My lowest rate is $100/hr, as a single-person consultant with almost no overhead. Some people charge lower rates for different types of work--like documentation--I see no sense in it, since it's still tying up my time and that's what is being bought. My preference is to tinker on my own projects and not work for other people; the client's job is to entice me away from my preference.

I charge extra for anything I don't want to do. It's $300/hr for VB6, Crystal Reports, or MS Access stuff. I know the client can get someone else to do it cheaper. They frequently tell me as such, clearly missing the point that I want them to get someone else to do that shit. There is no way that stuff helps my long term development.

No, I don't stay 100% active with these prices. I have a steady 20 hours a week of work at $100/hr. Does that make me more or less rich than a person working 40 hours a week at $50/hr? Hard work is for suckers.

People complain about me being expensive until I release the first milestone. After that, they tend to shut up about the price. What's cheaper, a $25/hr developer from Croatia who takes 6 months to deliver the project, or a $100/hr developer who takes 2 weeks, with the added bonus that it actually works?

Something that always bothered me when I was a working stiff: I was always evaluated for pay based on how old I was, whether or not I was married with kids, and whether or not I owned my own house. No, no, no, you pay me based on what I can do, not on what I need. That's why (amongst many other ethics-related reasons) I consult now.