From my most recent NRO article, on President Obama’s breathtaking power grabs: “The budget opens up another front in Obama’s program to transform America, both tactically and substantively. Tactically, it torques up his campaign to run as the candidate of the 97 percent, the virtuous, against the 3 percent of ‘rich’ freeloaders (never mind that a family of four earning $250,000 with two children in private schools is lucky to have a thousand dollars over at the end of the year after paying only essential expenses — which is why most of them are in debt). The 3 percent the president is targeting pay more taxes than the other 97 he claims to be defending.”
Whether you agree or disagree, your comments are, as always, most welcome.
Oh nos! Obama may raise taxes for the rich not seen since .... Clinton. Those were horrible economic times. And remember how horrible it was for the top earners throughout the 20th century when taxes were much higher.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd Conrad or should we just say Lord Black, expect no sympathy for a family of 4 that can't save a measly $1000 from a salary of $250,000. I guess that must be some fancy private school to keep the commoners away. Funny how there are so many conservative Canadians that come to moan about the USA on NRO.
Do those evil rich get back all of the deductions that have been eliminated since the days of Clinton?
Of course not, as you already know. Why do you insist on telling such transparent lies?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho is saying the rich are evil? Or are you just so ideologically blinded that you assume that is what the other side thinks?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow which tax deductions are you speaking of?
Secondly, Lord Blacks imaginary family of 4 that can't make ends meet with a $250 k salary and blames that on taxes is just laughable and insulting. If you can't see that you're just not very bright.
And which lies am I speaking of? Taxes are at a historical low. Our economy has done just fine with higher tax rates If Obama's policies were so bad, how come interest rates are at historic lows?. And Reagan is very much responsible for the Rights much heralded "50% of Americans pay no income tax today" line they love to toss around through his expansion of the EITC. Is that a lie? Or are you just obtuse?
You clearly do not have 2 kids and 2 working parents making 250K in any sizable metropolitan area. It's not champagne wishes and caviar dreams.
A 4 bedroom house in a safe neighborhood is expensive. If both parents are working, by God they better be 9 to 5 jobs with a 2 minute commute or the 2.5K a month Daycare bill (extra hours are extra money) will burn through a monthly budget pretty quick. And if you are making 250K a year you are working more than 9 to 5. If you can somehow squeeze a private school tuition out of what's left, so you can have your child properly educated and not indoctrinated... then yeah, you don't have 2 dimes to scrape together at the end of the month.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot that you'd want to have much left over at the end of the month with 0% prime rate there is no incentive to save, and this isn't something to brag about. The rate is this low and cannot go lower and the economy is still not performing. I doubt the rate will ever be raised much higher than zero because we couldn't possibly afford to service our national debt at rates any higher. So with real inflation somewhere around 10% External Link
and a savings account interest rate of 0.5%, every dollar you have in the bank is worth about 90 cents at the end of the year. Low interest rates penalize savers and subsidizes people buying on "cheap" credit. This is bad for savers, like the elderly, and consuming with money that you don't have isn't exactly a recipe for a good economy... it's a recipe for another bubble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, the average New Yorker gets by on $63,000, about a quarter of that.
You people really don't get how you sound to others, huh? A $60,000 income is rich when discussing about unionized workers. But $250,000 income is barely getting when talking about these "struggling" top earners who only exist in the wild imaginings of the right-wing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a joke! Somehow, my family manages to make it by with 2 kids, a house, and daycare - on less than half that.
If you're making 250k a year as a family and you are ending up in debt, you're a fool who cannot manage their money, or someone who is living beyond their means. Simple as that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no debt beyond my mortgage. Not even a car payment. I don't know the particular finances of my friend (who is, in fact, in this situation), but he is not "in debt" anymore than your typical American is, mortgage, credit cards, student loans, and car loans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUh-oh, I agree with the Fish.
What people forget is that they really don't need the latest in HDTV's and other electronics, they don't need expensive vacations, and they don't need to lease cars or swap cars every 3-4 years. They also don't need to eat out 4-6 times per week.
It's not hard to save money and have a very comfortable life on $250k/year. Pay me that much, and I'll put about $75k/year in savings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether you are spendthrift or not at 250K, does that mean you deserve to be taxed as if you are "wealthy"? If you are mortgaged and in-debt, that presupposes "wealth". On the ledger you are a negative asset, overall.
Clearly it can be done with less, I'm doing it with far less, my point is, there are people at 250K with families living in expensive areas of the country that are not Mr. Monopoly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have 4 children, make about 110k in the DC area and have more than 1k left over at the end of the year. 3 are in public school however, but I can't imagine a private school for 2 costs 140k. I'm no lefty, but DrPalin is right, this is a ridiculous statement. All those I see with two incomes that put them at 250k and are struggling, it's their own darn fault. Keeping up with the hoity toity neighbors can be expensive I agree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho is saying the rich are evil? You do, everytime you demand that their money be taken from them, for the crime of having more than you do.
I see you are trying to pass off the lie that taxes are historically low. That's only true if history merely extends back 10 years.
Why are interest rates so low? Because the economy is in the crapper.
It doesn't matter why most Americans pay no taxes, it remains a fact that they don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHoly crap. Conrad Black, call the Romney Campaign, they've noticed that their Cluelessness has wandered off and they need you to return immediately!
Seriously, how incredibly tone-deaf do you have to be to write something here about how $250k/year is lucky to have $1000 left after essential expenses.
Lord Black can surely find some other media outlet besides this one, can't he? National Review can surely find someone better than this to fill its bandwidth.
This is just offensive and stupid, unredeemed by any saving quality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA family of six that earns $250,000 a year running a small business supports six family members, as well as employees of the business, and must have enough money left over to invest in and grow that business. Given the rising prices of just about everything we buy for our families and our businesses, $250,000 doesn't go as far as you seem to think it does.
A single adult living on an annual salary of $250,000 is far wealthier than six family members and a small business that rely on that same amount of money. If you don't understand the meaning of cluelessness perhaps you should look it up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
You've jumbled your premises. Is the $250K the gross revenues of the business, i.e., not reflecting any business costs including employee salaries and benefits for non-family members? If so, the net taxable income to the business (and after-tax income for the family) will be a lot less than $250K.
On the other hand, if the family ends up with $250K pre-tax income, at today's rates the total after-tax (state and federal) is likely to be on the order of $170K to $180K. That's pretty good money even for someone with 6 kids.
I note also that the "six children" premise is most likely not at all representative of the average family size of small business owners. But it's useful in terms of thinking about the theocratic conservative dream of no contraception, sex only for procreation, and acceptance of every gift bestowed by god in the form of children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Black didn't specify a family making $250 running a small business, that's your construction. He just said a family with four kids making $250K a year, and references the struggles and travails that unfortunate couple has to face to make ends meet.
That is just incredibly tone deaf. Most families in America have to make do with far less than $250K a year. For Mr. Black to consider this some sort of low water mark demonstrates that he really is out of touch with mainstream America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow did a family of four become a family of 6? And where did the BS about running a small business come from?
The goalposts really ARE on wheels at NRO!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou seem to be somewhat confused. An income of $250k from a small business would be net after the expenses of running the business. Not to mention the fact that a small businessman is able to stick a good many expenses that a salaried person would pay using after tax money in as legitimate business expenses. Much if not all money reinvested in the business is not taxed, or is at least taxed at a much lower rate. $250k before business expenses won't run any business that has even a few employees.
The article discusses two kids, not four. And I'll bet the "necessities" Mr. Black references include at least two (possibly four) new cars, a home in the nice part of town, probably with more bedrooms than family members, vacations overseas, etc. Such a lifestyle used to be considered rich. That it's now considered middle-class is a result of rising expectations and the face that more people have this much money than used to. Possibly the family does indeed need to maintain this lifestyle to keep their credibility as a business, but that's not because they're physical necessities.
People getting by, more or less, on $75k or less are not going to be sympathetic to the idea that those earning $250k are just barely scraping by.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna, every person like you who whines about the inadequacy of a $250k salary might as well be buying 10 votes for Barack Obama's reelection. It's repulsive. So is the fact that National Review is publishing this kind of dreck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNational Review hasn't capitulated to Class Envy yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse