Define Middle Class

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-16-2010, 07:44 PM
Loki

Quote:

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Because they pay the highest percent of their income in taxes.

If you look at Being's graph, then you'll see that's simply not true. The highest taxes are paid by people who earn from $200k to $10 million. The two groups that are closest to the median ($30-50k and $50-75k) pay a far smaller percentage of their income. Are are you going to become a GGT now and claim that the middle class consists of people making $200k+? Let's be honest, the only reason so many people here want to advantage the middle class is because they are in it.
11-16-2010, 07:52 PM
Being

It'd be nice if that graph overlaid the percent population for each range. :eek:
11-16-2010, 08:01 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Make money, that sounds like they produce it... lets say they are lucky to get it. That sounds more appropriate.

I make more than the average Mainer...so I'm just lucky???

F
U
11-16-2010, 08:33 PM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

I make more than the average Mainer...so I'm just lucky???

F
U

Does that make you rich?
11-16-2010, 08:47 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Are are you going to become a GGT now and claim that the middle class consists of people making $200k+?

You know damn well I never said that. Stop twisting words and being snarky. :rolleyes:
11-16-2010, 08:48 PM
Veldan Rath

Compared to some. (That whole tricky middle class discussion). And in fact compared to my teenage years and early 20's, very much so.

It's all a matter of perspective ain't it?
11-16-2010, 08:54 PM
Lebanese Dragon

I think the idea economically of having a large healthy middle class is because the extremes are anti-productive, and not sustainable. The only way to have a healthy society is to have the vast majority of people being productive and living well, and this does not happen if you polarize groups into very rich and very poor. Production goes down, and societies overall well being goes down. This idea of a large healthy mid-bracket is a good idea economically and socially. We don't want revolutions every year due to a large amount of poor people and a few amount of wealthy people.

Quote:

the only reason so many people here want to advantage the middle class is because they are in it.

That's a good reason to. I think the wealthy vote in their best interest, and a good counterbalance is for others to do the same. Ideally we vote for what's best for the country but human greed is not set up that way. Not all of us are as lucky to be as enlightened as Ghandi.
11-16-2010, 10:35 PM
']['ear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Are are you going to become a GGT now and claim that the middle class consists of people making $200k+?

Another Loki straw man. You need to understand that when you play your horse shit games, I will either not respond to you or mock you in kind. Which would you prefer?
11-16-2010, 11:47 PM
Loki

Is that your response when caught out lying once again? Then again, we can probably expect you to make the same lie a week from now.
11-16-2010, 11:54 PM
Hazir

Kate Middleton appearantly counts as middle class in the UK.
11-16-2010, 11:56 PM
Loki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hazir

Kate Middleton appearantly counts as middle class in the UK.

For some bizarre reason, "middle class" in Britain means someone who's rich (but below aristocracy).
11-17-2010, 12:10 AM
']['ear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Is that your response when caught out lying once again? Then again, we can probably expect you to make the same lie a week from now.

Aw, does the wittle troll want some food?

Stop doing your usual BS of putting words in somebody's mouth, and I'll treat you with dignity.
11-17-2010, 12:17 AM
Loki

You said that the middle class pays a higher portion of their income in taxes than the rich. I showed that to be incorrect. Which of those two statements do you disagree with and which of them did I put in your mouth?
11-17-2010, 12:20 AM
LittleFuzzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

What about being in the middle makes one deserving of special treatment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Because they pay the highest percent of their income in taxes.

So if we bump up taxes on the rich slightly so that, according to Being's graph, they paid 22% of their income in taxes, we should give them special treatment instead? I don't think that's what you intend, but I can't see what you did intend, and so since it is the inference to take from what you actually said, I'd bet that's what Loki responded to.
11-17-2010, 12:22 AM
']['ear

Ahahah good thing you edited out the "always." Almost caught yourself lying in the "aha you're a liar!" post. :haha:

That's lie one, then there's this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Are are you going to become a GGT now and claim that the middle class consists of people making $200k+?

Until you stop that manipulative and lying shit I will call you on it every time I see it.
11-17-2010, 01:55 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Indeed, it's tough to come up with a reasonable definition. But then again, if someone is spending 70% of their income on housing they are probably heading for bankruptcy and aren't/won't be wealthy at some point.

That's why I think it's proper to gauge these things as a percentage of one's income. It's not the amount someone is spending, but how much of their income is spent on it.

But you and aggie brought up a good point about cost of living by region. Part of this exercise (or mental masturbation) came about because of how to tax, the proposals about Bush's cuts, and that $250,000 cut-off. You had that thread about pegging income tax by region, since it's obviously different in Manhattan than Madison. But employers adjust wages or salary to the region.

I'm not sure gauging percentage of income makes sense, even though expensive areas do cost more to live in. Some "wealthy" areas in CA have lower property tax than PA; NYC has rent control; suburban sprawl offered more affordable housing; some choose cheaper housing and some spend too much, etc. There's a difference between life style and income....and different types of income.

Plenty of people who consider themselves middle class by income or lifestyle have a ton of debt and no real savings. Poor people in general have zero net worth. Rich people may have no mortgage on a million dollar property, all sorts of assets, plenty of investments they only pay 15% capital gains tax on, and no payroll income.

That's why Buffet et al were saying raise taxes on the "rich". They generally have more capital gains and dividend income than wages or salary, and don't pay payroll taxes beyond $109,000. Maybe tax needs to be a net worth valuation instead of just income?
11-17-2010, 02:09 AM
']['ear

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

So if we bump up taxes on the rich slightly so that, according to Being's graph, they paid 22% of their income in taxes, we should give them special treatment instead? I don't think that's what you intend, but I can't see what you did intend, and so since it is the inference to take from what you actually said, I'd bet that's what Loki responded to.

I'm just enraged that anybody is even talking about extending ANY of the Bush tax cuts, given the debt we have. Madness.
11-17-2010, 02:17 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I'm just enraged that anybody is even talking about extending ANY of the Bush tax cuts, given the debt we have. Madness.

It's like a game of political chicken. :( I'd rather they all expire, and figure out what to do about extended unemployment and food aid expenses. Today's news says food stamp use has risen 16% in just one year.
11-17-2010, 06:41 AM
earthJoker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

I make more than the average Mainer...so I'm just lucky???

No, middle or upper middle class. I speak about the really rich. If you earn more than a million a year we can talk again.
11-17-2010, 02:01 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by earthJoker

No, middle or upper middle class. I speak about the really rich. If you earn more than a million a year we can talk again.

So...EARNING a million a year is just being LUCKY?
11-17-2010, 02:15 PM
earthJoker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

So...EARNING a million a year is just being LUCKY?

no using caps-lock stupid
11-17-2010, 02:30 PM
Veldan Rath

I'll take that as a no then....or you've decided you can't back your rich = luck crap.
11-17-2010, 02:42 PM
earthJoker

How dare I can say something against the American principle of "if you just work hard enough"!

I try it once more, the difference between the ultra-rich and the upper middle class can hardly be explained by working harder.
11-17-2010, 03:25 PM
Veldan Rath

Nor can it be all explained with luck.

I also wouldn't call a 1 million a year to be ultra rich.
11-17-2010, 03:40 PM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by earthJoker

How dare I can say something against the American principle of "if you just work hard enough"!

I try it once more, the difference between the ultra-rich and the upper middle class can hardly be explained by working harder.

Oh joy now we are dealing with "Upper Middle Class." Is that 100k? 200K? 500k?
11-17-2010, 04:05 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Nor can it be all explained with luck.

Yes, that argument also works for Poker. "It's 60% skill and 40% luck!"

Yeah, right. Something which is largely defined by luck (and 40% is a large percentage) is still a game of luck. Unlike, for example, chess.
11-17-2010, 04:10 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yes, that argument also works for Poker. "It's 60% skill and 40% luck!"

Yeah, right. Something which is largely defined by luck (and 40% is a large percentage) is still a game of luck. Unlike, for example, chess.

So it's 40% luck?

This gets us nowhere. We can both pull numbers out of our asses on how the evil rich get their money.

Still sounds like envy to me.
11-17-2010, 04:14 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Oh joy now we are dealing with "Upper Middle Class." Is that 100k? 200K? 500k?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Nor can it be all explained with luck.

I also wouldn't call a 1 million a year to be ultra rich.

Everyone's welcome to write down their definitions of what IS middle class, ya know.
11-17-2010, 04:21 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Everyone's welcome to write down their definitions of what IS middle class, ya know.

It's basically impossible, as it's all a matter of perspective (locale, COL, blah blah blah)

I would think...for Middle Class...after spending 25% or so on housing, then still being able to pay your bills and have low or none (non-mortgage) debt in relation to your income...but that can apply to any class...

So that is more a definition of living within your means....

The simplest...take the broad range of incomes in the area...top 25% is upper, bottom 25% is lower...and voila!

YMMV.
11-17-2010, 04:32 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

It's basically impossible, as it's all a matter of perspective (locale, COL, blah blah blah)

I would think...for Middle Class...after spending 25% or so on housing, then still being able to pay your bills and have low or none (non-mortgage) debt in relation to your income...but that can apply to any class...

So that is more a definition of living within your means....

The simplest...take the broad range of incomes in the area...top 25% is upper, bottom 25% is lower...and voila!

YMMV.

Semantics aside, it can't be impossible. If you make the quintiles 25% by area, then the argument about disparate COL comes up again. But federal income taxes aren't pegged by region....should they be calculated that way? How would that work in an area like Vegas or Detroit?

What's YMMV?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page