What is the income range of people in the middle class?

I think it depends on where you live honestly but I think everyone has a different definition. Again, this isn't a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.

What is the income range of people in the middle class?

 

I think it depends on where you live honestly but I think everyone has a different definition. Again, this isn't a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.

 

Exactly depends on where you live and who you are asking. At one point I had a PSC professor trying to convince me that I was considered middle class as a full time college student working right around 30 hours a week. I just couldn't buy in to that. If that were the case I just couldn't figure out how in the world someone that lower class could survive, especially if they had dependents to support.

OK. I did some research on "the middle class". I am surprised I didn't dig into this more sooner. To first address sportsfans comment above, would you believe 25% of households in this nation earn less than $25,000? The middle 33% incomes range from $30,000-62,500. Those earning from $77,500-167,000 are 20% of the population. Are they part of the middle class? Here is an article that sheds some interesting light on what truly is the middle class: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5674

 

It has long been my contention that our new service economy has skewed people's minds as to who is in the middle class. The above article talks about how post WWII the "working class" and the "middle class" became merged as the disparity in their incomes shrank. Now, with the loss of our manufacturing base, there is once again more disparity between those two groups. IMO Today's office workers and college educated people seem to align themselves more with the higher class than the working class. They don't think of themselves as being on par economically with the post WWII factory workers. Today's middle class aligns themselves with the issues that have little impact on them and truly affect the higher income workers. I think this tax issue is a good example.

 

In the limited online research I just did, what do you think I found as the percent of households earning more than $250,000? The answer is 1.5%. If we drop household income down to $167,000, that brings the number to 5%. So when Obama talks about raising taxes on those making $200,000 individually, $250,000 household, why is there such an outcry? Why do I hear so many people ranting like it will affect their own tax return? Will the quality of life for those individuals be impacted if their taxes go up?

 

Now, I am not in favor of taxing the $200k earner just because they have it. They have earned that income and deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if my after tax income is $300,000 a year, I am sure I can get along very nicely on $285,000 a year. If that extra amount is the price I have to pay to ensure a strong nation and system that enabled me to earn that income, I am more than willing to share it.

 

I think the big issue here is, how will that money be spent? I believe that is where the issue is. That is why the 95% of people whose taxes will not go up still rant about a tax increase. They see it being money that will go to waste in an inefficient government and that perhaps a big chunk of it is going to lazy, free loaders who don't deserve it. If you knew the money would be used wisely, take care of those who truly needed it and would make the nation stronger and better, then I think even the 95%'ers would be ok with paying a little more taxes themselves to get the nation out of debt.

 

So, is the tax increase issue truly about not trusting government? Would you pay more taxes if it was needed to get the country out of the hole if you trusted government more?

Edited September 27, 201114 yr by Voice of Reason

The only Bush tax cuts that are being discussed are those that affect the over 250K crowd. I know a prime Dem talking point has been that only the wealthy saw any benefit from the Bush tax cuts but I know my take home pay increased because of them. So if there is such a revenue problem why not let them all expire? Or how about we let the social security tax holiday sunset? There's a completely irresponsible tax cut that was targeted at a certain audience that has direct impact on the amount of money available to pay for a sacred cow entitlement program. If raising taxes it really the answer to our countries financial woes then in the interest of doing what's best (and doesn't just make the best sound bite) shouldn't they all be repealed?

As VOR points out. Raising taxes on those already classified as 'rich' (by the way one good year at $250K does not make you rich) does not even start to address the problem. Obama himself said - 'its math'. He is right. The math does not work. You can not rise taxes on 'the current rich' enough to cover the spending. I have covered this in detail with charts in previous threads. Spending is now way out of wack with revenues. And the COB projections that make it better are pure fantasy.

 

So 'rich' will be redefined. $200K, $150K? Probably. The pool of targets, or should should we say producers and core taxpayers, gets bigger with the changed definition of 'rich'. And so the 'the math' (supposedly) gets better. Double the current taxes on the current 'rich' and the deficient continues to skyrocket. Double the taxes on 'new rich' and it sill balloons rapidly but theoretically it should generate more revenue. It is the $100k to $200k group that has the most available tax revenue to go after.

 

Do no forget the non-indexed (adjusted for inflation) AMT. It nails most people who are in this 'newly defined rich' category already. It can easily be $400 to $500 a month in additional taxes - today, under current law. So again with the math. Raising tax rates on the 'newly defined rich' may not increase revenues much. They are already subject to the AMT and already pay above the current regular 'rate'. Because of this, unlike AllTell, I personally did not see much change after the 'Bush tax cut' at all. AMT still took it. AMT is a parallel tax system based on the definition of 'rich' in the early 1970s. As long as AMT is in effect raising rates on this group may not do much at all. So those championing the new definition of rich - and targeting this group to pay more - may need to check their math. Like most government deficit math - it probably does not work.

As time has gone on since WWII, those in the Manufacturing sector enjoyed steadily rising wages due to the strength of unions. Not saying unions are right or wrong, just that it is a fact. Over the course of time, office workers, service providers and et al have not seen the same strength in growing wages. The industry I'm most familiar with (of course) is the hospitality industry, and in most markets there are no unions. The wages are low, and depending on the location many positions are at minimum wage or barely above. Raises are rarely more than 2.5% for hourly workers, if there are any at all. There are rarely bonuses. The disparity between Executive level and middle management level is very significant. The disparity between Executive leve and hourly level is astronomical.

 

Our society, evolving over time as a rooted in manufacturing, has always placed the value of workers on manual labor. No more is an accounting clerk or bookkeeper considered a "good" job, except in the sense that it's not manual labor. Many still look at the clerical and service workers as trying to work an "easy" job. We've placed virtually no value on customer service skills, in particular. In some ways, technical skills such as computer accumen has given rise to a bit of a "step up" for some. But for the workers who deliver face-to-face customer service, they're still among the lowest paid workers in the country. Back of the house employees...line cooks, laundry workers, housekeepers, dishwashers are paid similarly. So, we've placed the people who actually have to deliver the service and product into the lowest wage category. And then we complain about the lack of service, rude workers, workers who can't count change, food that's not prepared properly, dirty dishes, orders filled incorrectly....

 

Only recently have manufacturing wages come close to being in line with those in the service industry. I know from some experience searching for a new career opportunity that other industries still lag even the starting wages of the new manufacturing wages. A starting wage for a medical coder is around $9, for instance.

 

There will continue to be more and more people driven down the economic ladder as manufacturing continues it's decline, and wages both in that industry and service industries lower, and raises become even smaller or non existant.

Was not aware that there was/is a mechanism in place to keep them from paying more than required in taxes.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

What is wrong with reducing spending?

So, is the tax increase issue truly about not trusting government? Would you pay more taxes if it was needed to get the country out of the hole if you trusted government more?

 

VOR. Do you trust me to take care of people who need help? If so, send me some of your money.:clap:

OK. I did some research on "the middle class". I am surprised I didn't dig into this more sooner. To first address sportsfans comment above, would you believe 25% of households in this nation earn less than $25,000? The middle 33% incomes range from $30,000-62,500. Those earning from $77,500-167,000 are 20% of the population. Are they part of the middle class? Here is an article that sheds some interesting light on what truly is the middle class: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5674

 

It has long been my contention that our new service economy has skewed people's minds as to who is in the middle class. The above article talks about how post WWII the "working class" and the "middle class" became merged as the disparity in their incomes shrank. Now, with the loss of our manufacturing base, there is once again more disparity between those two groups. IMO Today's office workers and college educated people seem to align themselves more with the higher class than the working class. They don't think of themselves as being on par economically with the post WWII factory workers. Today's middle class aligns themselves with the issues that have little impact on them and truly affect the higher income workers. I think this tax issue is a good example.

 

In the limited online research I just did, what do you think I found as the percent of households earning more than $250,000? The answer is 1.5%. If we drop household income down to $167,000, that brings the number to 5%. So when Obama talks about raising taxes on those making $200,000 individually, $250,000 household, why is there such an outcry? Why do I hear so many people ranting like it will affect their own tax return? Will the quality of life for those individuals be impacted if their taxes go up?

 

Now, I am not in favor of taxing the $200k earner just because they have it. They have earned that income and deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if my after tax income is $300,000 a year, I am sure I can get along very nicely on $285,000 a year. If that extra amount is the price I have to pay to ensure a strong nation and system that enabled me to earn that income, I am more than willing to share it.

 

I think the big issue here is, how will that money be spent? I believe that is where the issue is. That is why the 95% of people whose taxes will not go up still rant about a tax increase. They see it being money that will go to waste in an inefficient government and that perhaps a big chunk of it is going to lazy, free loaders who don't deserve it. If you knew the money would be used wisely, take care of those who truly needed it and would make the nation stronger and better, then I think even the 95%'ers would be ok with paying a little more taxes themselves to get the nation out of debt.

 

So, is the tax increase issue truly about not trusting government? Would you pay more taxes if it was needed to get the country out of the hole if you trusted government more?

Let me ask this, how much would raising taxes on the 1.5% of earners making over $250,000 increase revenue?

Let me ask this, how much would raising taxes on the 1.5% of earners making over $250,000 increase revenue?

I don't see it even scratching the surface.

Let me ask this, how much would raising taxes on the 1.5% of earners making over $250,000 increase revenue?

 

Chicken feed.

 

Did anyone see the budget put into household terms yesterday? I think it was on the foxnews website. Don't know how reliable the figures were but it really put it into a format that anyone can understand with the mountain we have to climb to get back somewhere near fiscal stability. It was depressing.

I don't see it even scratching the surface.

 

Chicken feed.

 

Did anyone see the budget put into household terms yesterday? I think it was on the foxnews website. Don't know how reliable the figures were but it really put it into a format that anyone can understand with the mountain we have to climb to get back somewhere near fiscal stability. It was depressing.

So in other words for Obama to continue to through the $250K and up crowd under the bus is nothing more then pandering.

So in other words for Obama to continue to through the $250K and up crowd under the bus is nothing more then pandering.

 

DING DING DING DING We have a winner.

 

Class warfare at is finest and only the most partisan observers can deny it.

So in other words for Obama to continue to through the $250K and up crowd under the bus is nothing more then pandering.

 

The 'math' says yes.

 

You want revenues - get stocks flying. That generates lots of unearned capital gains. History is very, very clear about that.

 

 

 

The problem is that the historical math says we are still in a bubble in the market.

 

Nominal tax rates do very little to actually impact revenues. Capital gains makes or breaks the revenue side of the equation. It is just that simple. Unless we are going to pre-Kennedy days (90% tax rates as a max) revenues will not be impacted much at all with nominal (

So in other words for Obama to continue to through the $250K and up crowd under the bus is nothing more then pandering.

Exactly what it is.