We live a comfortable life. Our income is based on 2 incomes.
We travel a lot, we dine at the finest restauants, we attend a
lot of shows and concerts.
I would never complain about the lifestyle I live.
However most of the people I work with experience the same level
of luxury.
The median home price in our area is 260,000 and our house is
appraised at 267,000.
My argument isn't that I'm not doing just fine, but I am not
"wealthy". The argument doesn't even take into account the place
that I live. Should a man making 100k a year in monmouth county,
nj, pay more federal tax than a man making 70K in a place where
houses sell for 175,000? Well how fair is that? Shouldn't they
pay the same percentage?
Throw in that NJ sends 24 billion dollars more to the federal
government than it gets back makes it a double-whammy.
My definition of "wealthy" is having enough money to never work
again and live at a reasonable lifestyle. So if you're a 40 year
old man and you have 2 million dollars of assets, that's wealthy.
Finally, why should I pay more of a percentage of my income than
someone who actually uses more services? Shouldn't I get some
benefit for working hard? Should we really reward the deadbeats
and potheads we knew in high school for blowing off their
education and working in Walmart instead?
--- Kristyne McDaniel <newsbox .AT. mcstyles .D.OT com> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> What I am calling "well off" or modest wealth translates to the
> ability to
> fund the following:
>
> - A comfortable home, perhaps with a swimming pool
> - More than one late-model car
> - Funding for health care and children's education
> - Funding for vacations longer than a week at least once a year
> - Funding for destinations further than you can drive to
> - Ability to support at least one hobby or sport activity
>
> I don't make as much money as I did before the current
> 'wonderful' Bush
> economy, but when I did, I lived in a comfortable suburban
> house with a
> swimming pool. I drove a Mustang Cobra that I bought new, and
> my husband had
> a big truck and a commuter car. We paid a maid service to clean
> our house, a
> gardener to keep things trimmed up, and a pool service to keep
> it in good
> swimming condition. All of our children that wanted to go to
> college went,
> and are now college graduates on good career paths.
>
> If that is not 'wealthy' by virtually any standard you measure
> by, I don't
> know what is. And we did that in Southern California on far
> less than a
> taxable income of $200K. I can tell you that if I had been
> earning $200K
> taxable income, I'd have been able to accomplish a lot more
> than I did with
> the income I had.
>
> I submit that if you're unable to live well on $200K taxable
> income, you are
> squandering your money.
>
> These days, we are still camped in an RV on our 20-acre ranch
> having been
> unable to get all of the pieces in place so we can get the
> construction
> project off the ground. I don't expect that condition to be
> permanent,
> however. One way or another, we will finally get the electric
> grid the rest
> of the way out to us, and we'll get that house built. Still on
> well under a
> taxable income of $200K.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Kris
>
> www.shamrocktrails.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the
> opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical
> advice. This statement is added to the messages for those
> lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
>
>
=====
If the election were held today, who would Osama Bin Laden vote for?
A. John Kerry
B. Ralph Nader
C. George Bush
©2004 Michael Madigan |
