The Wall Street Journal wrote a story about taxes. It is terrible, because of course it is.
After some highly misleading drivel about eliminating the step up in basis at death (which makes absolutely no sense as a policy matter), they get to this whopper:
How many people do you know with income of $175,000 and a $5 million net worth?
There’s more, but why bother. Maybe this newspaper should just take a breather on this topic.
He is fine sitting under the stairs in Grandma’s basement.
I mean, I don’t personally know a lot of them but according to this website there are millions of them.
What they don’t say is that the reason you have a net worth of 5M is that your 175k comes from shit you own. Most likely because you’re someone’s stupid heir or a retiree.
I think these people with $5 million in net worth, but $175k in income are retirees. Likely they earned far more than $175k a year when they were saving that $5 million, but now since they’ve retired, their income has dropped only to what they’re living on - i.e. $175k a year.
Probably fairly typical for someone with $5 million - taking out 3.5% per year from their nest egg to live on.
That said, it’s an entirely bs group to focus on as their income is pretty meaningless at this point.
Not for the guy that the Post is quoting. He’s a “wealth manager”, so these high net worth households are his whole world. Of course he doesn’t care about middle class people - he could never make a profit providing advice to middle class people for 1% of their invested assets.
Bingo, seems like a pretty standard position for a retired person/couple that made good money during their careers. My in laws defintely into that category. They had mid-upper level management and executive rolls at a big company but lived pretty cheap (relative to income) and retired in their upper 50s. They definitely have at least 5-10 million in investment/retirement accounts and probably take out somewhere around the annual number stated in the article to live on
If you watch Shameless you would know he (made a turn toward?) is a white supremacist.
Grunching here but Chuck Todd nailed it.
But then he pivoted to Biden, adding “and one, if there’s a criticism, might be, is he taking it too seriously, at least when it comes to campaigning?” as Moulitsas let out a visible laugh.
He went on to ask Moulitsas, “Is there any part of you that’s nervous about the light Biden footprint when it comes to campaigning, when it comes to the door-knocking, when it comes to this stuff, it is probably the only hole in the campaign infrastructure, which is obvious why it’s there. It’s due to the pandemic.”
This was a clear strategic blunder.
Maybe next cycle they should do all the polling.
Who doesn’t need a little more excitement in their lives?
A million. 95% of people will never notice, so they’ll keep doing it. If Dems want them to stop, they’ll call them out repeatedly.
Chuck Todd is the nut low. Meet the Press was once a bastion of journalism. Imagine picking a worse guy to be it’s face.
lol Tim Russert was worse than Chuck Todd
I really didn’t think David Gregory was all that bad. Especially when compared to Chuck Todd. I honestly don’t understand how that guy got the traction he did at NBC.
I always thought Gregory was good but viewers apparently didn’t agree. Ratings sucked and they canned him. Now he is on CNN occasionally.
Lol wtf. Not even close IMO.
Does Chuck Todd bring the ratings?
