Notice that Warren Buffett is asking for tax increases on those who make more than $1M and $10M respectively. I'm fine with this. He seems to "get", unlike so many Democrats, that $250k/year is not rich.
Where I get nervous is all the Democrats who seem to think that there is no difference between $250k and $1M/year and up. I get kind of ill seeing obscenely wealthy Democrats in Congress, almost all making MUCH more $250k, trying to lump my household in with the rich. I'm willing to pay more, but not if these wealthy Democrats won't create a distinction between $250k/year, $1M/year, and $10+M/year.
While I agree there's a big distinction between someone earning $250k/year and $10m/year, are you aware that if your family is earning that much then you're earning over eight times the median household income?
You're wrong. First, the median income in the US is now at or slightly above $50K per year.
Second, assuming earned income (which is fair even for $250k earners), a median income household will be in either a 15% or 25% tax bracket (depending on if married). A $250k household will be in a 33% tax bracket.
My statistic was showing $31k, but if we say $50k, fine - it's now merely five times the median, not eight. That's still a comfortable situation by almost anyone's standards.
Now, if your $50k household is in a 25% tax bracket, they're paying $12.5k so leaving a net income of $37.5k. Your $250k household at 33% are paying $83k, net income $167k, 4.4 times the net income of the $50k household. So what was your point exactly?
Where I get nervous is all the Democrats who seem to think that there is no difference between $250k and $1M/year and up. I get kind of ill seeing obscenely wealthy Democrats in Congress, almost all making MUCH more $250k, trying to lump my household in with the rich. I'm willing to pay more, but not if these wealthy Democrats won't create a distinction between $250k/year, $1M/year, and $10+M/year.