How much do you have to earn to be classified as "rich"?
There’s a hotly contested issue being fought over on Capitol Hill these days, and you’ll never guess what it’s about: money.
At the heart of the squabble lies tax cuts still lingering from the George Bush administration. As they stand, in essence, the richest of rich Americans are taxed similar to what you or I would pay in penalties, were we from south of the border. This is, in essence, not a responsible tax system.
So then in rides old Barry Obama on his horse named Equality and he wants to shake things up. Only, what changes does he make? How does one man tax the “rich” more severely from the rest when we’ve never really defined what “rich” is?
Certainly, this is one question too big for this space and an answer that’ll elude anyone that goes looking – what, exactly, is rich?
For some, it’s security. For others, it’s gobs of cash. For you, it might be family. Respect. Good health. Charity. Yada, yada, yada.
If you’re looking for more on the philosophical meanings of wealth, check out this MSN article from MP Dunleavey. Tons of good stuff in there.
Yet while we’re sure to never agree on a theoretical definition of “rich,” maybe we can at least do our best to narrow the financial fragments of the term down to a dollar sign standard or two.
Which leads us back to our friends in the States. By Barack Obama’s suggestion, Bush’s existing tax cuts should be altered around the benchmark of $200,000 per year. If he had his way, those who earn more than two hundred grand annually (or $250,000 per household) would be taxed at a higher rate that those who earn less than that figure.
A salary of $200,000 per year, then, is what Barack Obama and his administration classify as “rich.” Before, under Bush’s reign, “rich” meant you earned more than $375,000 per year.
Of course, Obama’s proposition has ruffled some feathers. The top tax bracket in the U.S. levies a 35 per cent charge on Americans’ per-year income, so then, if the tax system actually gets shuffled, every Yankee that earns between $172,001 ($172,000 is the second-highest existing tax bracket standard) and $374,999 annually would have their tax penalties jacked up to a place they’d never been before.
(While the Conservative opposition chastises Obama for such a move – it would hurt honest small business owners, they say, not the wealthy plutocrats that are the President’s main target – no one in Canada is likely to bat an eyelash. Thirty-five per cent as the highest national tax penalty is a joke: anyone who earns over $127,021 per year in Canada regularly pays more than 43 per cent in annual taxes. Nova Scotians who make more than that each year pay the highest income tax across the nation – 46.5 per cent total.)
In any case, the “is $200,000 per year ‘rich’?” argument gives us a good starting point for a debate.
If we have to boil it down to annual salary, what do you think you’d have to make each year to be classified as “rich”? $100,000? $200,000? More? Less? Tell us below.
By Jason Buckland, MSN Money
Posted by: Canadian Too | Aug 12, 2021 10:03:03 PM
When we look around the world at the people living in abject poverty I think we all conclude that most Canadians are rich on a world scale. Some here might be so naïve as to think that a more fair tax structure would cause the wealthier among us to leave but I would simply advise them to look to the Scandinavian countries. Historically we are at a similar point to the early 1930’s when it comes to wealth disparity and fortunately time has a way of ‘healing’ all such disparities however the longer we wait the lower the final number of what ‘rich’ is will be. I like the earlier poster who thought that anything above $100K should be classified as rich, 4x the average Canadian persons yearly income sounds about right.
Posted by: Not rich | Aug 16, 2021 9:11:42 AM
Rich is always someone making more than you.
The person making 20 k a year at Tim Hortons, thinks I am rich making 60k a year. I think my director making 125k a year is rich. She thinks her boss making 225k a year is rich. He thinks his boss making 400k ayear is rich. Its all relative.
Posted by: darrell white | Aug 17, 2021 12:54:32 PM
if a family memember suddenly needs 20,000 in cash the next day and you can give it to them without affecting your own lifestyle then you are right.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 20, 2021 2:53:04 PM
Let’s say that I make 200,000 and my wife makes 40,000, 2 young kids, 2 cars with one car loan, a 25 year mortgage. Vacation money, max-out RRSP, RESP. If I can save another 10 percent, I would feel rich. But I don’t, I am poor because I can’t buy luxury things, like a new BMW. Net income 165,000, expense 110,000 for a year, RRSP 40,000, RESP 5,000; all the money is gone. Ah, RRSP tax refund would be 15,000, still less than 10% of gross income.