ENID — “Who is rich? He that rejoices in his portion.” — Benjamin Franklin
The new year is only in its fifth day, but it already has been remarkable.
Before the new year is even a week old, we have a solution to the nation’s burgeoning budget deficit.
At least we have a solution, according to those taking part in a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released earlier this week.
The majority of Americans responding say the solution to balancing the federal budget is to tax the rich. Sixty-one percent of respondents, in fact, say raising taxes on the rich is the way to go.
Sounds great. But who determines who qualifies as rich?
Despite the optimism a new year brings, Americans as a whole aren’t feeling too positive these days.
A Bloomberg poll released last month showed 51 percent of respondents said they were worse off now than two years ago.
These people certainly wouldn’t describe themselves as rich. Neither would those who are considered elderly (the discussion of what constitutes elderly is a topic for another day).
A study by a professor at Washington University in St. Louis showed 32.7 percent of elderly whites and 64.6 percent of blacks will face poverty at some point in their so-called “golden years.”
So who is rich, anyway? According to the Obama administration, couples annually earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 or more are wealthy. That is approximately 2.5 percent of the population.
But wealthy, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. A recent Los Angeles Times article quoted Ricky Metz, a hairdresser in New York City, who along with her attorney husband earns $310,000 per year.
“I know, I know I shouldn’t whine, but in New York unless you’re a millionaire you don’t feel rich. We feel middle-class,” she said.
The concept of wealth could depend in part on geography. A salary of more than $300,000 certainly would go farther in Enid than it would in Manhattan, where it might cost $500 a month or more just to park your car.
There is no hard-and-fast scale by which wealth can be measured, a University of Michigan economic professor told the LA Times.
“The higher your income,” said Joel Slemrod, “the more money you think you need to be rich.”
In much of the world the vast majority of Americans, even those in lower income brackets, would be considered fabulously wealthy.
In Afghanistan, CNN detailed the struggles of Marjan, who spends hours picking through garbage heaps in Kabul for bits of trash her family can burn as fuel for cooking, as well as a measure of warmth against the harsh winter winds.
Marjan is 5 years old. Last winter Marjan’s baby brother died from the cold. Her mother set fire to the garbage Marjan gathered and placed the baby near it for warmth. The fire went out and the baby froze to death.
Marjan never has been to school, but dreams of being a teacher. Her supper consists of weak tea and a couple of scraps of bread. She loves to play with dolls, but instead spends her days trying to help keep her family alive.
Are you rich? If you have food, a roof over your head and warm clothes, I would wager young Marjan would consider you, to quote lyrics from the song “On the Sunny Side of the Street,” as rich as Rockefeller.
The president wanted to end the Bush-era tax cut for the wealthy, but he backed off that stance in a compromise with Republicans. Even some of the president’s Democratic colleagues can’t agree on what constitutes being rich. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would like to see those earning $1 million or more hit with higher taxes.
In the aforementioned Bloomberg poll in which a majority of Americans said they were worse off than before, 51 percent said the government needs to address the budget deficit, but also should “minimize sacrifices for the American people.” In the same poll, only 40 percent of those responding said they would favor “bold and fast change” to reduce the deficit.
I don’t like paying taxes anymore than the next guy, but this doesn’t seem to make much sense. It would seem that in order to begin making a dent in the $1.3 billion federal budget deficit, all Americans must assume some level of sacrifice. Like it or not we are all in this together.
Now, admittedly, I have to have my bride figure the amount of the tip when we go out to eat, so I am certainly not one to be espousing my views on economics, but one thing is obvious even to me — if you are spending more money than you are taking in, you are not heading in the right direction.
According to 2008 Census figures, the median U.S. household income was $52,000.
That would put that median U.S. family in the top .97 percent of the richest people in the world, according to the website globalrichlist.com.
When Christmas bills roll in and tax season approaches, many of us will bemoan our own economic status.
When you are so tempted, give a thought to little Marjan and the billions of her brothers and sisters the world over for whom the simplest thing we Americans take for granted would constitute the height of luxury and extreme wealth.
Mullin is senior writer of the News & Eagle. E-mail him at jmullin@enidnews.com
The new year is only in its fifth day, but it already has been remarkable.
Before the new year is even a week old, we have a solution to the nation’s burgeoning budget deficit.
At least we have a solution, according to those taking part in a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released earlier this week.
The majority of Americans responding say the solution to balancing the federal budget is to tax the rich. Sixty-one percent of respondents, in fact, say raising taxes on the rich is the way to go.
Sounds great. But who determines who qualifies as rich?
Despite the optimism a new year brings, Americans as a whole aren’t feeling too positive these days.
A Bloomberg poll released last month showed 51 percent of respondents said they were worse off now than two years ago.
These people certainly wouldn’t describe themselves as rich. Neither would those who are considered elderly (the discussion of what constitutes elderly is a topic for another day).
A study by a professor at Washington University in St. Louis showed 32.7 percent of elderly whites and 64.6 percent of blacks will face poverty at some point in their so-called “golden years.”
So who is rich, anyway? According to the Obama administration, couples annually earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 or more are wealthy. That is approximately 2.5 percent of the population.
But wealthy, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. A recent Los Angeles Times article quoted Ricky Metz, a hairdresser in New York City, who along with her attorney husband earns $310,000 per year.
“I know, I know I shouldn’t whine, but in New York unless you’re a millionaire you don’t feel rich. We feel middle-class,” she said.
The concept of wealth could depend in part on geography. A salary of more than $300,000 certainly would go farther in Enid than it would in Manhattan, where it might cost $500 a month or more just to park your car.
There is no hard-and-fast scale by which wealth can be measured, a University of Michigan economic professor told the LA Times.
“The higher your income,” said Joel Slemrod, “the more money you think you need to be rich.”
In much of the world the vast majority of Americans, even those in lower income brackets, would be considered fabulously wealthy.
In Afghanistan, CNN detailed the struggles of Marjan, who spends hours picking through garbage heaps in Kabul for bits of trash her family can burn as fuel for cooking, as well as a measure of warmth against the harsh winter winds.
Marjan is 5 years old. Last winter Marjan’s baby brother died from the cold. Her mother set fire to the garbage Marjan gathered and placed the baby near it for warmth. The fire went out and the baby froze to death.
Marjan never has been to school, but dreams of being a teacher. Her supper consists of weak tea and a couple of scraps of bread. She loves to play with dolls, but instead spends her days trying to help keep her family alive.
Are you rich? If you have food, a roof over your head and warm clothes, I would wager young Marjan would consider you, to quote lyrics from the song “On the Sunny Side of the Street,” as rich as Rockefeller.
The president wanted to end the Bush-era tax cut for the wealthy, but he backed off that stance in a compromise with Republicans. Even some of the president’s Democratic colleagues can’t agree on what constitutes being rich. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would like to see those earning $1 million or more hit with higher taxes.
In the aforementioned Bloomberg poll in which a majority of Americans said they were worse off than before, 51 percent said the government needs to address the budget deficit, but also should “minimize sacrifices for the American people.” In the same poll, only 40 percent of those responding said they would favor “bold and fast change” to reduce the deficit.
I don’t like paying taxes anymore than the next guy, but this doesn’t seem to make much sense. It would seem that in order to begin making a dent in the $1.3 billion federal budget deficit, all Americans must assume some level of sacrifice. Like it or not we are all in this together.
Now, admittedly, I have to have my bride figure the amount of the tip when we go out to eat, so I am certainly not one to be espousing my views on economics, but one thing is obvious even to me — if you are spending more money than you are taking in, you are not heading in the right direction.
According to 2008 Census figures, the median U.S. household income was $52,000.
That would put that median U.S. family in the top .97 percent of the richest people in the world, according to the website globalrichlist.com.
When Christmas bills roll in and tax season approaches, many of us will bemoan our own economic status.
When you are so tempted, give a thought to little Marjan and the billions of her brothers and sisters the world over for whom the simplest thing we Americans take for granted would constitute the height of luxury and extreme wealth.
Mullin is senior writer of the News & Eagle. E-mail him at jmullin@enidnews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment