It seems odd you'd start this thread if that is how you feel.
But given you are the czar of defining classes, you can end the thread by telling us: what do you want "a class" to be defined by?
-
Features
Is $250,000 middle class?
- Thread starter Nice Squirrel
- Start date
It seems odd you'd start this thread if that is how you feel.
But given you are the czar of defining classes, you can end the thread by telling us: what do you want "a class" to be defined by?
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
I started this thread because I wanted to see how other people defined "middle class" and maybe learn something in the process.
I am also the Sheik of Araby.
Last edited:
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
An income number predicts: a housing affordability number whch preducts likelihood one lives in connected communities; a probability one can afford and be invited into a country club; one's membership in influential organizations like Rotary, Lions, etc, which predicts one's potiential to influence one's community; und so wieder. So yes, an income is an index of class.
Checking out major cities and neighborhoods such income statistics do suggest class as defined by who is who, who can do what, and who can't. Clearly income in the US is a class indicator.
Checking out major cities and neighborhoods such income statistics do suggest class as defined by who is who, who can do what, and who can't. Clearly income in the US is a class indicator.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Been there, done that.
There used to be something called "income averaging" for exactly that type of situation. It is still available, but only to farmers and fisherman. It was eliminated for the rest of us in 1986 thanks to the Reagan administration
When my friends teased me about the Clinton tax hike, I told them I would be okay it costs me half as much as the Reagan tax cut. They disputed this, but I assured them, I've filed my own taxes since I was in high school. I know when my taxes go up.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
I think $250,000 is still middle class for taxing purposes. I think the reason it is a popular cut-off point is because incomes tend to jump enormously after that.
This. Remember, Washington is an expensive place and that's where they have been for some years now.
Come move to Boston
I'm comfortable but let's see where retirement actually leads.
Yeah, Congresscritters love to chip away at the edges of the tax code in order to make bills revenue neutral. Almost all such chipping away amounts to screwing the taxpayer in some fashion. One of their favorites is to take things that used to simply not be taxed and make them taxed but deductible--which bags them the 15.3% FICA and if the person isn't already itemizing it makes them fully taxed besides.
But they're never going to actually tax wealthy people. And it doesn't make much sense to squeeze the turnips at the bottom.
Who else but folks in the middle will pay for it?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,490
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Pension smoothing!!!
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,273
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Americans 
You people have no clue what class IS, even though your society is riddled with it; Because it is part of your national myth that you don't have it.
Class is only very loosely coupled to money.
The basic class division is between the rulers and the ruled. It is defined by the position of the head of the household; If Daddy is a Congressman, then you are upper class. If he is a fry-cook, then you are lower class.
The two-class system was all that was needed in the medieval environment; If you were a part of the nobility, you had power over peasants, and were upper class; and if not, you were an expendable nobody.
The improvement in conditions for those not part of the nobility, particularly in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century, led to the division of the lower class into two parts; the working class, who could never afford luxuries, and were lucky to achieve simple subsistence; and the middle class, who lacked the power of the upper class, but who made up for this with wealth. People with disposable wealth can use that wealth to buy influence with the powerful; A middle lass man is therefore distinguished from a working class man in that he may get the attention and even assistance of his lord and master, in recognition of his financial clout.
Taken to the extreme, a 'self made man' might achieve great wealth, and great influence; If so, he joins the upper classes (although always as a lesser member - 'new money' is looked down on by 'old money' even if there is far more new money than old, and indeed even if the old money has all but vanished).
The boundary between the upper and middle classes, then, is defined by the ability to influence the people who run the country. It has little to do with wealth (although wealth can play a part); Certainly if you want the ability to mention a concern you have to the President, in person, and you know people who can make that happen for you, then you are above the middle class, even if you haven't two pennies to your name. And equally certainly, if you have sufficient wealth, you can buy a one-on-one meeting with the President by making a donation to his party or campaign, and that too makes you upper class.
Of course, as class has fuck all to do with income, so it also has fuck all to do with tax brackets, which are a completely different subject.
A sensible taxation regime would tax each dollar of income fractionally more than the last - the taxation percentage would be a smooth, non-linear function of income, with no 'brackets' at all. The problem with that is that even basic arithmetic is beyond most legislators, so such a system, no matter how sensible, will always be opposed by the majority who do not understand it.
If you want to know if somebody is in the upper class, ask "Could this person, whenever he felt the need, arrange to have half an hour of the President's (or Governor's or Prime Minister's, or King's) time, one on one, to discuss with him a concern he has about the way the country is going"? If the answer is "yes", then he is upper class - and how far up can be determined by how long it would take to get that appointment (at the pinnacle of the class system, the President/PM/King asks you for an appointment).
If you want to know if somebody is in the working class, ask "In a typical month, could this person afford to buy all the food, clothing and shelter they need for their family to survive, and still have money left to buy luxuries, without going into debt?" If the answer is "No", then he is working class.
If someone is in neither upper nor working class, then he is middle class.
If you think class doesn't exist in the USA, ask yourself "Do people living in trailer parks have the ability (not just in principle, but in fact) to arrange a half hour of the President's time, one-on-one, to discuss their feelings on gun control"? Then ask yourself "Does anybody have that ability"? If the answers are "No", and "Yes" respectively, then you do not have a classless society.
You people have no clue what class IS, even though your society is riddled with it; Because it is part of your national myth that you don't have it.
Class is only very loosely coupled to money.
The basic class division is between the rulers and the ruled. It is defined by the position of the head of the household; If Daddy is a Congressman, then you are upper class. If he is a fry-cook, then you are lower class.
The two-class system was all that was needed in the medieval environment; If you were a part of the nobility, you had power over peasants, and were upper class; and if not, you were an expendable nobody.
The improvement in conditions for those not part of the nobility, particularly in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century, led to the division of the lower class into two parts; the working class, who could never afford luxuries, and were lucky to achieve simple subsistence; and the middle class, who lacked the power of the upper class, but who made up for this with wealth. People with disposable wealth can use that wealth to buy influence with the powerful; A middle lass man is therefore distinguished from a working class man in that he may get the attention and even assistance of his lord and master, in recognition of his financial clout.
Taken to the extreme, a 'self made man' might achieve great wealth, and great influence; If so, he joins the upper classes (although always as a lesser member - 'new money' is looked down on by 'old money' even if there is far more new money than old, and indeed even if the old money has all but vanished).
The boundary between the upper and middle classes, then, is defined by the ability to influence the people who run the country. It has little to do with wealth (although wealth can play a part); Certainly if you want the ability to mention a concern you have to the President, in person, and you know people who can make that happen for you, then you are above the middle class, even if you haven't two pennies to your name. And equally certainly, if you have sufficient wealth, you can buy a one-on-one meeting with the President by making a donation to his party or campaign, and that too makes you upper class.
Of course, as class has fuck all to do with income, so it also has fuck all to do with tax brackets, which are a completely different subject.
A sensible taxation regime would tax each dollar of income fractionally more than the last - the taxation percentage would be a smooth, non-linear function of income, with no 'brackets' at all. The problem with that is that even basic arithmetic is beyond most legislators, so such a system, no matter how sensible, will always be opposed by the majority who do not understand it.
If you want to know if somebody is in the upper class, ask "Could this person, whenever he felt the need, arrange to have half an hour of the President's (or Governor's or Prime Minister's, or King's) time, one on one, to discuss with him a concern he has about the way the country is going"? If the answer is "yes", then he is upper class - and how far up can be determined by how long it would take to get that appointment (at the pinnacle of the class system, the President/PM/King asks you for an appointment).
If you want to know if somebody is in the working class, ask "In a typical month, could this person afford to buy all the food, clothing and shelter they need for their family to survive, and still have money left to buy luxuries, without going into debt?" If the answer is "No", then he is working class.
If someone is in neither upper nor working class, then he is middle class.
If you think class doesn't exist in the USA, ask yourself "Do people living in trailer parks have the ability (not just in principle, but in fact) to arrange a half hour of the President's time, one-on-one, to discuss their feelings on gun control"? Then ask yourself "Does anybody have that ability"? If the answers are "No", and "Yes" respectively, then you do not have a classless society.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,966
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Bilby
How many times have you been told not to talk sense on these fora?
I thought that the class mentioned in the title was about whether you handle polite society or not.
How many times have you been told not to talk sense on these fora?
I thought that the class mentioned in the title was about whether you handle polite society or not.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
Beyond the income, there is social criteria that needs to be met. I've wondered how very wealthy individuals in professional sports fare. Aside from rubbing elbows with your own (other professional athletes), I wonder how they get along within their very wealthy communities? Seems it could be quite lonely. Further, how their children get along with their peers in school.
In spite of one's wealth there's always the "you're not one of us".
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,369
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
A Word on Socioeconomic Position
Indicators
Indicators
- Education
- Housing tenure, housing conditions, and household amenities
- Income
- Occupation based measures
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,695
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Simple answer: in the US, an income of $250K/year would place you in the upper middle class, assuming it was earned income and not income from your grandaddy's estate.
Bilby's point is taken about education and upbringing also denoting class, although that is less true in the US than in England. Even on the east coast. Having some relatives (by marriage) who came from 'old money' which has been diluted over the generations, I can say that it is quite possible to sink to middle class or upper middle class if one does something so foolish as to marry someone without a great deal of wealth or choose a profession where monetary compensation is decidedly middle to upper middle class. Even with a Harvard education.
Bilby's point is taken about education and upbringing also denoting class, although that is less true in the US than in England. Even on the east coast. Having some relatives (by marriage) who came from 'old money' which has been diluted over the generations, I can say that it is quite possible to sink to middle class or upper middle class if one does something so foolish as to marry someone without a great deal of wealth or choose a profession where monetary compensation is decidedly middle to upper middle class. Even with a Harvard education.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Sorry buddy, but you need a different CPA. I had a similar bulge a few years ago. But planned it out pretty well and avoided or deferred substantial taxes.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Middle class is statistically defined as ranging from half the median income to double the median income.
$250,000 is not in that range.
$250,000 is not in that range.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,854
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Out of curiosity, how does statistics define it that way?
BTW, I agree 250K is high.
BTW, I agree 250K is high.
Which is an arbitrary yardstick that doesn't match up with reality.