I have a friend who is an adamant republican but I feel that she is misinformed but I can't find the proof anywhere. I understand that the Democrats want to raise taxes for the "wealthy" while maintaining or lowering taxes for those in the middle and lower classes. But could anyone shed light on how much a married couple or individual must earn before they are considered "wealthy". I need hard facts because my friend believes her taxes will go up, but i doubt that but i can't seem to find the proof anywhere. She earns around 48000 a year and her husband earns probably around 40000. help please! thanks, deegem

Less than 90k/yr is well off but not wealthy imo. I suspect that what defines wealthy, in this case, will be part of the legislation...

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Ds purposely keep the term 'wealthy' nebulous so they can milk it for all the class-warfare support it's worth. Most people think 'makes millions, or at least mid 6 figures' when you say wealthy, but the Ds typically use a cutoff around 100K, more likely to be less than to be more. So my guess is, after deductions, that your friends would not qualify as wealthy until they get a couple years' raises under their belts, but it is a close call.

Never be happy that somebody else's taxes are going up - That just means you're that much closer to next on the list.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

This were taxes on the "wealthy" get kind of sticky. I know people that make 60K in Montana and live a very nice lifestyle, and I know people that make 75K in Seattle are barely making ends meet. A lot of this is because of the cost of living, but it should also be noted that the people in Montana no longer have kids living at home, while the people in Seattle do have a 10 year child.

Anyway, for some reason the number 125K or 150K is stuck in my head as far as taxes go. Which, as far as I know, would be enough to have a decent standard of living anywhere in the country, so that would probably be a good cutoff, even though realistically it should probably be a bit higher.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

well my friend and her husband live in virginia and i know they have quite a bit of debt and have trouble making ends meet, earning 80K combined is not that much for that area b/c the cost of living is quite high. does that make any difference or is it a national thing

I have heard Pelosi cite $250,000 as the low end for rolling back the tax breaks.

The Bush/GOP tax cuts lowered the taxes on those in the middle and the lower classes. Plus those tax cuts caused the American economy to boom and the federal tax revenue to skyrocket, just the opposite of what the socialist Democrats claimed would happen.

The Democrats are full of sh*t.

I certainly wouldn't consider a combined income of 90K to be "wealthy" for two people. Demographically around here, that's alright, but nothing special. I've always thought that 'wealthy' would start around 100K per person, but I guess it all depends where you sit. If I were being paid 200K per year, I probably would think of 500K as wealthy. I think a lot of people who most consider to be wealthy would not consider themselves to be so.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Anyone who makes a million dollars is a millionaire. I think that is a very simple metric to consider a capital form of wealth.

And anyone who makes widgets is a widget-maker. Tautologies aren't really very good metrics for anything.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Meanwhile, America's economy continues to grow by leaps and bounds, thanks to the Bush/GOP tax cuts. Plus the federal tax revenue continues to increase, thanks to the Bush/GOP tax cuts. And those two facts make a mockery out of the Democrat Party claim that "tax cuts hurt the economy and increase the federal deficit."

The Democrats are full of economic sh*t.

So you keep telling us.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

A better question to ask is what kind of government needs to divide its people into different legal classes, and treat these (government-defined) classes differently.

If it was skin color we'd all scream at the injustice, but because you're punishing a man for the sin of making more money than other people, its OK.

surely this is just a matter of opinion

__________________
Games | Virtual Games | Free Games

tax cuts don't deal with wealth unless its in a town. They deal with income, a person can have no income and not be wealthy, a person can have a very large income in a year and still not be wealthy. Wealth is a measure of accumulated capital, not necessarily what you earn in a year.