The Top 1% Must Stop Insisting They’re Not Rich Right This Instant

[baldguy]

This is a common theme, reiterated everywhere from golf course bars to the pages of various rich person-centric newspapers and magazines: "{Salary much higher than yours} might sound like a lot, but once you consider the cost of living, I'm really not even close to being 'rich.'" Yeah. Fuck you. Today's entry in this category comes in the form of a Toronto Life essay by Jonathan Kay, which is god damn enraging, assuming you make less than $196K per year (the cutoff line for Canada's top 1%). "That's no small amount of money, but hardly the means for a life of leisure," Jonathan writes. OH? "In an increasingly pricy city like Toronto, where we pay a premium for everything from milk to car insurance, $196,000 can seem positively middle-class." Please Jonathan, justify yourself, with numbers.

Break it down, and it translates to roughly $10,400 a month, after taxes. For many Torontonians, that $10,400 disappears fast. Thousands go to the mortgage. For those with young kids, daycare can cost upwards of $1,500 a month. There are the car and RSP payments, wardrobe refreshes, utility bills and something to set aside for when the furnace inevitably conks out. Plus the cost of the sushi, pad Thai and butter chicken that we order in three nights a week-because we're all too tired to cook by the time we get home from work.

Then there's the stuff that fills our houses-the calibre of which is the subject of intense, unspoken competition among my peers and neighbours.

And here we see the fundamental dishonest characteristic of each and every article which advances this particular enraging argument. "Sure, it's an objectively large sum of money," they say. "But it is far smaller after I spend it."

more:
http://gawker.com/5885705/the-top-1-must-stop-insisting-theyre-not-rich-right-this-instant

[liberal N proud]

1. MOst of them are bankrupt

Morally bankrupt.

I guess when you have a million dollars, you think you would have to have a 100 million to be rich, then when you have the 100 million, you think you need a billion to be rich. You never have enough.

[progress2k12nbynd]

2. Great post, I 100% agree with you. They're just trying to sray the conversation elsewhere

But I will say that ALL of us should pay higher taxes. The Occupy movement can probably gain more traction if it focused on important programs being bankrupt and ALL of us needing to pay more to save them. By focusing on a select group of people and saying only they need to pay more, some MORANS out there are actually starting to feel sorry for these people.

[glowing]

5. I'm not sure how it is in Canada or their breakdown of tax rates, but in the USA

a lot of wealthy or rich people (which can mean different things), but for the luxury of discussion here, say someone who pulls in a million as income... Some of that income is more than likely gained from stocks and such which is taxed at a much lower rate. Then they have their offshore bank accounts (tax dodging, perfectly legal out of IRS range status). AND then they have their "charities" or some such non-sense which they stick a large chunk of money into, keep it tax free, and pay themselves and family members salaries from while picking and choosing whom is and is not worthy of their help, rather than paying taxes and allowing the Government distribute it into the much needed safety nets everyone is falling into or through.

On top of all of that, they have created a lifestyle that keeps them secluded from the real life of the poor, working poor, working lower class and middle class by buying into secluded real estate, taking vacations away from the masses on private islands on their yachts, and schooling their children in top, elite private schools (and before schooling begins they hire nanny's to care for their children; even if the "mother" is a non-working socialite who has little to do other than shop, get botox injections, drink champagne in the afternoon, do their tennis instructor in the afternoon, and "dress" up for some evening "charity" event where they stand around comparing one another's cards of wealth and share in the latest gossip of who's getting left for the Nanny or the office secretary 1/2 their age.

If everyone who worked had a living wage that allowed them to also save and send their children to college and keep them from going bankrupt from a medical crisis or they weren't 1 pay check from living on the street, then I would say that the taxes on people should actually increase on the whole to make clear away the debts. However, at this time, the rich have rigged the game and are on the take. The ship is sinking and the wealthy who are still above the water line, dancing to the music and sipping champagne and eating caviar don't even realize that the ship they have created is sinking. They cannot keep all of the wealth or use all of earth's resources or keep people brutally down under a hardened thumb in slave like conditions. At some point those at the bottom will have to pull out all the stops to and go into survivor mode, even if it means taking all the life rafts before the wealthy even realize their are no life rafts left.

When those at the bottom are struggling for basic survival and are choosing between food, meds, rent or electricity every month, they are not going to be out "buying" and "consuming". At some point, the balance is so tipped that its no longer a good thing to cut salaries or lay people off. Who is going to buy their shit? The balance has to tip back to a more equal distribution. The best way to effect this is by taxing those that have, and using the tax money to invest into the country by directly hiring and by building the country that is in shambles. Its better to do this now, than to face a more chaotic worldwide economic catastrophe that takes empathy out of humanity and places it into animalistic, basic survival mode. If that happens with 7 billion people, we will more than likely destroy ourselves.

[kestrel91316]

8. If the poor in the US pay any more taxes, they'll starve.

Same for the lower middle class and perhaps even the middle middle class.

You can't get blood from a turnip, NOR SHOULD YOU TRY.

[progress2k12nbynd]

10. That's true.

We shouldn't have a tax system that's setting people up to starve. Something's gotta give.

[taught_me_patience]

3. $10,400/mo is NOT rich

especially in an expensive city like Toronto. Although, it's nice they don't have student loans.

[baldguy]

7. If you can afford to live the high life in an expensive city, you're rich by definition.

RTFA

[kestrel91316]

9. Especially when one tries to live like a king.

[Taitertots]

11. The OP states that it is the cut-off for the 1%, it is without question rich

The only reason it is expensive is because rich people are running the price up.

[sibelian]

4. WARDROBE REFRESHES?

SUSHI? THAI PAD CHICKEN? THREE NIGHTS A FUCKING WEEEK????

[yellowcanine]

6. "I make a lot of money but I have a lot of expenses also."

Multiple houses, household help and pricy cars will do that to you.

[elias7]

12. The top 1% has nothing to do with annual salary.

Real wealthy people are trust fund folks, blue blood inheritors of estates and empires. These folks don't need to work, ever. These are the folks with off shore accounts, major tax shelters, major philanthropic donations.

No one making 200k/ yr will ever reach wealthy status of this order. Failure to understand the basic difference between those making a top 1 % salary and those who have 1% wealth is evident in this thread.

As a physician, I have made close to 200k for about 10 years. I am not a millionaire, I don't drink champagne in the afternoon, belong to a country club, have offshore accounts, multiple house, or have anything that people tend to associate with the one percent. If i stopped working, we would be in deep shit within 2-3 months. This is not wealth. This is relative comfort.

Interestingly, my wife's ex has never held a job for long; he never needed to because he was a trust fund baby. Born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple. He has multiple properties, massive investments, no need for a job, no concerns financially. That is wealth.

He is against the estate tax for obvious reasons; he stands to inherit millions, and after 3.5 million or so, you start to get taxed. He is wealthy. I don't care about an estate tax for several reasons. First, I will never inherit money, second, I will never make enough to pass on significant wealth to my kids, third, I think the estate tax should be in effect for basic fairness.

People need to understand the fundamental difference between someone in my condition and the condition of a truly wealthy person.

It really has nothing to do with salaried income.

[oldhippie]

13. I hate to tell you this, doc ........

..... but you are exactly who the OP was speaking about. (Not that I agree with him.) To most of the 99%, you ARE part of the 1%. Maybe not the .1% , but still a 1%er. Denying it doesn't work. You will still be envied and vilified.

[elias7]

14. And my point is that there is a lack of discernment between my state and the ruling class

Which perhaps you understand. I am for OWS for the same reasons as you. I hope people don't begrudge my income. I am paying back $120k in loans, pay 15k/ yr in malpractice insurance, pay 24k/yr for health insurance, and put as much as possible in a 529 plan for my kids because they will never qualify for financial aid. I have a high pressure, high stakes job that required years of training and sacrifice, and I do it because it is a service position.

I have supported higher taxes despite that not being in my best financial interests. I donate as much as possible to groups like the ACLU and progressive/charitable organizations. I do not exploit workers, manipulate finances, cheat honest hard working people, gamble with other people's money, or get 10million in bonuses. I am not the enemy. I have walked with OWS in Keene, nh. I have fought for and supported progressive causes my whole life.

People need to understand the distinction between making a good salary for an honest job and the obscenely wealthy who fight to preserve the staus quo. I fight for policies that benefit all. The enemy is the one who fight for those things which benefit themselves.

[renate]

15. "no concerns financially" from your post #12 is what I think is key

I agree with everything you've pointed out here.

There's a great big difference between knowing for a certainty, as the wealthy do, that you will never, ever be out on the street and having, temporarily, more than enough income to pay your bills while being aware that the word "temporarily" is key. Granted, there's an even bigger difference between having enough to pay the bills and not having enough, but I think you've put your finger on the real difference between being in the 1% in terms of income and being truly wealthy.

Your job, and many jobs in the 1% of income, is high-stress and it took a huge investment in time and money for you to get there, and I don't think very many people here would begrudge you your financial success, even those who work just as hard and are under just as much stress but aren't in a high-paying profession. The stress and hard work is another big difference, often, between the wealthy and the 1% in income--especially if someone's wealth is inherited, obviously.