Let's do this, FFS. State the criteria.
1) lower middle
2) middle middle
3) upper middle
Anyone -1 would be considered among the poor classes, and anyone +3 would be considered among the wealthy classes.
Define Middle Class
Let's do this, FFS. State the criteria.
1) lower middle
2) middle middle
3) upper middle
Anyone -1 would be considered among the poor classes, and anyone +3 would be considered among the wealthy classes.
Well the EU definition is an income between 60% and 150% of the country. Well I would say it would be better if you use the region and not the country as a reference.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
This is harder than it sounds. It has to be both education and income and COL plus savings.
When my sister was offered a higher position to move from New Brunswick, NJ to a small town in Georgia, it looked like she was being demoted by salary. Until they explained the COL, and it was clearly a double in salary.
If you take the median income of the region (instead of country) you will see that the COL correlates to it quite good. Of course it's just an approximation. But I agree with the savings.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
How about if a definition revolves around the savings rate/potential savings rate of a particular individual? IE if your income - core expenses in the region leaves with you more than 12% of gross income on the table, you are middle class.
If you have a good way to define core expenses, I am fine with that
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Middle class. (n) A term used by Lewk to derail any thread about taxation.
Yes, let's define core expenses.Originally Posted by earthJoker
If you have a good way to define core expenses, I am fine with that
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
As for your sister I would have pushed to maintain salary argue that they were paying her that much eitherway what's it matter where she lives. She's still providing the same level of work that is worth that much. That's an added bonus to her that the cost of things dropped around her. Granted if they threaten to replace her with someone else... oh well.
That which you need to live biologically comfortable.core expenses
On to the topic:
I like the chllenge of defining things. I think we can look at middle class in a couple different lights (having the social status/living the middle class life), economically being able to afford the middle class life. People can marry into the first type, or go into debt doing the first kind, and depending what context that's what could be important. As I think about this, surprisingly, I think most of us refer to middle class to be the first one. We can consider kids to be middle class, but in reality if we think about the lifestyle they can afford, they'd be no different than the person that married into middle class.
I guess it's the sustainable life style you live is by in general how we look if someone is middle class. What lifestyle qualifies middle class verse lower class. Sustainably obtaining all necessities would be a requirement. Then I think dread is on the right track with looking at what their disposable income goes toward. So, I'd say being able to afford commercial luxuries, but you're not so rich that you can get around going the commericial route of things (you're not automatically stream lined to the top people getting special perks). Probably best to think of a range, and just arbritrarily cut it off at some point and call people above it upper class (even though on the border it probably doesn't look much different). What we want to call that range. I would want to list things like if you coudl go on a vacation every year, but I think that idea would be to narrow and not stand the test of time. Perhaps currently that is the case, but maybe in the future transportation is very cheap, and anyone could go on vacation. Hmmm... I need to think about this, but i like this idea that just struck me. How about we measure first class by the amount of time per year you could take off from getting paid and still afford the necessities (amount of luxury time... which perhaps would be more universal of measurement.) Even that has holes. I guess middle class is everyone who can consistently afford the basics but has no VIP status. We could define an amount but we'd have to keep adjusting it to the context (my best articulation at the moment). To have a definition independant of all contexts, universal is difficult... The only premise I'm assuming is a more or less democratic, and free market society. (in a dictatorship the whole concept would fall apart, it would be much different)
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 11-16-2010 at 03:25 AM.
+ Housing
+ Transportation costs
+ Some kind of measure of food, which is highly variable by geography but maybe that's a good thing to have factored in
+ Insurance costs
We need to break out insurance costs.
+Auto
+Home and liability
+Basic health
+Long term care
+Disability
+Unemployment
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
-Which would lead us to define housing: 3 room apartment, a house with pool, garage? Do we speak about a minimal flat you need to live?
- Transportation the same, 3 hours by bus, or SUV
I believe you can ask 5 person and get 10 answers about what they need to live.
I agree that the term is overused. But I don't agree with the benefit thing. With most tax systems the middle-class pays a big share. About the poor, well that really depends on which country we speak about. And I don't even want to discuss about the rich, they should really just shut up and be glad.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Yeah, how dare people who make more money than you have a say in how they are taxed...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
In most Western countries, the top 10% (let alone the top 25%) pay a vast majority of the taxes. And you just mention another reason to not use the term "middle class": no one gives a damn about the poor and the rich are all too easy to villify.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not if you include the payroll tax.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Yes if you include the payroll tax. Why do you just keep on making things up?
Hope is the denial of reality
Make money, that sounds like they produce it... lets say they are lucky to get it. That sounds more appropriate.
I would say, in most western EU countries, the poor get quite a good share from the gov. And about the rich, there is something between nit pity them and vilify them.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I make more than the average Mainer...so I'm just lucky???
F
U
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I think the term "middle class" is so politicized and so laden with emotion that there's no sense in using it. It's very rarely used in anything approaching objective fashion. It's just a tool to pummel people one disagrees with. Furthermore, I see no reason why public policy should benefit those in the middle at the expense of those at the top and bottom. What about being in the middle makes one deserving of special treatment?
Hope is the denial of reality
If you starve the middle, everything around it dies.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
If you starve the bottom and the top, the middle dies. How about for a non-tautological reply?
Hope is the denial of reality
How about you jump on board and help define core expenses.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I think there are already enough people involved in an exercise of mental masturbation.
Hope is the denial of reality
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?
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.
True, but I know people that live in a shitthole to be able to drive a tuned beamer M3.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
That's percentage of personal income paid, not the total income paid (i.e. percentage of all taxes paid). Reading comprehension isn't your specialty, is it?
Hope is the denial of reality
It's more realistic to look at percentages than actual amounts when dealing with wealth disparity. And wealth disparity is what defining the middle class is about.That's percentage of personal income paid, not the total income paid (i.e. percentage of all taxes paid). Reading comprehension isn't your specialty, is it?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote