re: .

quote:

---

Not likely. Very few people could write a check for $1,000 tomorrow if they needed.

---

Anyone with a checking account and a book of checks can write a $1,000 check. Now does it bounce?

quote:

---

Net worth is a terrible measure. Illiquid assets are no good for feeding you or paying rent.

---

This is true to an extent but almost all illiquid assets have a way to liquidate them (may have to sell below market value) or gives you the ability to borrow against those assets typically. It is way better than a single years of income. Career earnings might be a better measure but any single year is just way too short sighted.

quote:

---

Yes. I do very well for myself

---

I find this difficult to believe...

quote:

---

Why can you guys not see that things such as family you were born into, race, health status, gender, intelligence, month you were born all play a role in the outcomes in life?

---

I could say the same about many of "the poor". Does that mean we shouldn't help them, because, hey, it's just bad luck?

And it's hilarious you accuse others of non sequitors.

There are about 494,000 filers in 2017 with more than 1 million in income. Attributing their income to "luck" is offered without evidence. I have no idea (nor do I care) how that money was made, or what degree "luck" played in it. It makes no difference. We don't tax "luck".

The purpose of the tax code is to fund the government. Not equalize the distribution of "luck".

quote:

---

I mean... I'd love to take my the "income" from my 20s and average it out against my current income and pay tax on that.

---

My argument has never been about how the tax system should be structured just about the definition of middle class and how using 1 year of income is not enough information to know if a household is middle class. My comments were mostly in relation to those who automatically assumed someone who did not qualify for the stimulus (or $200K-$350K) based on 1 year's income could not be middle class. If someone made $70K for the last 20 years but just in 2019 jumped to $200K and did not get a stimulus. Are they middle class or no?

There isn't even a consensus on all the classes (poor, working, middle, upper middle, investing, wealthy, etc.) let alone a consensus on the defining limits of those classes. I understand it is common to consider those who make in the 25%-75% distribution of incomes be considered middle class but that is not even agreed in consensus.

quote:

---

To act like your success is solely due to being a hard worker is being willfully ignorant.

That is my whole point.

---

You're resorting to everything from erecting strawmen to outright lying to make your point, which is a waste because no one that I have seen is really disputing it.

Here's the thing.

Of course about a hundred factors matter to some degree.

Fat people are disadvantaged due to people's perceptions.

So are short men and tall women.

So are racial minorities.

So are old people.

So are people who just aren't very attractive for whatever reason.

So are people who stutter.

So are people who sweat a lot, or have bad breath, or have more body odor.

So are people with bushy eyebrows or lots of nose hair.

So are people with annoying voices.

So are people without a background in managing money.

So are people (apparently) born in the wrong months.

So are people with physical handicaps.

So are people raised in rural areas.

So are people born poor.

So are orphans.

Shall I go on, or is the obvious point clear?

No one. NO ONE disputes that all of those things are true, plus probably a few dozen more.

I certainly don't dispute it, because I have a lot of the disadvantages listed above.

But so what?

At some point you have to accept that by far the greatest determining factor in success is your own desire to achieve it and what price you're willing to pay. Does it make it harder if you are too short or too tall or too fat or too brown or too this or too that?

Sure.

But if you try to think of some examples of successful people who have none of the disadvantages we've so far discussed you might end up with a few movie stars and that's about it.

Otherwise, people become successful despite having multiple disadvantages. And they do it all the time.

Let's remember a few things for clarification's sake.

1. The definition of "success" in this thread was defined as having a household income of between $200,000 and $350,000 a year.

2. The claim I made is that any US citizen with at least an average IQ could achieve that IF they were willing to sacrifice whatever was necessary for them to have it. I assumed but did not state a reasonable level of physical health and ability in that claim, so if you want to make an issue of that (minor) point, go ahead and I concede.

3. I never once claimed that "hard work" was the only factor in success, nor do I believe that. There are plenty of people who work hard for peanuts.

I said willingness to sacrifice. One of the reasons some people work hard for next to nothing is that they weren't willing to delay gratification to put themselves in a position to have a lot more later. From the time I decided to give up my primary interest (which was making me dick) to the point at which I entered that income range was at least 10 years. Probably more like 15, honestly. Of constantly striving for it.

So sure, all of those things matter. Some more than others. But none comes anywhere near willingness to sacrifice in order to achieve.

quote:

---

My argument has never been about how the tax system should be structured

---

I know.

quote:

---

just about the definition of middle class and how using 1 year of income is not enough information to know if a household is middle class.

---

Yeah. The problem is defining "need". The debt-to-eyeballs, no cash, no savings with a million-dollar income, probably "needs" it more than the $60k/yr guy with no debt.

Ultimately that's the problem with defining policy (which must be objective) based on "needs" which are... almost completely subjective. It is a great argument showing why the government should not be funding people's personal expenses to begin with... it's too engangled with personal choices.

The purpose of our government (as founded) was for the public good, not to pay people's bills.

quote:

---

If someone made $70K for the last 20 years but just in 2019 jumped to $200K and did not get a stimulus. Are they middle class or no?

---

No. Not by tax definitions. You have to draw a line somewhere. And someone with that income history could have a ton of savings, or none at all. There is no way to know. (See above).

quote:

---

I understand it is common to consider those who make in the 25%-75% distribution of incomes be considered middle class but that is not even agreed in consensus.

---

Indeed. There can be no consensus when it's based on how "rich" people feel. I've consistently said that all along.

quote:

---

A household income of $200,000 a year is just not that much money. Hell, a couple of elementary school teachers in Massachusetts could come close to that.

---

Exactly. In the US... it's easy to make the top 5%. It's not that hard.

quote:

---

I've sacrificed free time I used to have that I've had to invest in this this year, lots of effort learning new things and mastering new skills, I've sacrificed probably 2/3rds of the income I have been used to making this year b/c instead of taking it out of the company I am investing in this endeavor, etc. I'm risking a whole lot.

---

You didn't build that. It's just luck.

So you receive a Louisiana tax return while making well over $200k a year? How many kids do you have?

I'm almost certain that I've seen you speak of a "meager" income in the past... Well over $200k annually is meager in Lake fricking Charles?

Something doesn't add up... Are you here looking for e-cred?