Answer The Question, Please

According to the stimulus package rules, if you make more than $150,000 combined income in a married-no-family home, you will be penalized by the refund plan. 5% of everything made over that mark will be subtracted from the $1200 benefit, such that at $174,000 there is no benefit.

Now, if you're living in an area where the average price of a new home is $200,000-300,000, you're probably thinking "150k/year is a lot of money!" However, if you live in an area like I do, where the average price of a new home is well over $400,000 (oftentimes condos and townhomes cost 400-500k), then 150k/year is not, proportionately, nearly as much. Add to this many other increases in cost of living (food costs more here - if you go to a nice restaurant in this area, without buying booze, you're very likely to spend $40-50 for a couple; on the flip side, we just had a nice meal in Harrisburg, PA, yesterday and it cost $30 for more food of better quality - that's a significant cost difference).

So, the question really is very valid and important: how do you define "wealthy" on a national standard? My answer is, you don't. You have to define it on a tiered basis that takes into consideration cost of living. Somehow, you have to do this without also unfairly inconveniencing fringe areas of a region.

Of course, overall, my preference would be to see general income tax eliminated altogether. Doing so would also solve any federal government requirements for addressing the marriage question, among other things. My preference would be toward a tax system based on a national sales tax, business taxes, and special taxes on the wealthiest tiers of society (the AMT tax topic and the much-maligned and misrepresented estate tax). That's a different story for a different day.