This article makes me... well, angry.

[blackflame2180]

"Analysis examines what it's like to be a 'rich' family in America"

This is one of those articles that gets me steamed up. It examines what the costs/spending habits of the typical family making 250k would be, more or less an effort to say, "I'm not really rich-- I have all these expenses, you see!"

So I'm going to pick it apart, bit by bit.

Comments

[blackflame2180]

Yes, there are successful business and industry which specifically cater to the rich. To demonstrate that the money is spent more effectively by the rich towards job creation and providing livable incomes, though, you would have to demonstrate that given funds spent by the rich on these goods and services are actually more effectively spent than spending those funds elsewhere in the economy-- that similar funds could not employ more people in other industries for better wages. Or at the very least, demonstrate that these funds employ an equivalent number of people at equivalent wages, and that the jobs hence created were further of more benefit to society than equivalent jobs created in other sectors of the economy.

That hasn't been proven in 30 years of people arguing until they're blue in the face in favor of trickle down economics, and that's probably for a reason. If you can't prove the Earth is flat, maybe it's because it isn't.

It's not a question of whether or not people working in those industries which cater to the spending of the wealthy are good or bad people, it's recognizing that people in other industries are equally good or bad. The question is how we can maximize employment for all people, good or bad, and how we might do so in a manner most beneficial to society as a whole, i.e. in a way that will employ more people in the future, and provide better standards of living for those people in the future.

More, we aren't talking about slitting their throats-- we're talking about a marginal increase in taxes. Specifically, about a return to Clinton-era tax rates for those making more than 250k. History shows that such people got along quite well during the Clinton era, despite the higher tax rates. An argument could be forwarded that they did as well as they did because this was the case-- that the income redistribution involved was sufficiently stimulative to the economy to offset the added burden. Or, as Clinton himself put it, a rising tide raises all boats.

Finally, I'm not saying that these people are evil; simply that it is reasonable to ask them to pay marginally more in taxes. I would agree that taxing them until their effective income after taxation was equivalent to those making much less than them would be over-taxing them. There is room to think it reasonable to expect the Joneses to either move from Bethesda to Silver Spring or cut the housekeeper without thinking they are evil.

What we're talking about is just what a fair tax burden is-- see my comments to Lawrence for further expansion on that topic.

[the_smith_e]

But, Lawrence and I are not Progressives. We aren't going to ever entirely agree with your position and will continue to fight it throughout our lives.

I work hard and have done well. Some of that is luck but some of it is not.

250K per year is not rich. 1M is. No, my family does NOT make 250K per year.