• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When a Million Dollars Just Won't Cut it

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"U.S. millionaires are reporting a sunnier outlook about the economy, although nearly half of them don’t feel truly rich. Fidelity Investments released its fourth Millionaire Outlook survey this week, which studies the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households throughout the country.

The survey found that four in 10, or 42% of millionaires do not actually feel wealthy. This is down four points from 2009; however, those who said they did not feel wealthy reported they needed to have at least $7.5 million in investable assets to begin feeling wealthy again.

Those who did report feeling wealthy said they began to feel that way with $1.75 million in investable assets."


Read more: When a Million Dollars Just Won't Cut it - FoxBusiness.com


According to the 2010 Census, one in seven Americans were officially poor in 2009, meaning for individuals, they made less than $11,000, and a family of four, less then $22,500.

Who's feeling sorry for the rich folk here?
 
"U.S. millionaires are reporting a sunnier outlook about the economy, although nearly half of them don’t feel truly rich. Fidelity Investments released its fourth Millionaire Outlook survey this week, which studies the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households throughout the country.

The survey found that four in 10, or 42% of millionaires do not actually feel wealthy. This is down four points from 2009; however, those who said they did not feel wealthy reported they needed to have at least $7.5 million in investable assets to begin feeling wealthy again.

Those who did report feeling wealthy said they began to feel that way with $1.75 million in investable assets."


Read more: When a Million Dollars Just Won't Cut it - FoxBusiness.com


According to the 2010 Census, one in seven Americans were officially poor in 2009, meaning for individuals, they made less than $11,000, and a family of four, less then $22,500.

Who's feeling sorry for the rich folk here?

reich wing republicans, of course

enough to use unemployment benefits as leverage for a trillion dollar tax cut for millionaires/billionaires
 
Wealth and Poverty are more than "how much money you make" though.

Wealth is "how much are you WORTH" - property like homes, land, RV's, boats, cars and trucks.
Income is "how much you EARN in a paycheck"

Poverty is, also, not calculated as "the lower 5% of the income of the population" either - poverty is calculated based on the cost of food for a family of four times three. If food costs go up then the poverty-level goes up with it.
That's because the average low-income family spends 1/3 their income on food every year. Thus: multiply a years worth of food times three makes the food 1/3 overall costs.

This doesn't really change anything - I'm just clarifying what's being referred to, here.
 
Last edited:
reich wing republicans, of course

enough to use unemployment benefits as leverage for a trillion dollar tax cut for millionaires/billionaires

We are going backwards to the days of a two class system, the barons and the poor. I don't see anyway to reverse the trend but to return to a progressive tax system
 
We are going backwards to the days of a two class system, the barons and the poor. I don't see anyway to reverse the trend but to return to a progressive tax system

these are good times ... IF you are rich


that bailout - using taxpayer dollars - replenished the losses the wealthy would have sustained in the wall street meltdown

main street was allowed to melt down instead
 
I understand the sentiment that a million is not enough, really that is only the upper end of the middle class. Considering wealth distribution it doesnt amount to dilly compared to the top 10%.
 
these are good times ... IF you are rich


that bailout - using taxpayer dollars - replenished the losses the wealthy would have sustained in the wall street meltdown

main street was allowed to melt down instead


And yet we keep giving the rich as much as teacher's pay in tax cuts year after year. I guess people will eventullly figure it out, or we will continue on our path to fascism.
 
I understand the sentiment that a million is not enough, really that is only the upper end of the middle class. Considering wealth distribution it doesnt amount to dilly compared to the top 10%.

If a million is not enough, where does that leave the middle class? The median family income in 2008 was $52,029.
 
I would say the middle class is quite wide, segregated in lifestyle from the poor and the 'rich' who live quite differently from them.
 
Hey, a million dollars ain't what it used to be. The little town of 2,500 I live near just spent about a million dollars re-doing the sidewalks... for a "downtown" area barely 200' long.

A half-acre suburban lot with a nice-but-not-mansion house on it recently sold for 300,000 in a fairly rural county nearby.

If you invested 1 mil in an investment portfolio intended to provide an annual income for yourself, you'd probably draw about $50,000 a year off of it, maybe a little more, maybe a little less depending. 50 grand a year is a living income but it WON'T buy you a "rich" lifestyle these days.

Actually these days I'd say "moderately wealthy" probably starts at about 5 million in net assets.
 
Hey, a million dollars ain't what it used to be. The little town of 2,500 I live near just spent about a million dollars re-doing the sidewalks... for a "downtown" area barely 200' long.

A half-acre suburban lot with a nice-but-not-mansion house on it recently sold for 300,000 in a fairly rural county nearby.

If you invested 1 mil in an investment portfolio intended to provide an annual income for yourself, you'd probably draw about $50,000 a year off of it, maybe a little more, maybe a little less depending. 50 grand a year is a living income but it WON'T buy you a "rich" lifestyle these days.

Actually these days I'd say "moderately wealthy" probably starts at about 5 million in net assets.


By those standards, the middle class family earning the median income of $52,000 is poor, which is my point. Is the country willing to go back to a 2 class society?
 
By those standards, the middle class family earning the median income of $52,000 is poor, which is my point. Is the country willing to go back to a 2 class society?

No, $52,000 a year isn't poor. Of course by the time you pay your taxes you don't have 52k, you have more like 35 to maybe 40k depending on where you live and various details. You can live decently off 52k a year, you probably won't lack for any basic needs or modest wants... but you're not wealthy. Wealthy is more like 250k a year.
 
No, $52,000 a year isn't poor. Of course by the time you pay your taxes you don't have 52k, you have more like 35 to maybe 40k depending on where you live and various details. You can live decently off 52k a year, you probably won't lack for any basic needs or modest wants... but you're not wealthy. Wealthy is more like 250k a year.

If a mil for an individual is barely getting by as you suggested, then how could $52,000 for family income be anything but poor?
 
If a mil for an individual is barely getting by as you suggested, then how could $52,000 for family income be anything but poor?

Assets=/=Income

If you're earning a million dollars a year (in 1912 dollars), then you're affluent.
Honestly, a decent 4 bedroom apartment goes for 4-5 million in my neighborhood. Big rooms means ~10.

A million dollars doesn't mean much anymore.
 
Assets=/=Income

If you're earning a million dollars a year (in 1912 dollars), then you're affluent.
Honestly, a decent 4 bedroom apartment goes for 4-5 million in my neighborhood. Big rooms means ~10.

A million dollars doesn't mean much anymore.

Then how much does a family income of $50,000 for a family mean? That is the middle class.
 
Then how much does a family income of $50,000 for a family mean? That is the middle class.

Earning a million dollars a year in today's dollars isn't even that much anymore. Not truly rich, anyway. Earning a million in 1912 dollars IS a lot.
Having a million dollars a year in today's dollars is something a prudent family could easily accomplish on $50k a year.

50k isn't much for NYC but salaries are higher here due to higher living costs.
 
Earning a million dollars a year in today's dollars isn't even that much anymore. Not truly rich, anyway. Earning a million in 1912 dollars IS a lot.
Having a million dollars a year in today's dollars is something a prudent family could easily accomplish on $50k a year.

50k isn't much for NYC but salaries are higher here due to higher living costs.


Its hard for an individual to get by on a million, but a family on $50,000 is doing well? Is this your position, really?
 
"U.S. millionaires are reporting a sunnier outlook about the economy, although nearly half of them don’t feel truly rich. Fidelity Investments released its fourth Millionaire Outlook survey this week, which studies the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households throughout the country.

The survey found that four in 10, or 42% of millionaires do not actually feel wealthy. This is down four points from 2009; however, those who said they did not feel wealthy reported they needed to have at least $7.5 million in investable assets to begin feeling wealthy again.

Those who did report feeling wealthy said they began to feel that way with $1.75 million in investable assets."


Read more: When a Million Dollars Just Won't Cut it - FoxBusiness.com


According to the 2010 Census, one in seven Americans were officially poor in 2009, meaning for individuals, they made less than $11,000, and a family of four, less then $22,500.

Who's feeling sorry for the rich folk here?


envy appears to be what is being felt by a few of the usual suspects
 
Its hard for an individual to get by on a million, but a family on $50,000 is doing well? Is this your position, really?

I'm interested as to where you got either of those two statements, as they were clearly not from me.

Do you not understand that you cannot compare assets and income?

Someone earning 50k/year can easily be a millionaire. Go read "The Millionaire Next Door" and you'll find out who most of the millionaires in this country are.


If by your statement you mean, is it hard for a person with a million in assets to get by (and no other income) than a person with 50k income - it's comparable, actually.
 
I'm interested as to where you got either of those two statements, as they were clearly not from me.

Do you not understand that you cannot compare assets and income?

Someone earning 50k/year can easily be a millionaire. Go read "The Millionaire Next Door" and you'll find out who most of the millionaires in this country are.


If by your statement you mean, is it hard for a person with a million in assets to get by (and no other income) than a person with 50k income - it's comparable, actually.

I was comparing an individual income of $1 mil to a middle class family income of $50,000. If you have assets that means you have more wealth than your income. What assests does a family making $50,000 own anyway compared to the assets of an individual making a million? If you have assets and need to put food on the table, sell some assets. The middle class does not have that option, their option is to become poor.

The middle class is declining into the poor, not ascending into millionaire-hood. Our regressive revision of the country's progressive tax system in 1981, and again in 2003, has stacked the deck against them.
 
I was comparing an individual income of $1 mil to a middle class family income of $50,000. If you have assets that means you have more wealth than your income. What assests does a family making $50,000 own anyway compared to the assets of an individual making a million? If you have assets and need to put food on the table, sell some assets. The middle class does not have that option, their option is to become poor.

The middle class is declining into the poor, not ascending into millionaire-hood. Our regressive revision of the country's progressive tax system in 1981, and again in 2003, has stacked the deck against them.

Until the day the rich pay the same % of their taxes as everyone else, our tax code is progressive.
I grew up in a family usually not making even 40k a year. My parents managed to save and now they got to over a million dollars, through prudence and good investment.
I'm sorry, but if you make 50k a year and don't save ANY of it, I have no sympathy for you.
 
paris-crying-hard.jpg
 
Until the day the rich pay the same % of their taxes as everyone else, our tax code is progressive.
I grew up in a family usually not making even 40k a year. My parents managed to save and now they got to over a million dollars, through prudence and good investment.
I'm sorry, but if you make 50k a year and don't save ANY of it, I have no sympathy for you.


They don't pay the same, not in effective tax rates. Warren Buffett already proved the rich pay less. To look at the tax rates in 1980 and after they were changed in 1981, and say they are no less progressive is not acknowleding the facts. Its great you had the wherewithall to become a millionaire. I don't knock you for that. And I am going to do okay, but as of 2009, one in seven in this country was poor. That means a family of four on less than $22,500. One in seven! Then they go after the teachers, who are hardly overpaid, to provide more money for future tax cuts to the wealthy. We seem to be going in the wrong direction from the perspective of the middle class.
 
The really really rich pay less because they get more of their income through capital gains.
I didn't say they are "no less progressive" I said they are still progressive. When the upper income bracket has a higher tax rate, that's a progressive rate.

My mother was a teacher in both the private and public sector and she fully supports what they wanted to do in DC. Let teachers earn a lot more, but take away tenure. Teaching is a great profession and I actually hope to someday become one (when I'm 50 maybe - I just don't want to be bored and I certainly don't still want to be in finance).
However, our current system is broken and needs to change. Compensate teachers NOW for their work. If they're great teachers, pay them well. If they're not, don't. The whole system is screwed up when you can't fire a teacher and most of their money comes in at the end from a pension. This leads to unmotivated teachers, which we absolutely do not need. If someone is burned out from teaching by 45, let them quit, knowing they extracted their wages. If they have to work another 20 years, something they don't want to do, to receive their real compensation, a great pension, they're not going to be very good teachers. Our kids don't need these kinds of teachers.
 
They don't pay the same, not in effective tax rates. Warren Buffett already proved the rich pay less. To look at the tax rates in 1980 and after they were changed in 1981, and say they are no less progressive is not acknowleding the facts. Its great you had the wherewithall to become a millionaire. I don't knock you for that. And I am going to do okay, but as of 2009, one in seven in this country was poor. That means a family of four on less than $22,500. One in seven! Then they go after the teachers, who are hardly overpaid, to provide more money for future tax cuts to the wealthy. We seem to be going in the wrong direction from the perspective of the middle class.

buffett proved no such thing
he proved a few megabillionaires who can structure their own compensation paid less a percentage than the very wealthy but he didn't disprove the fact that he pays more income tax than millions of americans combined
 
Back
Top Bottom