Swiss Socialism - Guaranteed Income?

[None]

No in the US it is definitely upper middle-class and by no means poor.
Some very unrealistic perspective here as to what "not poor" is.

You have not shown me what your perspective of poor is, but to me its simple, if you are living pay check to pay check you are poor, you do not have room to really do anything different i.e. grow and escape out of poordom. There is no dollar or pound value to that and I don't find it terribly useful to use a hard threshold like that to define it, either through bad lifestyle choices, lack of knowledge or sheer dumbness/bad luck or what ever you can get into scenarios where the money stated is not going to mean you are comfortable.

That was my point; I do run out of patience to type out a master thesis type of post and my time is quite limited compared to what I had so I may end up clipping a few corners but I am not saying stuff just because I can.

To be able to afford your own home (and tax and insurance etc) is definitely not poor. To be able to afford a holiday home is rich.

This is simple I'll address these as I go along but. The main point I was making is fact sheets you read off and the economic models you believe in are basically distorted and unreliable they always give the illusion that things are great when in reality they are kind of miserable.

I am also saying here at this point that pointing out that $50K median income is actually not really that great, even in a partnership if you are lucky you might have close to 100K but usually one partner out earns the other by a good margin, I don't want to muck things up too much by throwing in the gender inequality business so am expressly stating that isn't a point I am making or attempting to make.

To be able to afford a mortgage on a half million dollar home is affordable on $140k income and is most definitely not poor. My home cost my wife and I half that and I would not consider us to be poor.

This isn't about where you rate yourself in your personal situation or where I stand or where anyone else stands on the scale, if you feel happy where you are then good for you my point was not to put people below an arbitrary income level combined or not down, the fact is there are people so ridiculously rich that unless you happened to be that guy you are gonna feel small, I'm not that guy, wish I was but then I don't want the paranoia that comes with that kind of affluence either.

Anyway back on topic, you are attempting to disect things and rationalise them a little by saying X is not poor, that was not what I was getting at I was getting as others I think have pointed out that you can not have the whole lot at that pay grade/level.

3 vehicles is not remotely necessary for most families and is not the definition of not poor. 2 vehicles is more than enough for most couples. If children are old enough to drive they can drive old vehicles until they're old enough to afford their own.

I am talking about America here not the UK or anywhere else in the world, America is different, in a normal family household, the husband and the wife or boyfriend/girlfriend or the LGBT equivalents actually do have to have one vehicle each, to go to work and deal with chores, it is pretty normal for an average working American to pull 25,000 to 50,000 miles a year on roads, you have to replace these vehicles at some point, five years is usually the max for the people who have ridiculous commutes to make ends meet and I am not counting truckers in that cos those guys do stupid miles.

In the senario of children even if they are not yet of driving age, 14/15/16 depending on state/circumstance I think it can be lower, if you have three or four children and you want to do a family trip somewhere, you will need a people carrier type vehicle, while a pick up truck, a four door sedan might be OK to get to work or use at work it won't be right for the whole family. Yes you could buy a station wagon or something but once your children get over a certain size that stuffing them in the back isn't going to work on 8 to 12 hour drive to a national park 1500 miles away.

3 months off a year? WTF?

Yes many Americans would like their two days a week off back the ones that have jobs, a lot are working 2 or more jobs at the same time, or have to take things that are not really complementary to actually having a day of rest somewhere in the week. The particulars are not important what is important is there is a lot of time lost due to commutes or non standard work that does not fit the job but is still expected of you.

I am going to include time taken away by doing a degree while working, you are still working/studying, rest is an important part of life and there isn't enough of it for those that actually work hard, the play hard thing does not happen as much as it used to. If you are pulling 90-100 hour weeks because you have a job, commute (dead time) and study with your remaining free time, there isn't much time left for you to spend with family and there certainly isn't much time left to do anything other than sleep after that. Assuming you have not been popping stimulants all day just to function, let alone achieve peak performance.

1 month abroad each year on top of having a holiday home. Yeah most people should expect that right

Breaking a routine and doing other stuff is pretty important it should be expected that anyone in any stratum of life should be able to take actual real holiday time off, not the BS mandated national holidays only and it is generally frowned on for obvious reasons to take more than a week off at a time from your current work place pretty much anywhere in the world, if you are able to do so it usually means the work you do is not that important and you are eligible for being let go come the next round of cuts.

No you could compare it to airline tickets. Poor = can't afford to fly, middle class = economy, rich business travellers = business, very rich = first.

This is definitely a difference of opinion thing, if can't afford to fly is a category to me that is a special kind of poor, that is pretty much being destitute, they are different words and while I was earlier guilty of not fully explaining things I think you should if you are going to break it down that much use the correct terminology, however in terms of making a general point I don't see the value of break it down to that level.

As I hinted at earlier my definition of poor is more along of the lines of being trapped forever with no realistic chance of upward social/economic movement, either due to a lack of time/resources/some special scenario that is applicable to that individual or otherwise.

The whole class thing is important in the fact that the middle class is being wiped out and pushed into the poor class. Which is why I made the reference to airline tickets. I think the only reason business class is not called 2nd class is because they don't want people who travel economy to realise, hey damn we are truly third class, i.e. poor. If business class is being wiped out because its too expensive for even business travelers that should tell you something, its not a realistic demographic.

So in short what I am saying is, there is no future for a middle class which might have had some chance of breaking out of its own area and into the rich on an individual basis not as a whole class.

I had hoped you would have had more guts to say what you think the threshold for being actually rich is, you got too bogged down in trying to convince yourself that you are completely right to even look at your own data again.

I will state this, if you had ten million dollars in the bank as cash on hand, I would not call that rich, I would not call it poor but I would not call it rich. People talk about being millionairs and being made, having one or two weather it is tied up in property or other non cash equivalents is definitely not enough to see you through retirement. Maybe that would be some form of middle class, but being middle class is nothing great which is the point I am making.

You can't afford insurance in the $150k bracket? I call BS.

That was not implied as a standalone point, at this point looking at your post you sound like you should have taken a five minute break before writing this response.

No since you don't have a clue what it means to be poor clearly. If you think just owning your own home but no holiday home, flying at all for just 2-3 weeks every year, owning just 1 vehicle per adult etc is poor you have no clue what poor means.

If that is what you feel then good for you.

Like I said the point of the scenario was to say the American dream has faded into dust and in a way the country is in various forms of collapse for it, yet you have plucky individuals such as yourself and Loki who happily trot out the economic charts and go look see its a wonderful world. It ain't. That is my point.

Poor is struggling to make ends meet to get food on the table, to cope with the rent and your landlord, to buy clothes and other necessities etc

As I said earlier that is a special classification of poor, which I call destitute, and yes that is a valid subset of a subset of a subset of people, but it does not invalidate what I am saying which is, even if you are middle class as in have both partners in a working marriage/relationship or what ever pulling in a combined $150-$200K, that demographic is just getting by really, they are not really living life as much as they deserve, which extends all the way down to the homeless and destitute no one deserves it but like I said I take issue when ever someone pulls out a chart and says see its all dandy you are doing great.

One other thing I would like to add. I have been using gross income for most of this, I have not used net. At 200K you pretty much are paying 33% income tax straight off the bat, unless you manage to find a tax pro that can get you through some loopholes to get it lower.

And just for reference if you were earning over $400K the US IRS considers you rich and your income tax is almost 40% maybe not as high as elsewhere in the world but depending on your state you may have state income taxes and other levies as well. All in all if you don't get someone to help you out with the tax code because you know enough or are smart enough to do it yourself then really 50% of your income is gone via a lot of smaller taxes or stealth taxes. That includes stuff like property tax, rent or loans etc.

As far as the less affluent are concerned it is those stealth taxes that hurt the most or mandatory insurance, I personally don't have a problem with mandatory car insurance other than it being a bit over priced. Nor do I have an issue with the structure concept of any tax system, the implementation and reciprocal services, am less than enthused with. It sort of works, but it could be better for sure.

[Enoch the Red]

Detroit's situation is political -- Michigan's governor and emergency manager cut millions of state tax revenue for the city....with crumbling infrastructure, no services, hour-long police response times, etc. That once thriving city didn't become blighted and bankrupt by its poor people.

Detroit also didn't become blighted and bankrupt because of the emergency manager. It happened well before that. Hence the need for an emergency manager.

[GGT]

As I hinted at earlier my definition of poor is more along of the lines of being trapped forever with no realistic chance of upward social/economic movement, either due to a lack of time/resources/some special scenario that is applicable to that individual or otherwise.

The whole class thing is important in the fact that the middle class is being wiped out and pushed into the poor class.

So in short what I am saying is, there is no future for a middle class which might have had some chance of breaking out of its own area and into the rich on an individual basis not as a whole class.

Like I said the point of the scenario was to say the American dream has faded into dust and in a way the country is in various forms of collapse for it, yet you have plucky individuals such as yourself and Loki who happily trot out the economic charts and go look see its a wonderful world. It ain't. That is my point.

I took the liberty of snipping your reply to Rand, hope you don't mind. It might be more productive to define what it means to be "middle class" or middle-income, instead of defining "poverty", or what it means to be "poor". First off, by recognizing we're talking about developed nations (like the US and UK) -- even though there are many differences in public policy -- and weed out opinions/ideologies claiming there's no such thing as poverty in the first world. As in, "If you have a roof over your head, food to eat, indoor plumbing, potable water, a refrigerator/microwave/TV/cell phone or car....you're not poor." Then going on to say the only REAL poverty is in undeveloped nations, where people live in dirt floor huts, and scrounge for food in garbage heaps. There's been a lot of that language coming from conservative groups, for reasons that might need another thread.

Anyway, I agree that the "American Dream" is fading, along with the middle-income/middle class. Also that $50K/year is a poor metric for defining an average, or middle class lifestyle. Too many other variables that matter, like COL, public transportation, personal debt or savings, age, education, health status, extended family support networks....

The scary fact is that a majority of people don't have enough cash-on-hand to cover emergency expenses (car repair, leaky roof), don't have adequate retirement savings, carry too much debt in credit cards or student loans, have upside-down home mortgages, and are one month away from bankruptcy or complete financial ruin. Living paycheck-to-paycheck has become part of the "middle class lifestyle", treading water, more likely to fall down the ladder instead of climbing it. That ought to concern everyone....regardless of political persuasion or ideology.

Detroit also didn't become blighted and bankrupt because of the emergency manager. It happened well before that. Hence the need for an emergency manager.

That doesn't change what I said -- that Detroit's problems are political, but weren't caused by its poor people. Yet, it's the poor who hurt first when funding is slashed for police/fire, schools, public transit, etc. Anyone who could move out has already left.

[Enoch the Red]

That doesn't change what I said -- that Detroit's problems are political, but weren't caused by its poor people. Yet, it's the poor who hurt first when funding is slashed for police/fire, schools, public transit, etc. Anyone who could move out has already left.

Many of Detroit's problems are political. However those politicians are elected, and often elected with tremendous support from the poor.

[GGT]

That's a new one -- "tremendous support from the poor" via the electoral process? Where did you get that idea?

Fact is, one of the most disenfranchised demographic groups, and least likely to vote in state or local elections, are low-income people. That's been a 'trend' for decades in all states, not just Michigan. And it's not like "poor people" have their own lobbyists or PACs, so they don't have much political clout, either.

[Enoch the Red]

That's a new one -- "tremendous support from the poor" via the electoral process? Where did you get that idea?

Fact is, one of the most disenfranchised demographic groups, and least likely to vote in state or local elections, are low-income people. That's been a 'trend' for decades in all states, not just Michigan. And it's not like "poor people" have their own lobbyists or PACs, so they don't have much political clout, either.

We'd probably have to do a better job of defining our terms here, but the working theory that you put forth was that anyone who could escape Detroit - and could afford it - has.

Now, with the 2013 Detroit mayoral election netting ~135,000 votes, and the population of Detroit being 700,000 and with ~40% of that below what is considered the poverty level, (my definition of what would constitute poor extends somewhat beyond that) I'm going to guess there will be overlap between people who are poor and people who are voting.

[LittleFuzzy]

Daycare where I send my daughter has the (rough) prices.

Infant (0): $1400 a month
Toddler (1-3): $1200 a month
Pre-School (4): $1100 a month

1st year: $16,800
2, 3 and 4th years: $14,400 each ($43,200 total)
5th year: $13,200

For the first 5 years (prior to kindergarten): $73,200

Of course, we could find cheaper daycare if we wanted (although not significantly - perhaps 200-300 less) and there were an equal number of places more expensive. I'd say we have the middle-class daycare in the area.

That seems. . . more expensive than around here. Adjusting for inflation, my parents paid about $2000 a month for all-day cay for me and both my siblings during the summer periods. There was a discount for having three rather than 1 or 2, and for also using them for after-school care during the active school year. With the prices you're citing it would be cheaper for any family with more than two kids to just hire a nanny or au pair.

[sheadunne]

That seems. . . more expensive than around here. Adjusting for inflation, my parents paid about $2000 a month for all-day cay for me and both my siblings during the summer periods. There was a discount for having three rather than 1 or 2, and for also using them for after-school care during the active school year. With the prices you're citing it would be cheaper for any family with more than two kids to just hire a nanny or au pair.

Many do. If we have a second, we'll probably get a nanny until they're both in school and then probably an au pair. Nannies run the range of 500-900 a week and some require health insurance as well. Most daycares do provide a slight discount for having more than one child in it, but not all. When we were shopping around, there were several places that were several hundred more a month and others that were less (mostly in someone's home, which we didn't want). Anyway, I'll be a happy camper when I can stop paying for daycare. Our daughter is almost 3 so it's just a matter of time. The wife is hinting at a second, but I keep looking at the daycare bill and sighing lol

[LittleFuzzy]

The daycare we were in was a home day-care, not an institutional facility. There was only one of those in town and it was more of an extended-hours private school.

[GGT]

We'd probably have to do a better job of defining our terms here, but the working theory that you put forth was that anyone who could escape Detroit - and could afford it - has.

Now, with the 2013 Detroit mayoral election netting ~135,000 votes, and the population of Detroit being 700,000 and with ~40% of that below what is considered the poverty level, (my definition of what would constitute poor extends somewhat beyond that) I'm going to guess there will be overlap between people who are poor and people who are voting.

Nice charts, but they don't show voting rates. You said elected politicians have tremendous support from the poor. Since ~40% of Detroit's 700,000 population is "poor", there would have been more than 135,000 votes cast to support your 'working theory'.

Besides, being elected Mayor of Detroit in 2013 doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, since their problems are decades-old. The main point I was trying to make is that poor people, in general, don't have political power. Mostly because they're poor, politicians trying to build a campaign war chest usually ignore them, but like to call them "constituents" nonetheless.

See, that's my condemnation of our political process that's too heavily infused and influenced by money. Big money. It's been estimated that the next Presidential candidates will have to raise One Billion Dollars each, and the whole damn thing could cost One Trillion Dollars when it's all said and done. That's an absurd amount of money. And it's a crappy way to elect our public 'servants' or national leaders.