I don't believe $250K/yr. is poverty anywhere in the US.

[KillCapitalism]

I'm not sure why some claim living in LA, San. Fran., or NYC on $250K/yr. is akin to living in poverty.

I'd like to see some proof of this, if anyone here can come up with some examples of people in these places living on food stamps or in Section 8 housing, post up.

If it's too hard to live in these places ona 6-figure income, then maybe they should be "boycotted." It makes far more sense to live in a place like rural Oklahoma if you work in a field where you make only a modest salary.

[xultar]

1. You are exaggerating people say $250k is middle class in those ares, not

Poverty.

I think u should post a link to prove some have said $250k is poverty and living on food stamps.

[KillCapitalism]

5. I've only seen it said a time or two here.

I could find examples, but I'll have to dig, dig, dig.

It's been stated in other forums out there on the net for sure.

[pnwmom]

14. Maybe you've been reading Forbes Magazine?

:shrug:

They had an article once categorizing the varies levels of wealth. As I recall, they set the level of true wealth -- the lowest level, what they called "beer and pretzels rich" -- at $25 million in assets. They said you had to have at least that much before you were wealthy enough to spend whatever you wanted.

And then there are people like Meg Whitman -- who can drop $120,000,000 on a failed race for Governor and not even miss it.

[ehrnst]

16. Maybe if they're snorting or shooting it up - but no, not otherwise. (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

2. Median income in those cities is *way* lower than $250K. Median income = "the middle".

The people saying $250K is middle class *anywhere* in the US have lost touch with reality. They're upper-upper-middle class folks comparing themselves to high rollers and feeling "poor" in comparison.

[xultar]

3. I think if you made 80k you could make it but it would be tight.

[Hannah Bell]

6. median household income in SF = about $66K. That means half of households

make less. Median family income was about $81K. Half of families make less.

Poverty rate in SF was about 12%

SF is the 4th most affluent city in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics

Median household income in NYC in 2007 = $48K. In the same year the median income IN THE WEALTHIEST CENSUS TRACT IN NYC (also the wealthiest census tract in the nation) was $188K.

So anyone making $250K is doing just fine, NO MATTER WHERE they live.

[pnwmom]

11. No one said a household making $250 K is in poverty.

But an upper middle class family in San Francisco with a household income of $250K makes a little more than 3 times the median household income. The truly wealthy -- the Meg Whitmans, etc., can make 100 times as much -- or even more.


No one is saying that the people at the $250 K level aren't vastly better off financially than at $80,000. But most of the people at the $250 level are there because they are working professionals, often two professionals. They have to work to maintain their houses and pay their bills. Not so with the Meg Whitmans, who can toss $120,000,000 down the drain and not even feel it.

[Hannah Bell]

15. no, some people *are* saying that people making $250 are "middle class".

and they're not, no matter where they live.

when you get that much income, even if you get it from working, the line between working class & middle class gets blurry if you have investments.

and even meg whitman has to maintain her house & pay her bills - i imagine. i also imagine that meg didn't finance her entire campaign alone.

[pnwmom]

23. She did spend that much of her OWN money.

As hard as it is to conceive. She got some other funds, too, but she wasted $120 mil of her very own.

[pnwmom]

12. It would be even tighter if you had children, too.

My daughter lives in a "cheaper" S.F. suburb, in a tiny apartment with a bedroom too small even for a queen sized bed. The two of them are doing fine (at somewhat less than the median), but it would be much harder if they had kids to pay for. Some people in other parts of the country would be shocked at the prices to rent/buy in or near certain coastal cities. Why do people live in those places? Same reason other people live in their towns -- to be near relatives or jobs.

[Kaleva]

4. I make 1/10th that and I'm doing fine.

But then again, i live in Upper Michigan where one can buy a nice home for 35k.

[JDPriestly]

7. Here in Los Angeles, a family could live very, very comfortably on far

less than $250,000. Private schools and maids are, in my opinion, a luxury for the rich. My family thrived without them. And we both worked. Others can thrive without those things too. In fact, many families would be better off, more harmonious and happier if they did not have so much money. I say that as an older person looking back on my life. Money really, really, really, really does not make you happy. Having enough makes you happy. But enough doesn't need to be a whole lot.

[pnwmom]

10. If you are an older person and own a house, you benefited from Prop 13.

You might not realize the true cost of living for younger people in your area.

Younger people have to pay a premium on their real estate taxes because of Proposition 13. Two families with identical houses next door to each other could have wildly different tax bills, depending on whether the house was purchased 30 years ago or last year.

[JDPriestly]

20. If you are an older person and on Social Security, you could not

afford to pay the tax bill that a younger person who is working can afford. The tax rates on properties are so high because property values are exorbitant. I think that will change, and that housing will become more affordable.

Remember, Prop. 13 protects you not based on your age, but on how long you live in your house. We bought an old fixer many years ago. We paid far more in taxes than our long established neighbors when we started out and had children. Our taxes go up each year. When you first buy your house, you will pay what seems to be a high tax compared to your elderly neighbors (as we did), but if you stay in your home and keep it up and improve it rather than "move up" to a different, much more expensive house, you, too will benefit from Prop. 13.

Prop. 13 promotes stability in neighborhoods. That is, in a city like Los Angeles, a very good thing. It means that the older generation, which is less prone to crime and more prone to civic activism and responsibility, remains in the community. It serves a public purpose in that the seniors in your community create not just diversity and a community resource but also are the glue that holds community together.

We used to have an elderly neighbor at the top of our street. He sat on his porch all day and watched everyone come and go. His presence was a more effective crime deterrent than the best police force imaginable. He knew who was an outsider, whose house was being repaired, whether there was a new mail carrier. He knew everything. You don't want to force people like that out of your neighborhood.

Life is not just about money. It is about human relationships and community. You pay more now. We paid more then. It evens out.

[pnwmom]

24. It only evens out if you can stay for decades. Most people don't.

A better solution is what many other localities have -- various breaks on property taxes for senior citizens. In some places, senior citizens don't have to pay school taxes. In other cities, they have a tax rate that doesn't go up. In others, senior citizens on limited incomes might get a break. There are lots of better alternatives than Prop. 13.

[redirish28]

8. If 250K/Yr is poverty than my wife and I are Destitute.

[pnwmom]

13. Depends largely on housing costs. If you live in a place

where the average house costs 100K or less, you need less income than a place where houses cost more than half a million. And if you rent, rents are related to housing costs -- places with high housing costs will have high rental costs, too.

[pnwmom]

9. No one has said it is poverty, or even close to it.

Some have said that a household income (not single income) at that level is upper middle class in certain high price areas.

In NYC, for example, a cop married to a firefighter, each with overtime and 20 years of experience, could have a combined family income approaching that level.

[MadHound]

17. For the vast majority of areas in this country, an income of $250,000 means that you're well off

Either in the very top of the upper middle class, or flat out rich. Such a salary also means that you can easily afford for the Bush tax cuts to expire, and frankly, given the number and scope of the various tax loopholes and tax laws, you are probably paying far less than the nominal income tax for your bracket.

[stray cat]

18. Are you willing to live at the rate of poverty as defined by the government?

What is it 12000 per year? I think we should tax everyone so that no one makes more than that.

Has anyone ever claimed 250000 is the same as 12000? Progressives don't seem to deal in facts any more than conservatives

[RobertDevereaux]

19. $250k is ADJUSTED gross income...

So their gross income is more like $325k.

[sarcasmo]

21. Pretty sure we could live alright even in NYC on 250,000 a year.

[Cleita]

22. Well, I live on less than $20,000 a year and I do meet

my needs with the help of national health care (Medicare) and relatives who let me rent for less than the going rate. I would be living in luxury on $250K/yr.