...because it defines its terms around a single number which, in and of itself, has little meaning. If you have $5 million dollars and earn 5% interest on it clipping municipal bond coupons (tax free), you're making $250,000 and are surely rich, because after living as well as $250,000 will allow you to live, you still have $5 million in the bank.

On the other hand, if you've only been working for, say, fifteen years and have only now broken through into the higher income levels of your profession, that salary is all you have, it's fully taxable, and you haven't been making it for long enough to salt away much in the way of savings (you may even be still paying off college loans). And in most industries that pay at that level, there is no job security. You can be back to making less than half that -- or zero --overnight.

None of this is in the article, which is why it's a crock. But that said:

What the CNBC and other talking suits are saying when they deny $250,000 is rich is trying to tell the people who are in the second category I've named above (just begun making serious money) that they have something in common with the first category ($5 mil in the bank and living easy). Since the suits identify the interests of the former as their own (since it is people like that who own the networks, talk radio, etc.), it's in their interest to try and make everyone they can think that Rupert Murdoch is just plain folks. And that's yet another crock.

"You can be back to making less than half that -- or zero --overnight."

Well, yes - but then you would be paying much less tax or no tax at all. See; it's already taken care of.

Our government, and unfortunately, the Democrats especially, have focused not on soaking the rich, but on soaking the higher earners (and presumably the most productive members of society). Not for nothing are plenty of prominent billionaire coupon clippers Democrats, who are happy to soak the people who are actually busy EARNING money.

There is not a whole lot of correlation between 'earnings' and 'wealth'.

Exactly. And if it is two parents each busting their butts for $125,000 each, it is a ridiculously long stretch to call such a family rich.

$250,000 is probably close to the least you could make and be rich, but you can definitely make more and not be rich...it all depends on context.

^They'd still be richer than 2 parents busting their collective asses earning $12,500 each. Seriously, anyway you put it, $250,000 is a hell of a lot of money.

Slasher:

and you explain it well without really identifying it. There is a difference between wealth and income and income can be broken down even further. Social Security Payroll wages of $200,000 or $250,000 per year is hardly rich or wealthy. Dividends and Capital gains of $250,000 are probably backed by a large a wealth pool of money (I am too lay to get into the numerics right now). I think we both need to delineate the difference as well as Obama.

According to a somewhat infamous Wall Street Journal editorial of a few years ago, people who are so poor that they pay no taxes at all should be called 'lucky duckies'....as though any decent hedge-fund billionaire would be happy to trade places with them.

And that editorial was fixated, as the WSJ editors usually are, on only the income tax. Not for them to think about sales taxes, property taxes, automobile registration fees, and all the little unkind cuts that government inflicts on even our poorest.

You make an interesting point, and your comment about hedge funds billionaires brings up a side issue: that hedge fund billionaires currently pay tax at the capital gains rates (15%) rather than the earned income rates. I personally think they should pay taxes on the profits as earned income (which is Obama's position) but going back to the point on the top post, I also think it is foolish to have tax rates on earned income approaching 60% (which is Obama's plan) while coupon clipping billionaires pay tax at 15% (which would go all the way to 20% under Obama's plan). There is a fundamental disconnect in tax policy now between the way earned income and unearned income are treated.

Run's point above reflect my fundamental point: that high earned incomes and wealth are not that highly correlated, in fact, there aren't correlated at all except over a very long period of time (i.e., if I earn $250,000 per year for 30 years, I may be able to accumulate some wealth, if I don't blow it or pay it all in taxes).

You do make an interesting point, also, on the regressive nature of user fees. On the other hand, it is difficult to argue that most user-based fees should be funded by general tax dollars - usually it is far better to charge people for the services they utilize (even if part of the fee is subsidized) in order to rationalize economic behavior.

Finally, while the WSJ article, which I haven't read, is almost certainly not politically correct, it is a fact that most people get far more in government services than they pay in taxes, fees, and the like to the government. I think this holds true until about the $100,000 income level. The question, as always, is how much government-sponsored income redistribution is healthy or wise.

I would

Hello, run! How are you?

IWonder:

I am sitting here listening in awe to Barack Obama preach the words that I have written and argued for many years now and am in awe of the simple line one woman has posted to me. What better night could there be IWonder?

I am fine and you, you must tell me what has become of you? I have often wondered of your fate in life. I have missed the exchanges and the intellect. I had lost your email and I know you are shy.

This is indeed a good night. And yes, I am happy to receive this post from you. Somehow, I knew you were ok and would come here again.

Hi run,

He awed me as well. Up until now, although the convention has had its highlights, I've been thinking that it was missing something. I'd also wondered when Obama was going to stop seeming so inhuman. When was he going to come down to earth? Who knew that it was going to be in a setting that seemed bent on making a god out of him? It's good to see. "Eight years is enough" indeed, and that's really what it's about; isn't it? But tonight Obama made it about so much more (and I couldn't help thinking that his "It's been about you" line was both the slam dunk to Hillary's setup and a nice little nod to her as well).

I am fine, too, but ridiculously overworked. With both of the kids in college now (or rather my youngest in college and the oldest in and out of it), all the hours didn't seem that bad at first, but, well, enough is enough of that as well, particularly since it didn't seem to be getting me anywhere but miserable. So I began cutting back and forcing my boss (and others) not to take me for granted. It has really helped!

I have to tell you, I searched for your posts, and I was so touched by your kind references to me. Thank you for that!

I'm glad you are still here.

IWonder:

It would have been great to see him in jeans, a button down shirt, and Adidas running shoes. His personna is so close and yet so distant. He peaks the words so well; but does he, does he understand? Too many see him as a Harvard graduate and not the man his history portrays.

I supported Clinton big time and opposed the many who went for the new guy on the block who arrived with the smooth talk and flashy story. I was happy to hear Clinton's speech the other night and was amazed at Bill's marshalling of the troops. Kerry delivered a knuckle sandwich and a well deserved one, getting even. All three were vindicated tonight by Obama's reception of the nomination in his speech. He picked up where they left off as if he followed their lead in a dance meant to dazzle. A "Tango" of sorts meant to capture the imagination and accentuate the form. "No way, No how, No McCain."

Somehow, I can only guess what the stress and workload is upon you. All too familar from our prior conversations. I am happy you are standing up for your person and rights. They do take advantage. Thank you, I was hoping you would still be reading some of my better posts and not so great ones . . . :). I have made some friends out of antagonists and still struggle with some.

I am still at hotmail and there is much to tell you about the recent past. Some good things that I am reluctant to share here. There is no greater praise that you can give to me than to tell me of your reading of my words. Truly, I am honored with those words. I never knew how I was followed until I ran into PrestorJohn in Manhattan who mentioned that he read me also. It made my evening over dinner with the fraysters. As far as my comments about you, did I exagerrate or lie? You did challenge me and it only led to my searching more for the answers. Whole new approach on Social Security.

You are glad I am still here and I am extremely happy you responded to me. I have missed your challenges and words. I have to sleep.

Good night IWonder. Thank you.

"He peaks the words so well; but does he, does he understand?"

You nailed it, run. That is the problem.

Good night, and sweet dreams.

IWonder:

Slept late and finely my dog nugged me to feed him and let him out. A rescue Elkhound at 4 years old, he loves his walks and I walk him miles on the dirt roads of Michigan. I finally lost the tenonditis in my right foor and I am back to running 2 or so miles a day.

Sometimes taking a small degree of responsibility for one's future is important. Maybe your daughter can share that with you and take part of the load from you. It may be hard to give some of it up. We both have done so when we were their age. I have done this with my own when there were issues and it seemed to work. It is then they can share in the costs, the effort, and the success.

I am going to assume the daughter is doing well otherwise. And I believe you also have a son? How is he doing, if I may ask?

My son is doing wonderfully, but then again, he has always been very focused and is doing what he loves.

And my daughter is doing fine, too. I just think it will take her a little longer to figure things out because she doesn't know what she wants to do. But she'll get there, and if that's all I have to worry about, I have to say, things are pretty good.

And they are both helping out a lot more.

If you remember my name, you should drop me an email at firstname.lastname@yahoo.com. I want to know how things are with you.