Print
March 17, 2010 | 6:02 pm -
Popular
March 17, 2010 | 4:57 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 4:14 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 10:29 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 5:10 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 1:29 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 3:55 pm -
March 16, 2010 | 2:02 pm -
March 14, 2010 | 9:30 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 3:27 pm -
March 16, 2010 | 2:37 pm -
March 15, 2010 | 3:56 pm -
March 17, 2010 | 3:01 pm -
TNR on the Second Amendment
get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (4)
Why does the arbitrary income of $250k automatically make one rich? Why is there no consideration for the economic conditions of the area your living in?
Why does the arbitrary income of $250k automatically make one rich? Why is there no consideration for the economic conditions of the area your living in?
max, sorry but 250K a year makes you rich anywhere in America. I lived in Bergen County for 15 years at a mere fraction of that and survived quite well, and Bergen County is one of the most expensive counties in America to live.
max, sorry but 250K a year makes you rich anywhere in America. I lived in Bergen County for 15 years at a mere fraction of that and survived quite well, and Bergen County is one of the most expensive counties in America to live.
since only about 2% of the population earn above 250K, I guess that makes such a person rich anywhere. However, if anyone thinks that raising taxes on 2% of the population is the answer to our financial problems, as Chait seems to think, they have their heads up where the sun doesn't shine. Sure, taxes should be raised on the "rich", I agree. It is an important step, but it is only a piece of the pie. "Broad based" tax increases, in one form or another, will be necessary. Middle-income earners will not escape higher taxes. Also, looking at the chart, is it really any wonder, or a great analytical insight, that most everybody who is not "upper income" is pointing the finger at those wh ... view full comment
since only about 2% of the population earn above 250K, I guess that makes such a person rich anywhere. However, if anyone thinks that raising taxes on 2% of the population is the answer to our financial problems, as Chait seems to think, they have their heads up where the sun doesn't shine. Sure, taxes should be raised on the "rich", I agree. It is an important step, but it is only a piece of the pie. "Broad based" tax increases, in one form or another, will be necessary. Middle-income earners will not escape higher taxes. Also, looking at the chart, is it really any wonder, or a great analytical insight, that most everybody who is not "upper income" is pointing the finger at those who are? "I agree, I am paying my fair share but that rich guy isn't!" Wow, thanks for pointing that out, Chait.
The real problem is that too many Dems are really spineless. I mean, ffs, they have the presidency and congress. And yet, they still, at the first voicing of any criticism of them, however zany (and objecting to a slight increase in taxes on the incredibly wealthy IS zany), they'll reflexively drop to a fetal position and turtle up.
The real problem is that too many Dems are really spineless. I mean, ffs, they have the presidency and congress. And yet, they still, at the first voicing of any criticism of them, however zany (and objecting to a slight increase in taxes on the incredibly wealthy IS zany), they'll reflexively drop to a fetal position and turtle up.