What is Rich?

I was just cruisin' around on the internet, looking at information on taxes. When I came across this...post...blog...whatever...

250k

So apparently, in the Bay Area 250k is still middle class? If anyone is from the SF Bay, please, lemme know how this is.

I mean, hell in Georgia, you begin middle class at about 25k; and end it somewhere towards 100k. If you make 60k a year, your pretty set.

In this lady's argument, she makes the point that living expenses, housing, childcare, etc can firmly put 250k a year firmly in the realm of middle class. And unless the average starter home is worth close to a million, I just don't see this as realistic.

I do however, think that more stratification of 'higher' incomes needs to be done. There is a definite difference between 250,000 USD a year and 25,000,000 USD a year. I mean, whats a factor of two between friends? But I would like to reiterate, if your at the 250,000 USD level, you shouldn't expect a break when it comes to taxation, in my opinion.

I would also like to note that the brackets are cumulative. Every dollar you make below 250,000 will be taxed at its appropriated place. Every dollar above, will be taxed at the new level. So given this, I don't see any reason why the taxes on 250,000+ shouldn't go up.

Just Saying. I made 30k a year going to Iraq, and there were plenty of people who made 25k or less getting shot at over there.

Liberal Soldier and Moral Sentiment

"We will be judged, by how we treat those among us, whom we regard the least." Is my own quote, but is a reconstruction and paraphrase of several similiar quotes. What does it mean? You will be judged by God (if you believe) and your descendents by how you treated the most vulnerable among you. And of course, vulnerability is subjective, so you literally have to be in power or have some sort of influence over a human being for it to take effect. If you are on an equal footing with your peergroup, then you won't have the power to lessen their lives. If you are, lets say, in a lower socio-economic class, you are the 'vulnerable' group I'm referring to.

This idea and thought, while I've strayed from it more than a few times, is how I try to base alot of my decisions. Everything from how I vote, to what I believe, to the job I choose is effected by it. It is this mentality that caused me to enlist in the first place, and despite whatever policy disagreements I may have had, I am still proud of my service, because I felt that I was making a difference. Sometimes a very real difference in a single life, and at other times, as a matter of support  for my brothers in arms.

I brought this comment up today because of one person. Lt. Governor of S. Carolina, Andre Bauer. Who has recently stated that giving children food subsidies in school is akin to feeding a stray animal, allowing it to breed, and thus in his own words 'continuing' the cycle of dependency. I wiould also like to note that the associated press has stated that Bauer himself was a recipient of food stamps.

I think in an age where massive, mis-managed companies can be recipients of public welfare, that the cutting of food subsidies for the poor should be the last things on our minds. And while there is rational thinking behind it, the fact that the children are even in school, should be their ticket to eat. He has proposed requiring attendance by parents of local PTAs, and drug tests. The status of the parent as a drug abuser shouldn't interfere with an innocent's child's access to nutrition or education. Period.

It just sort of astounds me. Cut out sex education and condom education out of schools, on moral grounds. Then, say that 'they' are breeding too much, and thus to deter that, cut funding for subsidized lunches at school. Ridiculous.

Opinions?