<ol>
<li><p>having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy:* a rich man; a rich nation.*</p></li>
<li><p>abounding in natural resources: a rich territory.</p></li>
<li><p>having wealth or valuable resources (usually followed by in ): *a country rich in traditions. *</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Isn’t it relative? Well, maybe percentiles will help. Someone making $250,000 a year is in the top 0.001% richest people in the world.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, so true. College inflation rates are increasing at a much higher rate than the CPI, which is truly scary to imagine what costs for college will be when I’m old enough to have kids going off to college.</p>
<p>SAY, I am suggesting we stop messing with qualitiative concepts such as “rich.”. The $200,000 gap is stunning, even with taxes. It is a difference in quantity.</p>
<p>The median 100k family is not exempt from taxes, the prices of food, insurance, gasoline, utilities, etc.</p>
<p>An income of $250,000 or more is the top 1.5 percent of all American households. It’s more than five times the median income of $45,000. Statistics from the Census Bureau.</p>
<p>That’s rich, period. Anyone arguing otherwise is deluded.</p>
<p>I suggest you re-read the very definition BillyMc graciously posted for us. Very few making 250k have wealth or great posessions. Poor third world countries are another straw man. Families making 100k actually pay relatively little in income taxes. I’m sure you’re aware that 47% of tax payors pay no federal income taxes at all. Taxation kicks in above 80-100k.</p>
<p>The family with the $250,000 income might be considered rich by some and not rich by others, but really it is their money. It is not fair to demand that their tuition be high enough to subsidize someone else’s when the cost of that tuition makes the university unaffordable to them. That family is also paying the cost of government subsidies and grants while not being able to take advantage of them. And no, despite universities’ claims, the cost to educate every student is not more than the full-pay cost per a recent study.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that students with low EFCs have an easy road either. Except for a few top schools, they are going to have to take out a lot of painful loans. That is if they can get them.</p>
<p>Tuition doesn’t subsidize financial aid; the government and the college’s donors do that. Tuition is usually less than it actually costs to run a university per student (excluding for-profits).</p>
<p>
Citation, please?</p>
<p>
And they probably have bigger problems in their lives.</p>
<p>Along with your assertion that someone making $250,000 isn’t rich, this is final proof that you’re delusional. I assure you that as a federal park ranger, I make far less than your line… and yet somehow they’re deducting an array of federal taxes from my paycheck. How can this be?</p>
<p>Not to mention the other taxes I pay, most notably sales taxes, air travel taxes, etc.</p>
<p>Plus it only makes sense. I could hire a top-notch personal tutor for my student only who would give instruction 2-3 hrs/day (plus other associated time), rent an apt and provide food for less than $55K/yr.</p>
<p>If the money for need aid (aside from government programs) really only came from donations, it would vary year to year.</p>
“In many cases student tuition and third-party payments on behalf of students easily cover the portion of spending that is actually used for educational activities.”</p>
<p>So it ignores the behemoth of administrative spending, which the college needs to pay.</p>
<p>
Without administrative spending, recruiting, paying an admissions office, buildings other than residence, etc.</p>
<p>Oh, and you would need five such tutors. Each with their own residence and salary and class room. Make sure to pay them to do research, too.</p>
<p>
No, they use it to build up endowments. They may get $100mil/year in donations but only use $60mil/year on FA, so they save the rest for years with less donations or to increase FA or for research or development or whatever else.</p>
<p>*47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number. *</p>
<p>You can judge a newspaper’s entire political position by two op-ed columnists? I could as easily say it’s conservative because of Ross Dauthout and John Tierney, or right centrist because of David Brooks. And the referenced article was written by none of them. I fail to see what is “highly progressive” about an article which pities 250K families for their lack of money. That was a poor logical argument.</p>
Even the NY Times public editor has stated that it is a liberal paper. Which it is, and nothing wrong with that because it publishes in a liberal city and suits its market.</p>
<p>Just a side note to the plumber fetish. Most of the plumbers, electricians, contractors I know (and even a couple of gentlemen who own seats on the various exchanges) are policemen, firemen, sanitation workers as well. That’s so common as to be the norm in NYC. They get licenses when they are younger and build up side businesses while they are working and then retire at 20 years with their tax free pensions and lifetime medical/dental coverage and make six figures in those other businesses. In my personal experience, they are often the millionaires next door and their financial resources might be surprising.</p>
<p>*Originally Posted by SAY
Taxation kicks in above 80-100k. </p>
<p>Polarscribe quote:
Along with your assertion that someone making $250,000 isn’t rich, this is final proof that you’re delusional. I assure you that as a federal park ranger, I make far less than your line… and yet somehow they’re deducting an array of federal taxes from my paycheck. How can this be?</p>
<p>Not to mention the other taxes I pay, most notably sales taxes, air travel taxes, etc.
*</p>
<p>Obviously, Say is talking about fed taxes only…not FICA, state, or other taxes.</p>
<p>And, the $80-100k number isn’t really right unless it’s a family with huge mortgage and/or other deductions. The couple without kids who rents or the single person with a low mortgage and makes that much will pay fed taxes.</p>
<p>And, it doesn’t matter what is being deducted, it’s the amount you’ve paid after you’ve gotten your tax return. So, a family that has XXXX deducted, but then gets all or nearly all of it back is not paying anything or much in fed taxes. </p>
<p>And…it’s true…half of Americans are no longer paying federal income taxes.</p>
<p>BillyMc “It does make a difference. As I said, “if you choose to live in certain very expensive areas (mid-town Manhattan), your living expenses will be much higher, but living in a wealthy area doesn’t change your socioeconomic class, it just changes how you spend your money.” So while you have less disposable income (from a whole lot to a regular lot), you’re still in an upper class.”</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how much you make, it matters how much you keep. You can be upper class based upon your NYC income but have less disposable income than a middle class earner in Des Moines. Folks that make that kind of money often have to spend a lot of money to maintain that income stream. As noted by other posters there are significant expenditures for child care, house cleaning, eating out etc. Don’t think that people in that income bracket can always save money by brown bagging…it wasn’t allowed by my first employer. You can make very good money working 24/7 but there may be no time left to clean your own house. Still, it’s a choice. Sometimes people realize that they can have a much higher standard of living by leaving the upper class (if 250k is defined as upper class).</p>
<p>Also, we shouldn’t confuse wealth with income. Someone earning 250k may not have anything saved while another person earning 100k may be a millionaire!</p>
<p>That’s completely misleading, mom2collegekids. Income taxes are far from the only “fed taxes.” Payroll and FICA taxes are also federal taxes and are paid by everyone who earns a wage or is self-employed. Pretending that they somehow “don’t count” doesn’t change the fact that I’m paying them.</p>
Family A: Family of four, one parent works non-labor-intensive job, high income, country-club mansion in a wealthy area, two fairly new expensive cars, lots of consumer debt, little disposable income left after these expenses.</p>
<p>Family B: Family of four, both parents work labor-intensive jobs, low income, rent a small house in a questionable area, two old beat-up cars, little disposable income left after these expenses.</p>
<p>Family C: Family of four, third world country, both parents and both children work labor-intensive jobs, extremely low income, live in a hut, own a goat, little disposable income left after buying cheap meager food.</p>
<p>All three families are equally wealthy, then? Or would you call the first rich, the second lower/working-class, and the third poor?</p>