parachutes still, but without a stable economy full of consumers who can actually afford to buy things, how much longer will even that last?

[unpossibles]

15. also, please remember that through most of America's last 100 years

the rich managed to survive quite well with a much higher tax rate.

Sorry if I don't get too upset worrying about them.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. The top 0.1% will always do well

It's those between top 15%(100k/yr) and top 1.5% (250K/yr) that worry about changes that may affect their marginal tax rate.

[Stand and Fight]

27. Precisely. n/t

[laughingliberal]

20. $100,000 is not a lot where I live but

I think those tax rates were being suggested for the "wealthiest of millionaires." And, remember this is after they take all the deductions to which they have access. Republicans are fond of saying John Kennedy cut taxes on the top rates. They neglect to mention the top rate in 1960 was 90%. Today, it's 38%

[unpossibles]

25. I don't know. I live in NYC and while I'll admit 100K doesn't go as far here

I still have a hard time feeling too sorry for anyone even here making that having lived on much less. Sorry.

Then again, I don't have kids, but still.... that's considerably higher than the average even in expensive markets.

[laughingliberal]

28. I am not sure but I think the poll asked if people would be in favor of

raising taxes on the "wealthiest of millionaires." The breakdown by income is how people in each of those income brackets responded to the question, not how much people making that amount of money should be taxed.

[Stand and Fight]

30. Right... So, 100k is NOT a lot.

See my problem with this poll? It can be misleading for those who would use it to bolster their arguments. You think a $100k is a lot. I don't. Why? Because I have extra expenses that eat threw that money:

- A wife with severe rheumatoid arthritis and monthly medical bills who cannot work
- Expensive health insurance
- A kid (turned two yesterday :) )
- A little girl arriving in November
- Constant learning for my job -- I'm a web developer
- Mortgage/Rent
- Car/Home insurance

[Stand and Fight]

29. That's one of my problems with this poll and many others.

It is not specific enough in it's methodology. For example, what exactly does the "wealthiest of millionaires" mean to the poll respondents; that is, you and I may approach answering this question differently because we very likely know just how much some of the top earners in this country make, but the majority of Americans hear "wealthiest of millionaires" and think, "Oh, anyone who has over a million bucks or several million bucks." The reality is quite different. For example, it is possible that those who make $100k+ could with smart and agile investments, become millionaires. Could you or I likely have "several million bucks" on an income of say $125k? Sure. Not likely, but sure. Should we be taxed 50% on account of that?

I also detest the reverse class discrimination I see here. I grew up poor -- so poor that the lights were turned off more times than I could count and I went days without food -- but I cannot justify taxing even 38% of their wealth because they have more of it. My problem is not with the lack of a higher amount being taxed, but with the fact that there are FAR TOO MANY ways for them to get around paying their taxes.

Case-in-point, I received a letter from the IRS saying I owed $1500 for 2007 -- part of which is an alleged charged off debt -- for a year in which I was unemployed several times. Here I am, a single income earner, and the IRS is coming after me $1500, yet every year the wealthy, rich and super rich are dodging taxes every year because they have lawyers and "tax advisers" who let them know about all the loopholes while there are very few for the average folks who are struggling. THAT is what really pisses me off.

[Hannah Bell]

44. NYC median household income, 2007 = $48K. SF = 65K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics

In either city, the $100K-er is in the top 10% or so. Not the middle.

[unpossibles]

51. THANK YOU! It amazes me that anyone can say $100K is not much money

it makes me wonder if they either grew up dirt-poor and are hoarders, or they're completely deluded as to how the vast majority of us have to make do on far, far, far less.

Anyway... thanks for the perspective.

[Stand and Fight]

56. Right... That's for the individual. What does it COST to live in those areas? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

63. No, it;s household income, if you'd simply take the trouble to read the very short post.

Household income = the combined income of everyone living under the same roof. One income, two income, three income households, etc.

If they live in a household, they're somehow managing to live, though perhaps not in the style *you're* accustomed to.

[Stand and Fight]

77. Nice snark to a minor misstep on my part.

I typed individual when I meant household. So, my question to you still stands as to what it costs to live in those areas, and I won't get into being rude like yourself. Once again, what does it cost to live in those areas? That's the relevant part of my reply. And please don't assume to know what I'm accustomed to. I've spent most of my life poor, have been homeless, in the military, and now -- like most Americans -- I'm only one or two paychecks away from disaster. Not to mention the fact that my wife has a so-called "preexisting condition" with thousands of dollars in medical bills, a grandmother whom I support, and a number of other important obligations. I think we can discuss this without the snide and rude remarks.

[Hannah Bell]

78. if half the households make under 50K, & survive, it costs that.

i don't get your question. there's no standard cost. it depends on how you live. most households make under 100K. people who make 100K, even in the cities, are economic elites.

i'm sorry you're having troubles. i hope things improve for you, & sorry to be irritable.

[unpossibles]

75. Most people here manage to live on FAR less than that, sadly nt

[unpossibles]

76. oops. double post delete. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Yeah, ain't gonna happen. Can't even get the bu$h tax cuts rescinded. And they'll probably be made

permanent. That's how cynical I've become regarding the greedy rich a$$hole$ who think they deserve it all, ever being made to pony up. :shrug:

[corkhead]

9. you mean most Americans are un-American?

I'm Confused

[pampango]

11. Much more progressive taxation would help with many of the country's problems.

Not only would it provide the funding for health care and the social safety net, it would reduce the incentive that the rich and corporations have to maximize profits through union busting and outsourcing. When they get to keep most of every extra dollar of profit, there is more of an incentive to do what they have to to get that extra dollar. If that extra dollar was more heavily taxed, so that they kept much less of it, they would focus more on long term health of a company, loyalty of their employees and satisfaction on their customers.

[grantcart]

22. good point

[Kievan Rus]

17. Absolutely -- 55% for that bracket

[MidwestRick]

23. The press making more news...

...not reporting it.

I detest the idea that they would poll people on this topic. Of course people want others to pay more taxes. As long as it's not them. Worry about your own taxes, not what others pay.

[Stand and Fight]

32. Agreed.

What they should poll is whether or not the tax law needs to be adjusted to prevent so many of the loopholes that allow people to get away with NOT paying their fair share.

[grantcart]

35. evening kick

[grantcart]

36. ...

[MajorChode]

37. I would be happy if they just paid their fair share

And that includes ALL taxes, including state, local, FICA, property taxes, energy taxes, etc.

[grantcart]

53. 45% income tax would make me happy

[Vinca]

42. The economy didn't go totally to hell until taxes were rolled back on them.

You can't wage wars on foreign credit cards forever. The bills come due and we need money. Go back to the Reagan era 50% rate.

[raccoon]

45. k&R nt

[Odin2005]

46. This will blow the minds of some Libertarian nutters I know.

They are convinced that most Americans agree with them, morons.

[TheCoxwain]

55. Based on this alone .. Women are smarter than men.

[Wednesdays]

57. Leave the filthy rich alone!

How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of rich people after all they have been through!

THEY'RE HUMAN!!! What you don’t realize is that rich people are making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about them.

Leave the filthy rich alone, please!
Leave the rich alone! Right now! I mean it!

Anyone that has a problem with them, you deal with me, because they are not well right now.

LEAVE THEM ALONE!

[Overseas]

58. K&R. Glad to see more people waking up.

Reagan's dramatic tax cuts on the top one percent transferred a lot of the nation's wealth from the middle class up to the ultra-rich and we were advised to wait for it all to trickle down.

We, the "middle class" aka, bottom 90% of Americans, are still waiting and our wages have declined or stagnated as the wealth at the top has soared.

We have been heavily propagandized to believe that we, too, can reach the top of the wealth pyramid someday, but alas, that is not so.

[marshall]

61. We need a tax on their ASSETS, not their income

That would rake in the money for the public coffers. For most of the fabulously wealthy, their assets dwarf the size of their annual income.

[LaPera]

62. I certain do!! The top 2% stealing everything and own over 95 % of everything all wealth in

this country....it wasn't like this in over 200 hundred years in this country because laws, rules & regulations....but Since the asshole pig Reagan corporate regulations have been broken down and gotten rid of and the corporations are allowed to become monopolies, "too big to fail" which only means collusion no competition and higher prices for us the consumers and lower wages for us the worker....the top 2% should pay more the first thing Bush did the very first thing was to cut taxes even further for the very rich & corporations....my taxes went up each and every year under Bush...because I'm not one of the wealthy....Yes the rich and corporations should pay more a couple percent more taxes....they did under Clinton and we hard eight years of peace and prosperity, huge creation of new jobs, low interest rates, no inflation and then....the corporate republicans come in and steal the Treasury start wars and steal everything that wasn't nailed down, cut corporate regulations ever further, and give huge tax cuts to the rich & corporations....republican greedy elitist slime!