$250,000 a Year Is Not Middle Class

[LiberalArkie]

By BRYCE COVERT

HILLARY CLINTON has vowed not to raise taxes on the middle class.

It’s a pledge that has worked well for others on the campaign trail before her, a resonant assurance to voters who saw themselves as middle class or aspired to be. But it’s a bad promise.

Mrs. Clinton is using a definition of middle class that has long been popular among Democratic policy makers, from her husband to Barack Obama when he was a candidate: any household that makes $250,000 or less a year. Yet this definition is completely out of touch with reality. It also boxes her in.

The most recent Census Bureau data showed that median household income — what people in the exact middle of the American spectrum earn — is $53,657.

Snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/opinion/campaign-stops/250000-a-year-is-not-middle-class.html

[MohRokTah]

1. Um,...yes it is. eom

[daleanime]

3. Uh, no....

it's not.

[Adrahil]

203. So what is? NT

[daleanime]

205. Around $52,000 is the medium average income in America.....

Nearly 5 times the medium is not middle. Not to say I would call that being wealthy in anyway. Personally I would refer to it as lower upper class, they have their fingers on the ledge, and can get a look at what's available to the upper classes, but they could easily slide back down here with the rest of us.

[tblue37]

208. But the average in the US is NOT middle class, it is barely scraping by, one paycheck away from

disaster working class! "Middle class" implies a bit of security, the ability to save up for a house, for college, for retirement, maybe have a vacation once in a while, etc. When most people are barely scraping by, then the average is barely scraping by, not secure middle class.

If Bill Gates and I are sitting together in a room, our average income is in the billions, even though I earn less than $40,000/year! The average income of Americans is not enough to make one "middle class," just as the average income between Bill Gates and me does not make me a billionaire.

[cali]

4. According to what metrics?

[forest444]

73. Good point, cali.

In much of coastal California, as you know, that kind of income is middle class. Upper-middle class, sure; but middle class nevertheless.

I lived in both west L.A. and Orange Country for several years. Most of the people I knew were making around $60,000 a year, and unless they had a spouse making at least as much (or were fortunate to have either lived int he same home since the 80s or have inherited a house) they really struggled.

The same can no doubt be sale for some other metro areas in the country (New York, Boston, Washington). Texas would be a good choice for middle-income people these days; $60,000 a year still buys you a modest but decent living there.

[passiveporcupine]

93. look at median income by state

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/median-annual-income/

Even though some areas have a much higher wages, it never means the whole state. It means a "center" where certain jobs are located (silicon valley, wall street, etc.)...and many of the people who work in those areas have long commutes to get to/from work because they can't even begin to afford housing in the area they work.

If you look at median income by state, not one is 80K. Most are closer to 50K. Mississippi is only 35K. There is no way 250K qualifies as "middle class". It is upper class.

Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2014/04/24/what-it-means-to-be-middle-class-today

That was from 2014, if we say 50% higher than the median of say Maryland, which is almost 80K, means the upper end of middle class for Maryland (the wealthiest state) is 120K.

[forest444]

101. Statistically speaking, you're absolutely right.

Though I'm surprised Professor Reich would assert that, in 2015, $25,500 for a median household (2 people) is middle-class in the American sense of the term.

It is by international standards, yes; but in this day and age an income like that leaves such a household vulnerable to everything from hunger, to cold, eviction, and of course a health-care catastrophe (since such a household is unlikely to be insured). It goes without saying that saving for retirement, or even a rainy day, would probably be out of the question as well.

The criteria is in dire need of updating to something like a minimum of $20,000 per person ($40k for a median household of 2 people), up to a maximum of $150,000 for the first person and $20,000 for each additional member (that's $170k for the median household).

These values would naturally have to be adjusted upward for certain high-cost metro areas like New York, L.A., Boston, and Washington - probably to a $50k minimum.

[passiveporcupine]

139. He never said median income is a fair income

He is simply stating the statistics of what people are actually earning in this country (I think this was for 2014).

Everyone who has any brains, including Reich, are saying our wages (adjusted for cost of living) are declining and we are losing the middle class.

[forest444]

145. Hear, hear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128090030#post2

Happy New Year, by the way. All the best to you and yours, passiveporcupine.

[passiveporcupine]

147. Happy New Year and good fortune to you too!

[MariaThinks]

136. i think @250000 is upper middle class

[passiveporcupine]

142. And I think Santa Clause is real

You can think anything you want. Statistics prove you wrong.

[MariaThinks]

144. i'm certainly not rich and i make far more than that.

[Indydem]

193. You are to most here.

The cutoff to become the evil 1% is only like $380,000. Look for torches and pitchforks to head your way soon.

[MariaThinks]

196. ha ha - i support a lot of charities

[Indydem]

197. Doesn't matter.

The rich are evil.

Doesn't matter what charities they promote or non profits they support.

It's an ideology rooted in hatred.

Always makes me sad.

Have a Happy New Year.

[MariaThinks]

249. Generalize much?

[Indydem]

265. Total Misunderstanding

I don't think those things. Many here do.

Make as much money as you can, as long as you are fair and just.

Spend or invest it how you want (just don't hoard it).

I'm a supporter of capitalism, my comments were made as mockery of those like the ahole who responded after me.

[MariaThinks]

270. ok

[passiveporcupine]

232. And I have a black friend

Last edited Tue Dec 29, 2015, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

and a gay friend.


edited to add:
Wouldn't it be a beautiful world if no one needed charity, because we were actually all treated like equals?

[MariaThinks]

250. and how will we get there without charities?

[passiveporcupine]

251. Seriously

How about a fairer system than capitalism that allows some to have so much while so many more have so little?

You know...wage limits, estate taxes, fairer taxes, socialism. All those things you are probably terrified of.

There are other limits I'd impose as well, like the size a company can be before it is sold to it's employees, the amount of wealth one family/person can have before the rest is given back to society.

I am an unabashed socialist.

[MariaThinks]

254. 100% capitalism does not produce a good and fair society

I believe that socialism should be mixed with capitalism

[Adrahil]

260. So what's your number?

I live in Indiana, and household income is a little ove $200K. Am I rich? I drive an 11 year old Accord and a 5 year old Odyssey. I have a big, but not huge house, and both my wife and I require home offices for our work. My daughter is in public schools. Not feeling especially rich, tbh.

[Indydem]

264. I don't have a "number."

You may have misunderstood my point.

I don't care how much you make. We should have a healthy middle class, but that label is up for interpretation.

Making $200,000 in Indiana is pretty good money. But, again, I don't care.

I like money. I think people should like money. No one should be made to feel guilty for working hard and being successful in our country.

It has absolutely no scientific basis based in mathematics or statistics, but probably anything under $500,000. Just to throw a number out.

[Adrahil]

269. Thanks. Nt

[passiveporcupine]

230. We need more people like you here

[MoonchildCA]

201. Statistics?

Statistically speaking, only 2.9% of couples make ove $250,000 a year. How can you call that "middle class.?" I mean someone can arbitrarily label it that, but statistically speaking, it it's nothing!

[passiveporcupine]

231. I'm not the one saying it's middle class

Perhaps you've misinterpreted my post?

[Kelvin Mace]

202. $250,000 is about 5 times the U.S. Median income

And puts you in the top 2% at least.

[840high]

5. Um,.. it's not

[JonLeibowitz]

12. No, it simply is not. I did these calculations last time hill2016 made such a claim.

Scenario: 15% saved for retirement, a $900k house w/ mortgage, married with two kids, 6% state tax, 2x $20k private schools, nanny @ $705/wk.

The result? $33193 in disposable income.

$250k is not middle class.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251860815#post37 (yes I originally screwed up and didn't figure the mortgage interest deduction correctly)

[MADem]

155. Add a third kid. What about transportation expenses?

No one gets a vacation? Are you including the utility bills, there? Cab fare or car service fees? People in the city don't have cars and the subway isn't always very kid friendly. How about student loan payback? College funds for the rugrats?

Sure, people can "lower their standards" and live outside the city center, but for people who, for whatever reason, want to live in the city center, they are going to need that much money to live a "middle class" lifestyle--and they're doing it with far less square footage in their home than people who live in a less urban setting.

If it were me, I'd move out of the city center and use that dough to travel and have fun, but that's a choice.

[JonLeibowitz]

158. I was leaving disposable income to cover those things.

I didn't forget about them.

As you correctly note, compromises and choices are necessary for anyone other than the uber-wealthy. But having a nanny and sending your kids to private school / college is certainly not "middle class"; I'd call it upper-middle or solidly upper class.

[Bettie]

175. "No one gets a vacation"

Um....that's reality for most of us. A vacation is a few days off of work, doing yard work or home repairs because you can't afford to go anywhere.

[MADem]

183. That is reality for poor and working poor--it's not reality for "middle class" families.

What I find really weird about this thread is to suggest that the values that were typically regarded as "middle class" are being downgraded, chopped, cut, shaved, reduced, and abrogated.... just because wages have not kept up with the classical American definition of the term.

To be "middle class" you need to be able to live like Ward and June Cleaver, in essence. If you can't live like that, you're not "middle class." You're working class, working poor, or flat-out poor.

Just because your reality is that you don't get a vacation because you can't afford one doesn't mean you are truly "middle class."

It's more than averaging incomes and figuring out what the "most common" salary is, and then carving out a nice little niche that encompasses pay stubs on either side of a line. "Middle Class" is a LIFESTYLE. Rather than argue how much it costs to maintain or create that lifestyle, we should probably be concerned with helping more people achieve that lifestyle.

I think this is the point a lot of people refuse to take away from the discussion because they're so focused on numbers and they'd rather chase them than cut to the actual chase. Yet people keep chasing that lifestyle--it's why they move south of the border, to Mexico and further down into South America, to get more "bang for the buck." They're after that LIFESTYLE, you see.

Also, some people just want to childishly "bag" Clinton for saying a number that they believe is just too high. But she's right--in some places, that's about the amount of scratch you need to live like Ozzie and Harriet, or Ward and June, or The Brady Bunch, or any of those classic "middle class families" that so many Americans grew up with. They never had to worry about going on vacation every year. No one ever saw them turning off lights or turning down the heat or sweating paying for a car repair. They weren't eating a lot of beans and rice when they gathered around the supper table.

The issue is The LIFESTYLE. The cost to reach that lifestyle IS going to vary, depending on where you live.

[hill2016]

272. Thank you

You can't imagine the amount of flak I got on my thread when I mentioned housekeeper, private school, nanny, etc.

[Kelvin Mace]

204. The best number I have seen for median income is $134,000

So, $250,000 is still almost twice that, so not middle class.

People are paying 4 times my current mortgage payment for an apartment 1/5 the size of my house sitting on a huge lot. I was offered jobs in NYC back in my younger days, but turned them down because of the ridiculous cost of living.

[LiberalArkie]

14. If $250,000 is middle class income, where does my $1645 a month income put me?

[Helen Borg]

55. You and I are both bum class!

I suppose!

[snort]

56. Somewhere between:

"Mmm, velveeta" and "Brother, can you spare a dime"?.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Below the poverty line.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/census-more-residents-sinking-into-poverty/

The survey estimates that 15.3 percent of the U.S. population lived below the poverty level last year, compared with 14.3 percent in 2009. The poverty level, adjusted each year, was $22,314 for a family of four last year.

Don't know if you're a family of X beyond yourself, but that's an old article, wages/income keep declining, and Cost of Living keeps going up.

Unsustainable.

This is not meant as 'hey, you're poor', it's more 'hey, the game is rigged against you'.

[LiberalArkie]

89. Nope single, way too wealthy for anything but medicare.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. And that's a huge problem as well.

I don't anticipate Hillary will meaningfully attempt to address these issues.

Bernie is quite wealthy by most standards, but he's a lot closer to the issue than some. I think he's our best bet on that issue, by far.

[LiberalArkie]

108. Their feeling come from the people they socialize with. I just can't see Hill catching a ride from

a neighbor and running to the store with them. I can almost see Bernie doing it. Although Bernie has been hanging with union people most of his career, I think he might understand the plight of those who were not in employment situation where a union was available.

I was in CWA from 19 to about 26 where schizophrenia and bi-polar took me out for a while.

[whathehell]

131. Before or after taxes?

[w0nderer]

168. points to the can o beans hanging over the fire under the bridge

tosses you a spoon, hold it in the fire if you aren't meaner than the bugs of the man who used it before ya

have some beans, i added a little shoe leather to meat it all up

put your bindle down, some news papers over that corner for blankets

the food ain't much, the scenery is nice and the conversation sometimes rocks and sometimes not

[MADem]

184. Working poor, or flat-out poor--depending on where you live. nt

[Adrahil]

261. Working class. NT

[enlightenment]

15. How do you feel about the Kaiser Family Foundation and

the Pew Charitable Trusts?

Do you trust, within reason, the research they do?

Between the two organizations, they define "middle class" - and a household making $250,000 doesn't fit the definition.

Kaiser offers median income by state in 2014, here: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/median-annual-income/
The state with the highest median income is Maryland, at $76,165

Pew offers research indicating that "middle class" falls between 67% and 200% of a state median:
( http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/19/the-shrinking-middle-class-mapped-state-by-state ) and the data from the American Community Survey, 2014 ( http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ )

Using Maryland as the high-end example - most likely to meet whatever metric you're using:

67% of $76,165 = $51,030.55
200% of $76,165 = $152,330.00

[-none]

19. Errr, no it is not. Not even close.

Here's a spread sheet for you.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2014/h08.xls

From here: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/

[darkangel218]

26. No, its not.

Good gawd...

[annabanana]

36. where?

upper East Side?

[Lucky Luciano]

44. That is where I live...and that would be middle class there.

On $250K, private school is not affordable, so having kids means they had better get into the gifted and talented programs - or else the kids will have to go to schools rated about 3/10 - which means moving to the suburbs. There are some highly rated public schools in the area, but the rent us about $1500 higher per month for qualifying apartments.

[annabanana]

48. "Lucky" is right..

Oh Noes.. Not the suburbs!

[alcina]

59. Well said!

[zeemike]

62. 250k is what, like 20k a month?

And if you spend half of that on rent you would still have 10k to live on.
Do apartments cost 10k there?

It is hard for me to see that as a problem.

[Lucky Luciano]

66. $20K per month assumes no taxes.

Apartments do run about $5K - and it is a tough to save for a down payment on an apartment.

[cui bono]

189. A small one bedroom walk up with no real kitchen in Alphabet City costs $3000/mo, more by now.

Can't even imagine what a 3 bedroom apt on the upper east side would run. I'd say at least $10,000/mo.

.

[PowerToThePeople]

198. Paupers dont get to live in the palace.

NYC, San Fran, and other high rent areas are the modern equivalent of the middle age palace.

Normal citizens do not live in those areas, other than some servants/slaves for the rich oligarch class and their support structure.

Scale is what we tend to not see, it obscures a lot of things which otherwise would be easily observable.

[Chakab]

75. Oh please. The median income in NYC is $60,000. A New Yorker who earns 250K a year is in the top

six percent of earners in the City as opposed to the top two percent nationally.

The fact that people earning that kind of money can't afford to live like the billionaires in the City does not mean that they aren't better off than the vast majority of people who live in that area.

[Lucky Luciano]

99. This is my neighborhood.

A lot of these numbers are skewed down by the new kids outta college living here- families make more because they have to.

http://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/New-York/New-York/Upper-East-Side/Household-Income

I calculated the mean income of those in 5-20% bucket as $502K. They gave the mean of the top 20 and top 5 percent, so it was easy to excise the top 5%.

$227k is 80%-ile...but as I said, that includes s lot of yuppies without kids.

That said, I still like Bernie. I always like an underdog and I like his anti-super pac stance.

[Chakab]

111. Like I wrote in my response to another poster, the conventional definition of "middle class" is so

far reaching that it's totally meaningless.

[whathehell]

134. Yes

I think many would view $250K as "upper middle class".

After all, if they are "rich", what are those making a half a million and up?

[passiveporcupine]

236. Once you hit rich, it's not a gradual climb any more

Stephen King wrote this in one of his novels, and it's true:

Wealth is like the Richter scale --- once you pass a certain point, the jumps from one level to the next aren't double or triple, but some amazing and ruinous multiple you don't even want to think about.

The point is not "can you live a middle class life" on 250K. Of course you can, and still have money left over. Can you live it on $150K...yes, depending on where you live. average income is not the same thing as median income. Average means middle of the income range, so from zero to five million a year is 2.5 million. That doesn't make that middle class. What makes it middle class is the number of people in the country making a certain income range. And looking at the range of incomes (not even including wealth) on a chart, 250K is way out of middle range when it takes into account "median" income, or the number of people making that income.

Of course where you live affects how well you can live on what you make, but that is your choice. It doesn't change the fact that median wage is much much lower than $250 K.

And even in a high rent district, if you can't live well on 250K, you just aren't doing it right. You are trying too hard to keep up with the Jones-es.

I disagree with the sentiment that "middle class" means how you live, not how much you make. I believe the definition for "middle class" is based on income and how you live on that has been shifting downward for a long long time. Middle class is not what it used to be.

[whathehell]

247. I certainly agree that "middle class" isn't what it used to be..

I don't agree that living where one does is always a choice. Where you live may be where your job is.

Median wage IS much lower than $250K, but it shouldn't be. If wages had kept up with productivity,

the minimum wage would be $18 to $22 an hour. It's all been rigged.

[passiveporcupine]

266. I so agree with you

If you have enough money, you literally can move to a more affordable place. And I didn't necessarily mean moving so far you have to give up your job. In most of these money centers, where housing is highest, the poorer workers have to commute horrible distances to find affordable housing. It's the more affluent who live close to work. So you can keep your job, but your life is now in your car or on a train or bus.

It's expensive to move and it's so hard to find good paying jobs any more, unless you have one lined up first, it's kinda crazy to even try to move...if you are out of a job and poor, your only real choices are just give up everything you own (try to sell it for enough pennies for a bus ticket) and try to move to a more affordable area by bus or even hitching. But then you don't have a job lined up and what happens when you get there? These are not options Americans should have to make any more. We should be beyond Grapes of Wrath scenarios.

Yes, it is a shame (on this country) that wages have not kept up with cost of living. And then there are people out there like Trump saying we need to lower wages here, and no raising minimum wage. My head spins with the circular reasoning these people must use on themselves to try to justify what they say.

[Lucky Luciano]

138. I think there is another dynamic at play.

A lot of those wall street types making that good 250-750k money are at risk that their job at that income goes away forever - if it is income that is pretty secure to 60 years old, it does seem richer.

[ornotna]

40. Swing and a miss

No. It's not.

[Bluenorthwest]

118. 250K puts a person in the top 2% of earners, not in the middle of earners.

One out of fifty or two out of one hundred, 2%.

[MohRokTah]

174. And right at the very top of upper middle class in any large US city. eom

[Kelvin Mace]

206. $250,000 is twice the highest median number I have seen

for NYC.

So, still rich by all metrcics.

[MohRokTah]

258. $250K is the very pinnacle of upper middle class.

Beyond that point is the upper class.

So $250,000.01 per year = upper class.

The break comes somewhere and it's currently at $250K. This is why the break comes when talking about taxes at precisely $250K per year.

Now, if you want to argue about where the upper end of the Social Security tax should be, absolutely it should go all the way up to $250K.

Then, in my opinion, it should doubled for everything about that with no cap whatsoever.

[Electric Monk]

163. Obvious troll is more obvious than ever. Goodbye Pretzell_warrior aka functioning_cog.

You have now demonstrably proven that you are only here to stir shit up, not to actually contribute to any kind of productive discussion. It must really suck to be you.

[Rockyj]

188. Duh! Hillery is living in a bubble & out of touch just like...

Romney tried to claim he wore Costco shirts!
Hmm...wonder if Hillary & Mitt both squeeze the Charmin?

[wildeyed]

256. Hilarious that people who cannot fathom basic polling numbers

or demographics suddenly become goddamn math majors when it suits them

[bigwillq]

2. I would love to be middle class!

[840high]

6. I guess I'm dirt poor then lol

Go Bernie

[Truprogressive85]

7. So anyone making less that 250k is ?

Poor ? Serf ?

If you can not-- get get by with 250k sorry but maybe you should reevaluate your finances

[oldandhappy]

8. Thank you!

[Sancho]

9. You likely don't understand...

Sometimes a small business or farm generates $250,000. Those situations are not always incorporated like a large business, but don't produce usable "income" like a paycheck. Your business or farm in an individual's name may generate income that is taxed at a rate higher than some big corporation with an army of accountants and tax dodges.

Hillary is not going to raise taxes up to $250,000 in current dollars (of course, there is creep due to inflation, etc.) in order to avoid those who are "middle class", but have larger "incomes".

I don't know for sure, but Hillary's father (family) owned a small business (printing shop) for their income. She likely is aware of millions of other Americans who don't work for someone else in order to earn a paycheck. She is trying to encourage people to create and own their own incomes, instead of working for the boss company.

She is also consistent by calling for more profit sharing with larger corporations, and union bargaining of wages and benefits.

[Luminous Animal]

13. If the net income on your small business or farm is $250,000, you are doing quite well.

[yeoman6987]

18. Yes quite well....middle class. You are right.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Hahaha! $250,000 puts one in the top 3%

[questionseverything]

161. yes but we need to start with the top 1%(actually the top .01% but that gets confusing)

even the top 3%ers are part of the 99% and we need those people to side with US not with the billionaires

i am dedicated to working for and supporting bernie but hc's vow to not raise taxes on those making under 250 grand is a good idea that he should adopt....even if it is with the explanation that after the taxes are raised on the 1% and needs still exist then we can look down line

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. That not what that poster stated ... He/She mentioned revenue, not net revenue.

[cali]

24. Aren't we talking about personal income?

[KittyWampus]

31. Small business owner

[Dont call me Shirley]

46. Small business pays the taxes that big business doesn't have to, this is why small business is being

promoted.

[jeff47]

51. Income taxes are paid on net revenue, not gross revenue.

So it really doesn't matter that your gross revenue is $250k. You get to offset all your operating costs before paying taxes.

And no, it does not take an army of accountants to do so.

[Sancho]

149. Have you run a family farm?

Sorry, but come to the rural South...better yet...read Jimmy Carter's latest book. You know, people who don't really have experience quote the NY Times and make statements without being there. Even decades ago he describes how complex it was with peanuts in Plains. How is it now?

What have you done along these lines? You probably think that someone buys a tractor and depreciates it like a "big business". Clue me in please!! It's a hell of a lot more complicated than you seem to infer: http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/business/taxation/docs/umn-extension-ag-income-tax-update-for-farm-families-2014.pdf.

If this Bernie fan club really wanted an "economic revolution" and a return to the "boom years" you would think they would support policies that would NOT raise taxes on people who created the middle class after WWII.

Nope, all they want is $15 an hour and burn down Wall Street. I realize it's a hate-Hillary bunch of piranhas, but you of all people should realize why a higher top income limit would be better for many hard-working, regular folks in the "middle class". If you don't, then get your hands dirty for a few years and then let us know what you think.

[bvar22]

159. You couldn't be more WRONG.

[font color=red] YOU said:[/font]

"If this Bernie fan club really wanted an "economic revolution" and a return to the "boom years" you would think they would support policies that would NOT raise taxes on people who created the middle class after WWII.

The people who created the Middle Class after WW2 paid 91% in the highest bracket.


[font color=red] YOU said:[/font]

"Nope, all they want is $15 an hour and burn down Wall Street."

Hillaryous. Wrong again.

15 Fundamental Differences Between Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and The Republicans:


1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton & most Republicans have not.

2. Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Clinton and Republicans have not.

3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton & The Republicans do not.

4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton and Th Republicans do not.

5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton and the Republicans do not.

6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton and The Republicans do not.

7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton and the Republicans (and too many "Democrats) did not.

8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton and The Republicans did not.

9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton and the Republicans do not.

10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton and The Republicans do not.

11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton and The Republicans do not.

12. Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Clinton and The Republicans do not.

13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton and the Republicans do not.

14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton and the Republicans did not.

15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton and The Republicans did not.


Hillary sure seems to agree with Republicans a lot.
I don't,
that is why I am a Democrat, and voting for a Democrat....Bernie!


You need to go back to that other group where these lies are spread, and ask a few questions,
LIKE: "Where do you all GET this shit....are you just making it all up?"

[Sancho]

171. Haha. You didn't answer the question!!

So you don't have experience and don't know what you're talking about, so you obfuscate! I thought so!!

[cui bono]

190. What do you hope to accomplish with an immature response like that?

[bvar22]

217. I actually live on a small farm in a very rural part of Arkansas.

We grow veggies, Fruit, domestic Berries, melons, tomatoes herbs & spices, asparagus, Salsa and Pesto, and other crops.
We keep chickens and honeybees.
My mother was raised on a working farm. My grandfather owned it....
so I DO know a lot about farming,
and I also know a lot about what picked this country up off its face after WW2.


OTOH: you display almost no knowledge of post WW2 America....OR farming.

[Sancho]

233. Sorry you're wrong

I grew up picking crops on a family farm. My parents and grandparents owned family farms in GA and SC. After WWII, my parents used the GI bill to go back to school, so from the 40's on family members left for other careers.

We kept my family's farm until my father died, so we all had a chance to grow all kinds of crops: tobacco, onions, soybeans, and corn. We also raised cattle, goats, and kept horses as a hobby. For generations, those farms were the only income for many people - including the family and any workers employed to work on the farm. In my case, I was involved with the family farm for about 30 years.

I'll stick to what I know is true. Navigating the complexities of taxes and regulations on today's farms is not easy. Many times, I've seen family farms in the name of one or two people who pay taxes, but the farm is supporting many others. Buying, selling, employing, and trading can be seasonal or tricky and it doesn't follow "tax years". Family farms and similar small businesses sometimes generate "income" that is taxable, but without an "army of accounts" or someone with a lot of knowledge, it's not so easy to deal with all the complexities, deductions, depreciations, and averaging.

The bottom line is is that I assume you would be GLAD to raise taxes on income from your family farm. If so, then vote for the man from Vermont!!! Hillary says she won't raise taxes on income less than $250,000. That would capture many family farms and small farm businesses. I don't think we should raise taxes on those farms or small agri-businesses. I'd rather close loopholes for large corporations and tax international money moved offshore.

In 2014, the median income from farming was $164,083 for households operating commercial farms, and their median total household income was $225,463. Households associated with intermediate farms reported $1,082 in median farm income (out of $64,559 in median total household income) and residence farms reported negative median incomes from farming. However, the substantial off-farm income of residence farm households provided them with higher total incomes ($85,422) than intermediate farm households in 2014.

&width=480

[bvar22]

239. Wait...WHAT? ... I'm wrong?

I don't live on a small farm in rural Arkansas?

My mother was not raised on a working truck farm?

My grandfather didn't own a truck (and later cattle) farm?

I'm, WRONG???!!!!

Yeah, right.

[Sancho]

253. Then if you want that farm to pay more in taxes, vote for Bernie.

Hillary won't raise taxes if your family farm earns less than $250,000 in income.

Bernie is going to raise your taxes on income, on your retirement, and likely fees on other things.

At least that's what he proposes.

[bvar22]

248. Again, you couldn't be more WRONG:

"Q: What does Bernie think is wrong with the estate tax?

A: While for many years this tax unfairly affected middle-class farms, it has been significantly changed to only affect large estates, worth over several millions of dollars. The rate has been lowered and the cap raised to such an extent that it has amounted to a huge tax break for the super-rich.

Q: So what is Bernie's answer to reforming the estate tax?

A: Bernie has proposed lowering the bar on estate taxes so that individuals who own estates worth more than $3.5 million and couples who own estates worth more than $7 million will be taxed (at the moment the bar is set at $5.4 million and $11 million). This bill also increases the amount of tax on these estates, and closes loopholes used to avoid paying these taxes.

Q: Shouldn't people be able to pass on money to their children?

A: They should--but even with Bernie's proposed new estate tax, 99.75% of Americans would not pay any more in estate taxes than they do today.

Source: 2016 presidential campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues" , Sep 5, 2015

So much for you and your bogus "arguments".
Why don't you try your prevarications and creations on the HillaryClintonGroup.
They are not near so discerning.

[Sancho]

252. I'm not talking about estate taxes of course...

so you simply don't get it.

[jeff47]

186. I've run a family business, which is basically the same thing when it comes to taxes.

And guess what? Delivery trucks depreciate too, just like tractors. There's some minor details that make tractors easier. So I'm quite familiar with dealing with depreciation. No, it is not that complicated.

More to the point, why are you being so dumb to buy the tractor? Get in a co-op and "rent" it for the brief windows when you actually need it.

If this Bernie fan club really wanted an "economic revolution" and a return to the "boom years" you would think they would support policies that would NOT raise taxes on people who created the middle class after WWII.

Really? You think small, rural farms were the entire economic engine of the post-WWII boom?

Seriously?



Learn some basics of tax law, and learn some basics of history. Then try to argue about who is "middle class". You won't look nearly so foolish.

[Chakab]

77. Ridiculous Republican strawman. If a small business is generating $250,000 in net income before tax,

then the owners are doing incredibly well for themselves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. In a country in which some millionaires consider themselves "dead broke" it is.

[chervilant]

60. Now, see, this is where HRC lost me--the final straw, if you will.

I have grossed less than $6000 this year. I'd like for HRC to know what that's like, if she wants to know what is meant by "dead broke."

If people cannot see that her ties to Wall Street and the other corporate oligarchs only promises more of the same, and they vote her in as the Democratic nominee, I have lost all hope for our democracy.

I have to surmise that the ol' wealth carrot meme is working well for the corporate megalomaniacs. Perhaps, HRC's supporters are not hurting financially...

[Enthusiast]

78. PLUSlolONE!

[Recursion]

11. The 67% mark for household income is about $80K

That is, that's the top end of the middle third of household incomes in the US, or what you might reasonably call "middle class" from a numbers standpoint.

Census and BLS generally do quintiles instead of thirds; The fourth quintile cuts off at $104K. This probably meets the broader social definition of "middle class", in which 2/5ths of the country are working class, 2/5ths middle class, and 1/5th upper class.

IIRC $250K came from the George H W Bush years as the income under which he ended up being open to raising taxes. Then as now, I think the sense is that it's about the maximum of what a household of two professionals (say, a doctor and a lawyer) can make from wages rather than investment income.

[Starry Messenger]

16. He must not live in the Bay Area.

84k for a family of four is considered barely scraping by.

[LiberalArkie]

17. And to live in West Little Rock, Ar, you would need a household income of over 1 million. So?

[Starry Messenger]

23. So?

1 million is not middle class. In many parts of the US, anything between 50k and 250k is. I'm sure you can tell the difference between 1/4 and 4/4.

[RandySF]

42. So then, what you are saying, is that we should leave it to millionaires?

You folks are starting to sound like the Republicabs who say the only "real" America lies between California and New York.

[Romulox]

102. LOL. You're the "socialist" who defends the interests of the top 3%! nt

[Starry Messenger]

106. No. Try reading comprehension. I posted a chart down thread

if you'd like to practice.

[Romulox]

110. You failed to comprehend your own chart. You're carrying water for the rich. nt

[Starry Messenger]

116. Blah blah blah. Try moving here for a job, and get back to us.

[Romulox]

119. I understand. You live amongst the wealthy, you naturally want to *serve* their interests. nt

[Starry Messenger]

121. Ha! (nt)

[Romulox]

126. So long as we recognize your schtick as a comedy routine. nt

[Starry Messenger]

128. No, we recognize that yours is that 50k a year

is comfortable in every city in the US, regardless of COL.

[Romulox]

129. It's "middle class" in America. If that galls, then don't carry water for the wealthy who made it

that way.

[Starry Messenger]

132. It's closer to poverty now, for a household, for the most populated

areas in the US. Anyone in those areas clinging to a middle-class designation for that household income is deluding themselves. I'm guessing the rents are not $3k for a 1bd where you are.

Telling that family that they will be the "wealthy" if they make a little more that bare living expenses sounds like the people who hate Fight for $15.

[Romulox]

133. HA! YOUR candidate is against the "Fight for $15".

[Starry Messenger]

135. No she isn't. She's for $15 and higher for areas like mine.

That's what happens when you gather all your information via sound bites. $12 in lower COL areas, which sounds fairer to me now, since there are people in this thread complaining that anything over 50k is filthy rich. I guess they don't want $15hr.

[Karma13612]

166. What a joke. I live in one of the poorest rural areas of the country

and I could NOT make it on $15 per hour.

And she wants to low ball that.

No way.

[Starry Messenger]

169. I actually happen to agree with you.

It's an area I think she could be moved on, however. But it is incorrect to say that she is against $15 an hour anywhere, which is what I was addressing.

[Karma13612]

173. oops! OK, I understand now. peace! eom

[Romulox]

215. Unfortunately, she's not telling the truth. The "Fight for $15" doesn't include a sliding scale. nt

[Romulox]

216. That's not what the "Fight for $15" is about. It doesn't include a sliding scale.

[Starry Messenger]

219. Hurr Durr

[Romulox]

220. When facts aren't on your side, I suppose your response is all that remains.

I would be ashamed of spreading misinformation in support of the wealthy here. But that's me--I don't have a "socialist" (sic) blog!

[Starry Messenger]

221. You aren't a socialist anything, so I put forth the amount of energy your output entails.

Very little.

[Romulox]

222. LOL. Neither are you--you support the obscenely wealthy friend of Wall Street over the people. nt

[Starry Messenger]

224. Mmm, I'm going to love all the tears during the next 8 years of President Hillary.

Yes indeed!

[Romulox]

225. Starry 2012: "Complete emancipation of women is possible only under Socialism."

Starry 2015: "Hurr Durr--tears of guys opposed to oligarchy!"

[Starry Messenger]

226. Romulux--total output to support working class issues over all his years at DU

Zero.

[Romulox]

227. Is that supposed to be a coherent defense to your ideological about face?

Even if it were true, it's not a defense to utter hypocrisy. It's really sad to see you do this.

[Starry Messenger]

228. Awwww.

Well, I feel sad for you all the time! Guess the guys were too busy today to gather around the keg of PBR, snap the suspenders on their Carhartts and sing from the Little Red Songbook and talk about how too manfully brave they are to vote.

Maybe soon! In the meantime, here's a song for you to enjoy!

[Romulox]

229. This is sad. I feel bad for you. But at least the jig is up on your phony "socialist" blog. nt

[Starry Messenger]

234. ((hugs))

Good luck getting out there and converting Trump fans to Bernie! Love to chat more but I have a phone meeting with two more labor organizers today. Kisses!

[Romulox]

235. ((yuck)). nt

[demmiblue]

237. Honestly, you need to give it up.

As some people get older, they become more liberal.

As some people get older, they become more conservative.

It is what it is.

[Romulox]

240. Agreed. Still the conservative "evolution" of that poster is jarring, given her previous posturing.

indeed!

[demmiblue]

241. Meh, it was probably just a fad/phase for her.

Just like trying on coats or a pair of jeans... she finally found her true fit.

I still agree with her on many issues, though.

[Romulox]

242. Agreed again. nt

[Starry Messenger]

243. Sub-replies are kind of rude, demmiblue.

If you have something to say to me, you can always reply to me. I find Bernie's politics to be lukewarm, though he's good on a few issues. However, he does not have the trust of labor, which is shown by how the unions went in their endorsements, and as part of the labor movement, I can tell you that is a vast source of concern for me.

That's just one of my problems with his campaign.

As for the rest of this discussion, I have written extensively about gentrification, income inequality and wage depression here and in other places. I have no pleasure in reporting how expensive it is to live and work in the Bay Area, but I am actively involved in the Fight for $15, rent control, Black Lives Matter, and a labor coalition for education. I am also in a prominent socialist organization as an elected national delegate.

Thanks, and have a pleasant New Year.

[Romulox]

223. And Hillary STILL is against the "Fight for $15", despite your attempted subject change! nt

[SoLeftIAmRight]

20. some people are so silly

and some just want to cause trouble

[NurseJackie]

22. So no tax increase for me ... GOOD!

[Lucky Luciano]

143. Would you trade a tax increase that is more than offset by lower healthcare costs? nt

[NurseJackie]

150. Not gonna happen.

"More than offset" ??

[Lucky Luciano]

152. Wow - you are so smart.

Whether it is possible or not was not the question.

If it is possible, what is your answer to the question?

[NurseJackie]

157. Sorry. I'm not inclined to flatter you by answering an absurd hypothetical.

But I will tell you that I don't believe any of Bernie's pie-in-the-sky promises.

[Lucky Luciano]

165. Spoken like a lawyer - obfuscating and triangulating.

Hillary?

[NurseJackie]

172. LOL

I live in a reality based world. But I do understand how Bernie's empty promises can be appealing to those who don't.

Accusing me of triangulating? Obfuscating? Seriously? Do you even know what those words mean? Or do you just toss them out like birdseed whenever you're frustrated that someone won't answer your question?

I was very direct with you when I told you that I would not answer. What was "obfuscated" or "triangulated" about that? What could I have said differently so that there would be no doubt in your mind that I was not going to entertain you by playing your Q&A games?

[Lucky Luciano]

176. I have seen your general style before.

[tazkcmo]

179. No one likes a bragger. n/t

[Scuba]

25. I'm still waiting for someone to ask Hillary how much a loaf of bread costs.

[brooklynite]

28. Why don't you?

Her candidate events are open to the public, and unlike Sanders rallies, she interacts with the audience.

[Scuba]

35. Who told you Bernie doesn't interact with the audience? That person lied to you.

Perhaps you'd like to edit your post. I'm sure you don't want to be spreading lies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251952959

[brooklynite]

39. Nobody told me...

...I did what you folks told me to do and watched his rally speeches.

He seems to wave at the end and walk off.

[Scuba]

41. Well, I'm sure you'll want to edit or delete rather than spreading untruths.

[brooklynite]

47. It's not untrue until I see evidence to the contrary.

...btw, I'm sure you've called on Sanders supporters to correct posts that say the Clinton only holds events for people who pay to attend?

[jeff47]

52. Ok, I have not seen evidence proving you aren't a Colombian drug lord.

That makes it true, right?

[brooklynite]

64. I cited the evidence I had available...

Post an opposing view and let the audience decide.

That's how this discussion board thing works.

[jeff47]

67. As did I.

You've not provided any evidence to the contrary, and you do make a significant number of posts bragging about your income. So, you're a Colombian drug lord. Feel free to provide your opposing view, and the audience can decide.

Or you could realize that the hyperbole here is an attempt to get you to pay attention to your own actions. But we both know that won't happen.

[brooklynite]

70. Feel free to throw insults...

...unlike most people, I don't hide my identity; feel free to look up my FEC filings and you'll know my employer and occupation.

[Enthusiast]

82. I'm very disappointed in you, brooklynite.

[bvar22]

268. "It's not untrue until I see evidence to the contrary." ---brooklynite, post 47

Then keep your eyes and ears closed, and you will never have to face the TRUTH,
OR
attend a Bernie Rally and find out the TRUTH instead of posting BS lies to DU,
or pontificating about things about which you know NOTHING.

Expecting either a correction to your posted FALSE INFORMATION by brooklynite,
or a retraction and an apology to Bernie's Campaign.

Anybody can just make stuff up
like you did in post#28.
Pure Fabrication....but that doesn't seem to bother you, does it?
Otherwise, you would go back, and edit your post to reflect the TRUTH instead of the LIE you fabricated.
Openly lying about something so easily checked in NOT a smart thing to do at DU,
and damages your remaining credibility.

[Jackilope]

58. in Iowa he took questions and comments from audience

When a group of us drove to see him in July. I got to shake his hand, exchange a small conversation on education and he posed for a pic with me after I asked.

Just sayin'...

[Enthusiast]

84. Huge +1!

[Gormy Cuss]

27. "Middle class" is different from median (middle) income.

Class is a multi-strata category that encompasses income, education, professional status, home ownership, and other markers of standard of living. It's not a well-defined term in the U.S. Income on the other hand is a single stat, easily calculated using hard data.

So "middle class" status may require less than the median national income in some areas and more in others; people who consider themselves middle class may in fact earn far less than the median income or far more.

I get annoyed when pols use "class" to describe people, particularly when they use the term to describe low income and poor people as the "lower class."

[Chakab]

91. It's a completely meaningless classification given its expansive nature.

A couple who are both employed as shift workers and have been able to incur a significant amount of debt relative to their incomes to buy a modest home and a couple of doctors who are specialists in their respective fields of expertise and are paid accordingly are both considered to be "middle class families" by some metrics. However, realistically speaking, the two groups of people have absolutely nothing in common from an economic standpoint.

[Gormy Cuss]

182. Well yes, that's my point.

"Middle class" is lifestyle. "Median income" is a clearly defined metric.

One reason pols like to use "middle class" is because many Americans think of themselves as middle class even when they aren't earning near the median income.

[Romulox]

113. The top 3% of something cannot be described as the "middle", regardless of attempted misdirection.

[Gormy Cuss]

181. At 250K in high cost parts of the country, that's well below the "top 3% of earners.

Thus it may only allow for a "middle class" lifestyle even though in much of the country it would buy an upper income lifestyle.

"Class" is not a term with standard definition. Income on the other hand is well-defined.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Oh, wait, Sanders has come to Hillary's position in raising FICA taxes on those

who earn $250,000, doesn't seem like he wants to raise taxes on the middle income either.

[Dont call me Shirley]

50. Bernie has long been for raising the FICA cap, been listening to Brunch with Bernie for a long time.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Yes, he was going to remove the max cap, now he is going for the over $250,000

raise in FICA. He has only been saying this for a short time.

[Dont call me Shirley]

141. I'll have to research that.

[joshcryer]

271. Raising the FICA cap is seen as a fix to social security.

It's not a new idea and even Obama advocated for it in the famous "catfood commission." (Simpson-Bowles)

[elias7]

30. How does "shrinking" of the middle class fit in to the formula

If you take middle class to be determined by median income or between the 67th and 200th percentiles of income, you can't invoke a shrinking middle class since numbers won't change; only the standard of living changes, with more "middle class" folks in relative poverty...

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. But for accuracy's sake; didn't, HRC promise not to raise taxes on the ...

middle AND working classes?

250k, very well may be of the working class, as they are played for services rendered, with little control over what the work looks like, or where, when, or how it is performed.

[truebluegreen]

153. Your re-definition of "working class'

to fit your agenda is even more pretzel-like than redefining middle class as under 250K.

In common parlance, the "working class" is on the other side of the "middle class" from the "upper class."

[pandr32]

34. Middle Class is a range

...and it covers low, middle and higher categories. I grew up in a higher middle class neighborhood (like the top end in your post) that was more professional than blue collar. My mother was a professional and my father was blue collar. What HC uses for her cut-off point is combined household income, and not individual. It is a good cut-off point.

[RandySF]

37. It is if you live on the East or West Coasts

[Bluenorthwest]

122. No it is not. 250K is top 2% or 3% of earners, no matter where you are. The fact that your

half million barely buys anything in Mayfair does not mean half a million is a pittance it means Mayfair is expensive.

[Recursion]

151. It's four times median household income in San Francisco

It's rich, anywhere in the country.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

213. I am a worker living just above the poverty line in San Francisco.

Sorry, but $250k is RICH, regardless of where you are.

[LexVegas]

38. Yeah it is. nt

[RandySF]

43. I know auto workers who bust their asses with overtime to make $250k

You want to punish them with higher taxes?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

63. Bullshit.

[RandySF]

72. My cousin and my dad's neighbor, Einstein.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

112. Yep.

Totally believable. Unless they own their own shop they aren't bringing in 250k a year.


That means they are averaging over 100 dollars an hour. I have worked in auto shops and diesel shops, I know how much shop time costs, and that ain't happening, not in the Bay Area, not anywhere.

[mopinko]

45. yes it is. the life that $250 k will buy you is what a factory worker or

insurance salesman USED TO be able to afford. that the median income is so much less than that is because of the suppression of wages that has been happening since st ronnie.
for $250, you can own a nice house, send your kids to college, and save for a decent retirement. maybe have a little to invest, a piece of rental property, or maybe a little vacation place. if a single earner can make that kind of money, maybe one parent can stay home w the kids.

that was the middle class that i grew up with, and most of the folks that i knew that were in that place were simple folks w decent jobs. that that doesnt exist anymore for a median wage just shows that wages need to go up, not that people who have that lifestyle should be brought down to someone else's level.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

65. The disconnect is strong with this one.

Middle class means having a vacation home? Holy shit you people don't get it.

[mopinko]

88. vacation homes in my day were not full blown second homes.

they were little salt boxes on a body of water somewhere. lucky to have flush toilets.

at $250 these days it would more likely be a piece of rental property, part of that decent retirement. in chicago, it means owning a 2 or 3 flat w for some rent money.

fine, i am talking about upper middle, meaning that life didnt throw you any curve balls, and you spent your money wisely. it still all falls down pretty quick w/o a paycheck.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

114. My parents never had a vacation home.

Hell, they barely ever took a vacation. There was no time in this country where a vacation home was the norm for the middle class. You are completely disconnected from a large part of the American public/reality.

[mopinko]

123. maybe your parents werent really middle class, then.

at least taking vacations is something that puts you above survival mode, which is my definition of middle class.

i am not disconnected. i was raised in a perfectly normal small midwestern town. we were poor. my father drank his future away, and we lived on my mom's paycheck as a secretary. we took about 3 vacations in my lifetime. we had nothing.
but the rest of the neighborhood was middle class. my best friends dad was an insurance salesman. they owned their home, drove decent cars, had a little hunting cabin on a couple acres, and had a rental unit in their house. most of the other families w a decent bread winner had similar.
that is the middle class that has disappeared in this generation.

i have been lucky enough in my adult life to rise "through the ranks". my ex is an it exec, and we had a decent income that built us a decent life. yes, we are the 1%, but we are miles and miles from the .1%.
we built enough that i can retire on my divorce settlement and he will have to forgo the early retirement he was hoping for to rebuild his own assets. not saying boohoo, just saying that is something a "rich" person would not have to do.
lucky. but still paycheck based. if at any point along the way disaster had struck, we would have been poor again in a hurry.

maybe seeing it from both sides makes me more connected than you.

[starroute]

69. What you're describing is not middle class

Nobody who owns a second home is middle class by any standard I knew growing up. In those days, the middle class was defined by an income that allowed you to take a few weeks vacation in the summer and put something aside for emergencies, together with the expectation of a decent pension for retirement. The doctors' and professors' kids I knew were probably upper middle, which mainly meant having fancier apartments and shopping at more upscale department stores. And I did knew a few kids at school whose families were genuinely wealthy and a few others whose families were genuinely poor.

But $250,000 a year puts someone beyond the range of what I would have considered even upper middle class. And someone who is willing to pay $20,000 to send their kid to private school can surely afford an extra couple of thousand in social security payments to keep the system viable.

[Chakab]

87. This is the problem with the expansive definition of "middle class" that's used in the US. The vast

majority of people who are classified as middle class in the States cannot afford the type of lifestyle that you're describing.

[mopinko]

90. that would be my point.

that median income and middle class are not the same thing.

[Chakab]

94. Then we have a serious semantics problem in the US because the "middle class" is considerably

smaller than political class imagines it to be.

And going by your definition, it's ridiculous that so much of the economic political discourse, even on the left, is tailored around accommodating such a small percentage of income earners.

[mopinko]

96. that would be the crux of the bernie sanders campaign.

there is almost no middle class left in this country. when the median income is so much less than the amount that you need to live a decent life, we have a big problem as a country.

[whatthehey]

209. I live like that and earn far less than 250k

[Ferd Berfel]

49. What do you expect from someone owned and operated by The Oligarchy?

[Amimnoch]

53. good gawd but there's a lot of bullshit to wade through going down this thread.

Middle class is NOT the same as "median income".

first, "income's" are based on individuals. "Classes" are based on households. As much as I'm loath to use Wikipedia for information, their Academic references are spot on here (note that they are academic references specifically to address income inequality, NOT right wing bullshit):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

The upper middle class can go all the way up to $500,000/year of household income.

Since we ARE talking taxes here, it DOES make sense to consider household (since that is what is overwhelmingly most filed on) vs individual.

To say $250,000/year is not median income.. very correct.
To say $250,000/year is not towards the higher end of middle class income ranges? False.

[muriel_volestrangler]

160. Your Wikipedia link doesn't say what you think it does

The mention of $500,000 is in Thompson and Hickey's description of 'upper class': "Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common. Ivy league education common."

That doesn't say 'upper class' starts at $500k; it says that's a 'common' income in the upper class (just as an Ivy League education is not a necessity to be 'upper class', just 'common'). They say 'upper middle class' have "household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above $100,000" (note: 'household income' is an extremely common measurement, as Wikipedia shows). And they use a bizarrely skewed 'middle' anyway, with 'lower middle' from 53rd percentile to 84th, and 'upper middle' from 85th to 99th - not even including the median.

$250k household income is about the threshold for the top 3% (since $206k was the 2014 threshold for the top 5%). That's not 'middle class'.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Median income and middle class are not

The same thing. Picking an arbitrary percentile, as the author does to decide that the top 5% is the cut off is equally bullshitty.

Let's start with figuring out what we mean be "the wealthy", or "the rich". I'll take a stab at it and declare that if you possess enough wealth such that you do not have to work, that instead your investments provide enough return to support you and your family in a comfortable life style you are most likely a rich person. This excludes anyone living on pensions, social security, welfare, or spending any of the principal of their assets to survive. Assuming a return of 5%, owning 3,000,000 in invested principal would provide 150,000 a year in income. People controlling this much wealth may very well choose to work in order to augment that income and/ or increase their accumulated wealth, but they do so not out of necessity.

The rest of us have to work for a living. To me that is the primary division and is much more objective and realistic than the ludicrous bickering over who is or is not middle class. Of course if you are a worker with income that will soon move you into the wealthy class, your perspective on things will be quite different than a worker who has no hope, outside of the lottery of ever achieving real economic independence. So there are real differences between top earners and the rest. Equivalently those at the bottom, the working poor, who not only have no prospect of future wealth but in addition have no immediate economic security have a different perspective than those above them.

The surge in Wealth inequality over the last 40 years is similar to that of income inequality, and they are related, and it is the very top of the pile, call it the 0.01%, who have done the accumulating.

Clinton did herself no favors by describing people with 250,000 income as middle class, but in my view while it made her vulnerable to attack, really our focus should be on unraveling the Gordian knot the wealthy elites have woven into the governments of this world to transform them into a global kleptocracy and not which worker should be arbitrarily elevated into the upper class.

[Helen Borg]

57. Nice way to make the vast majority of Americans feel like worthless bums!

Well done, Hillary! That will boost your popular vote, guaranteed

[tecelote]

61. YOUNG AMERICANS SHOCKED TO LEARN OF HILLARY’S MULTIPLE MANSIONS

Democratic candidate claimed to be "dead broke" after family left White House
http://www.infowars.com/video-young-americans-shocked-to-learn-of-hillarys-multiple-mansions/

[Capt. Obvious]

76. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Dec 28, 2015, 02:03 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

YOUNG AMERICANS SHOCKED TO LEARN OF HILLARY’S MULTIPLE MANSIONS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=953092

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The link it for the site of a right wing conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones (infowars.com)

This is DU, not Free Republic.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Dec 28, 2015, 02:11 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Posts from Newsmax, and Glenn Beck's website have been deemed OK recently, they are starting to appear in groups, and withstand hides. So I must conclude that tin-foil wars is OK as well.

Since it is Infowars, it should be easy to shred. So instead of attacking the source, attack the message.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide it because it links to Alex Jones.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Alex Jones is not a good source. OP could easily make the same point from more credible sources.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What if this post is a false flag?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Did she falsely claim to be dead broke after her family left the White House? Sure she did, and she needs to be held accountable for the consequences of her own lies.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[tecelote]

164. Whoa! That is a crappy site.

I found the video and just decided to include the site link. I hadn't looked at the rest of the site until now.

In the future, if I'm informed, I'll delete my own post if I make a similar mistake. Now that it was alerted though, I'm leaving it so the alert makes sense.

Thanks Capt. Obvious for letting me know.

[Lazy Daisy]

68. $250k is middle class

$50k is not. We need to stop arguing about the top end and reevaluate the bottom end. Saying $50k is middle class is like saying getting a 1.0 grade average is acceptable. At $50k there is no saving for retirement, vacations, private school. At $50k most if not all of your shopping is done in second hand thrift stores, lots of carbs in your diet for a full stomach and very little if any entertainment.

[Starry Messenger]

74. Bingo.

[Romulox]

100. It's a matter of basic math, not wish fulfillment. $50k is the *reality* of Middle Class. nt

[bvar22]

238. There ARE rural parts of the country where $50K goes a LONG way.

One can live well on 1/2 that much in The South, and do OK.
CoL is low, the land is fertile and unspoiled (in most places), and thee is plenty of clean water for the next century.
Land is about $2K per acre. Someone willing to save a few bucks out of that $50K could wind up owning a lot of land after a few years.

My suggestion: If you can't make it on $50K....move.

[Lazy Daisy]

245. Your suggestion is nonsense

I've lived in several parts of this country, including the rural south so am well aware of the cost of living in those areas. ( I lived in an area of NC that wasn't identified by the town name but by the county name, how's that for rural?)

So, when everybody leaves everything and everybody they know and love to take up your condescending suggestion, what do you think happens to the cost of living in the rural parts of the country you speak of? How does everybody find a job in those rural areas? You think all those jobs will be $50k a yr to live so well off of?

Complete nonsense

[ErikJ]

71. Probably upper middle class. Its poor compared to top 1% and especially top .1%

In Manhattan or San Fran etc it would be middle class but in Boise ID it would be upper upper middle class.

[guillaumeb]

80. HRC makes more than that for some speeches.

It all depends on your frame of reference.

[Old Codger]

81. Personally

I prefer to consider it "working" class, depending on where you live your income may or may not fall within the "middle" income strata but you could still be making a reasonably middle of the road living, one persons home that cost less than 200k is a nice home some places and a shack in others.. There is no way I can see to place a label based entirely on income...

[AtheistCrusader]

83. It's what the middle class would be, if wages/purchasing power kept up with inflation.

[Enthusiast]

86. $250,000 a Year Is Not Middle Class!

[treestar]

92. Sounds very comfortable to me too

But where did they get this figure and what do they base it on ? Seems worth considering at least.

[gordyfl]

95. I'm Not Surprised

I'm not totally surprised that Hillary is fighting for those who earn $200,000 - $250,000.

I'm sure many of her donors who wrote out $2,700 checks to Hillary's campaign and attended those cocktail party fundraisers belong to that income bracket.

[McCamy Taylor]

97. Depends on where you live. In some major urban areas, this is the high end of middle class

because the cost of living is so high, and so wages get inflated to keep up.

[Romulox]

103. LOL at the people who think that the mathematical middle is subject to debate. nt

[Starry Messenger]

104. How Much the Middle Class Makes — in the Bay Area and 28 U.S. Cities

This might show the disconnect some are having in this discussion.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/03/20/how-much-the-middle-class-makes-in-the-bay-area-and-28-u-s-cities

"About the data: We used the family income data from the 2013 American Community Survey. This counts only families, which the government defines as households with two or more people related by birth, marriage or adoption.

The graph focuses on families living in the country’s 30 most populous cities. For the most part, it doesn’t include those living in suburbs and rural areas. That’s why the national median is higher than the median incomes in almost all of the cities on the graph.

One final note: In the area around San Jose, 13 percent of families have annual incomes of $250,000 or more."

Population of San Jose is 998,000. 13% is 129,000 (rounding down.) San Jose, a city, is larger than several states in the US.

Also: federal poverty guidelines are crying to be reassessed. There are lots of households who probably would call themselves middle class, who are closer to just scraping by. And in the Bay Area, median rents are climbing and on track to hit $4k a month (if they haven't already.)

Lots of people interview for jobs out here from out of state and can't even move here because it is so insane. If I wasn't in a household with another (frugal) earner, I'd be living in my car.

[Romulox]

109. Your own chart says that $171k/year is top 25% percent in San Francisco. Try again. nt

[Starry Messenger]

115. In 2013.

That was the best chart that showed proportional rates by us city, which shows it is cheaper to live "middle-class" if you are not in a major coastal area with high population and major jobs growth.

In SF, itself, $200,000 is now considered the household income needed to live "comfortably." Which I'm not saying is right, it's created quite a lopsided situation. I'm just saying what is, and that judging by what seems rich in another state isn't really useful.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Families-need-200-000-to-live-comfortably-in-S-F-6365829.php

"To live a comfortable life where you’re not worrying month-to-month about paying the rent or mortgage, I would say $200,000 if you’re sending the kids to public school,” said Todd David, a dad in Noe Valley who is also a member of the San Francisco Parent Political Action Committee. He and his wife bought their house in 1997, and he said there’s no way they could afford to move to San Francisco now.

“It’s just a different paradigm,” he said.

We’ll say.

We know the $200,000 figure sounds outrageous, but we asked some other parents what they thought, and the answer was always in that ballpark.

Of course, many families in San Francisco are surviving on a lot less by staying in the same rent-controlled apartment forever, doubling up with other families, living in single-room-occupancy hotels, renting small in-law units or getting government assistance. And in a city where an estimated 2,200 public school students are homeless, nobody’s shedding tears for those whose families can afford to buy houses in Vacaville.

But still, it’s worth pointing out that salaries that would allow families to live like royalty in some parts of the country qualify for government assistance here. For a family of four, the median annual income in San Francisco is $101,900, according to the Mayor’s Office of Housing."

[Romulox]

117. Why did *you* offer the chart if it utterly invalidated your position, then? nt

[Starry Messenger]

120. I explained in my opening.

To show that claiming that $250k makes you a millionaire in Peoria is a meaningless distinction in this discussion.

[Romulox]

125. It's not middle class, as your chart demonstrates. What point you thought you were making...

[Starry Messenger]

127. The same point several others are making in this thread.

Also the one several comments at the NYT are making.

Insisting that 50k a year is a comfortable middle class existence for any but the most isolated states is quite cruel. People trying to make it out here on that would have a lot of words for people who believe if they made more, they will be wealthy. That's more like a Freeper attitude, in my experience.

[Romulox]

130. The "poor little rich folk" argument. It's a bad one. nt

[whatthehey]

105. No - but it's a clever demarcation point

It's far enough above aspirational levels for people who are indeed middle class not to fear it will ever likely apply to them (when you make say 70k a year you can probably imagine making 120 one day but not 250), while including enough high income earners to actually generate real income.

It stops the attack ads being able to talk about a cop ands a nurse in Manhattan getting hit with a tax hike (such attack ads typically add in every conceivable seniority, specialty and overtime rate to get normal-sounding people to their highest possible incomes and such a couple could indeed get pretty close to 250) while reassuring hoi polloi that the bourgeoisie will have to pay and not them.

[anigbrowl]

156. Bingo

Hillary expects to be the Democratic nominee and is staking out policy territory now, instead of waiting for Republicans to pre-emptively define her as a 'tax and spend liberal' or something. Regardless of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of GOP economic populism, attacking Democrats for being tax-happy has historically been a winning strategy for them, so it's wise for Hillary to define her policies ealy and get the message out that she's not interested in jacking up taxes on the middle class in the most explicit fashion possible.

Arguing about the membership boundaries thereof is fruitless. You don't win debates by fighting over definitions - in fact that's a sure way to lose the interest of your audience. OF course $250k/year isn't middle class for most of the country; in a lot of places if you earned that much you'd be making out like a bandit. On the other hand, if you live in a place like San Francisco you can expect to drop >$60,000 a year in rent alone for a small one-bedroom apartment, and other things are commensurately expensive (eg gas prices in the Bay Area are typically double most of the rest of the country and so on). So a household making $250k/year in a market like that is doing well but not spectacularly so by any means.

At best, this debate shows the foolishness of having a single number to define where the poverty line is or what your federal tax band could be. A perfectly fair system would be much more complicated and take cost of living factors into account to produce a more economically accurate classification...but the tax code is already complex enough without asking people to do calculus to figure out their tax liability.

[questionseverything]

162. you explained that well

hopefully others will read it and understand

if we as dems can get everyone but the top 1%ers to back us there is nothing we can not accomplish

[Vinca]

107. Wow - I'm a peasant and I didn't even know it.

[shadowmayor]

124. Fuzzy Math

Here we go again. The repukes and the fawning corporate media have been using the household income theme to shield us from a simple measure of income - individual rates. Household income includes all who reside at a place including teenagers working part time, aunt Edna in the attic with her monthly check and the bread winner's incomes. It helps blur the lines between what is poverty, what is "middle" and what is truly the upper 10 or 1 percent. More confusion comes from those living in areas of very high cost like NYC or San Francisco who couldn't fathom trying to live on less than $27,000 per year which is just above the median income for an individual in our country. For individuals if you make ~$80k per year you are in the top 10%, that's right and if you make ~$250K you are close to what the 99% call the 1%. With 45+ million Americans getting food stamps, and millions of families being one bad transmission from financial dire straits, it's hard to say that $250K is middle class. Of course a lot of wealthy people don't think of themselves as being above the middle class just as workers who are not middle class think they are. Trying to find individual income brackets is a challenge - the Census Bureau and IRS give good info but you have to dig - as the "household" meme is so prevalent. The median income in our country is currently under $27,000 per year per worker.

[whatthehey]

137. which is in itself fuzzy math

because that median individual figure also includes the teenager working a few hours at Taco Bell for spending money, and lumps them in with adult full time working householders.

The genuinely fair number is easier to locate than you suggest, and is here

http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#weekearn

telling us that the median weekly wage for a full time worker was 791 dollars in 2014, for an annual income of about 41k.

Now that's closer to the median household income than it is to the every individual person who gets any pay at all median albeit only just, but it's a fairer indication than either of what a real middle of the road full time job pays per person, with obviously a very wide distribution.

[shadowmayor]

148. Full time

Nice if you can get it. $41K for 2000 hours of work is just over $20 per hour. Unfortunately, too many of our fellow citizens are relegated to part time work and most at wages that are far below $20 per hour. This argument or analysis can teeter-totter forever but the bottom line is that far more Americans are living on a lot less than we realize. In many parts of our country a $20 per hour job is considered a high paying job.

[whatthehey]

195. Yes - for a reeason

The vast majority of workers - about 108/148 if memory serves, are FT. Of those who are part time only about 5.6 million want to be FT workers (the difference between u5 and u6 gives us this number by definition when applied to the labor force and can be found here)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Which means the remaining 35MM or so PT workers WANT PT, which as you say is often low pay at least pre-tipped for many jobs in the service and hospitality industries which offer overwhelmingly PT shifts. They are the students, the homemakers seeking a bit extra, the elderly seeking interaction, the parents with kiods gone only certain hours of the day. What they are NOT is people seeking a full time, stand alone home-sustaining income (that would be the 5.6MM above) but who cannot get it, and they certainly should not be included in calculations of median income leading people to draw the incorrect inference that the number applies to those who need/want to run a household on that income. The 41k number is a far more accurate reflection of that cohort.

Yes in some sectors that would be considered a good income. For exactly the same reason that 5'10" would in some segments be considered quite tall for a man. That's because both numbers are the median, so by definition 50% are under that number looking up and 50% above that number looking dowm. It would seem a good income then to most of that former 50%.

[PowerToThePeople]

140. If I made 250k a year

I would be permanently retired and living a great life in 5 years.

It is not even close to "middle class", as if that term had any meaning today. 250k/year is upper crust.

[brooklynite]

146. I guess Bernie Sanders disagrees with you...

Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to end this absurdity, by lifting this cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families.

Same threshold Clinton uses.

[MeNMyVolt]

180. They don't care.

Their goal is to bash HRC.

[MADem]

154. It's the "upper end" of middle class, particularly with a two income family in large cities.

I sure wouldn't mind making that much every year, but that ain't happening.

I imagine people living in San Francisco or NYC can burn through a lot of money that I wouldn't have to, simply because the cost of living is so much higher in those places.

You can rent a nice place to live for hundreds of dollars in northern Maine. The same place, transplanted to SF or NYC, would cost THOUSANDS per month.

[Ferd Berfel]

167. Just proves that Hillary is clueless as a republican when it comes to income inequality

As a card carrying member of the Oligarchy she really doesn't know any better

[MeNMyVolt]

170. Uh, yes it is. In many large cities...

... and especially for people with larger families is said cities.

Some of these OPs are embarrassing.

[Dragonfli]

177. Wow, it appears a great many well off people post here

Yet for some reason they think they are not 2%ers.

It would be cool if they could trade places with an average middle class American for five years or so, then they'd get how well off they are.

I would suggest they trade places with most working class people, but the suicide rate among them after those five years would be most severe.

One week in my (poor) neighborhood and they'd open their veins or put heads in oven if the gas is still on.

In truth there are:
The extremely wealthy - the .01%
The wealthy - the 1%
The well to do - Among the top 7% but less than 1%
The middle class (from 40k to about 90k depending on location)
The working class (a few still overlap with the "middle class", but fewer and fewer each year)
The Impoverished, (almost half of us now, a great many of which include the working class)

The well off sure do complain/fear paying taxes. As is evident by the well off posting here.

[tazkcmo]

178. 250k?

Wow. I don't make that per decade!

[WillyT]

185. Huge K & R !!!

[Todays_Illusion]

187. Median income has never defined middle class. The true Middle Class is the professional class and

includes the ability to purchase a home in a good neighborhood if desired, good transportation, good health care, family vacation time and money, ability to save for retirement, send children to college and a lot of other things. $1M
The true middle class income is $100K to $1 Million/ per year. Professionals and successful small business people.
Their taxes are actually too high. The incomes that need an increase in income tax are those over $5 Million per year with another step up in rates for incomes over $10 Million per year.

A $50/$70K job per year for a family of three or four, will not provide a middle class income.


When many working class people held good paying union jobs and when the minimum wage could support two adults plus a child or two. Some working class jobs provided an income equal to the true middle class, the professional class, professors, attorneys, doctors, mid and upper level management,, scientists, successful small businesses, etc.

Calling the working class middle class began in the early eighties it was part of the messaging change that went hand in hand with the wage suppression that was started with the E.I.T.C. in 1975. Tell the people who's pay they are lowering with union busting and using illegal immigrant labor and tax subsidized pay they were the middle class encouraged a change in thinking that allowed a deep reduction in expectation of what was once something to aspire to, The Middle Class, is now for almost family with two incomes and incomes as low as $35K per year are called middle class when that is ludicrous and barely enough for one person to live decently on and safe, but not enough to qualify for a home loan.

[wildeyed]

257. Good post.

Far better than the thread deserves.

[BainsBane]

191. It's the same threshold Obama used

Yet for some reason it's only a problem with Clinton proposes it. Funny how often that occurs. Would that be another example of Clinton "acting like a man," by proposing policies Democrats have supported for a decade or longer?

$250k is certainly upper-middle class; it's privileged, but a number of them refer to themselves as the 99 percent, despise bankers, and support Sanders. If you use the term the 99 percent, you're including them. Yet none of that was problematic until Clinton established a threshold for taxes, the very one that Democrats have stuck to for over a decade. Yet for some reason, you decide to act like standard Democratic policy is some diabolical invention of Hillary Clinton, even though every one who has voted Democrat has voted for that same threshold for 8 years now.

Rather than taxing those whose incomes exceed $250k, you could always opt for taxing union pension funds and teacher retirement plans so that the children of those making $250k+ a year don't have to suffer the indignity of working 10 hours a week to contribute to their education, as Sanders so-called "free" university education plan does, all while doing nothing to address the rampant inequality in K-12 education that creates generations of poverty.

The upper-middle class that supports Bernie isn't going to take well to being singled out that way. The approved enemies are Wall Street and the "Third Way" "corporatist" Clinton votes, including (or especially) the poor and people of color who refuse to understand that their purpose in life is to vote in the interests of that $150-$250k white male bourgeoisie, whose sense of entitlement means they feel no shame in insulting those with far less wealth and privilege than themselves.

Polls indicate that Sanders' support comes much more from middle class voters and people with college degrees,” says Davis. “The voters he's trying to target, who are working class voters [who] often times people who don't have college degrees, they're breaking more heavily for Hillary Clinton."

http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-south-minority-and-working-class-voters-are-crucial-2016#stream/0
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251542288

[My Good Babushka]

192. There is a schism in the party

between the working poor and the liberal bourgeoisie. In the two party system, the former have to vote for the candidate of the latter, and when the working people get their hopes up that there will finally be some legislation to benefit them, it's the bourgeoisie who suck up all the oxygen in the room and put their inability to afford tuition for private school on the same level of urgency as the problems of working people who can't get their teeth and car fixed at the same time. And the richer voice always gets heard, some tax break will be passed for them, and then the liberal bourgeoisie takes the attitude of "why are you complaining? We got something we wanted." Repeat every election cycle, ad infinitum.

[demmiblue]

194. +1

[harun]

200. So sad, but horribly true

[Adrahil]

262. Sure, let's go ahead and declare upper-middle class folks the enemy too....

That' bound to have positive results.....

The enemy is not people doing reasonably well. It's the people sucking up the vast majority of the wealth.

[My Good Babushka]

263. If you don't hold your party accountable for its legislation

and that legislation keeps favoring accumulated wealth over and over, you are going to lose people. That's why people don't make voting a priority. Being told that this is just politically "pragmatic" is souring voters. It's not out of the question that the democratic party will have it's splintering, tea party moment, too. If the results are the same, and working people of both parties end up voting against their interests, it's a bad scene. The democrats need to deliver more than lip service. This isn't about the "hurt feelings" of the well-to-do liberals, it's about the teetering moment of unsustainable inequality.

[harun]

199. If you live in a major population center, especially the East Coast, like Boston, NY, Philly, DC.

It is Middle Class.

In the Midwest it isn't.

[tblue37]

207. Actually, it kinda is. What people are calling "middle class" these days is simply

barely scraping by working class. Because wages have not kept up with inflation, most Americans whose income would have once been enough to keep them securely ensconced in the middle class are now one paycheck away from food insecurity or homelessness--and sometimes much worse off even than that!

Income/inflation calculators show that a $250,000 income today is equivalent to a 1970 or 1980 income that would have been considered middle class then. [font color = "red"](All of the bolding, underlining, font colors, and increased font sizes below are my additions.)[/font]

If we use a comparison to 1970, this is what we get for the purchasing power of a 2014 income of $250,000 (they don't have 2015 figures yet):

In [font size = "+2"]1970[/font], the relative value of $250,000.00 from 2014 ranges from [font color = "red"]$15,500.00 to $52,400.00[/font].

A simple Purchasing Power Calculator would say the relative value is [font color = "red"]$41,000.00[/font]. This answer is obtained by multiplying $250000 by the percentage increase in the CPI from 2014 to 1970.

The page gives various ways of considering the value of that amount of income, though. Here is another passage from the page:

If you want to compare the value of a $250,000.00 Income or Wealth , in 2014 there are four choices. In 1970 the relative:

historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is [font color = "red"]$41,000.00[/font]
contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is [font color = "red"]$39,600.00[/font]
economic status value of that income or wealth is [font color = "red"][font size = "+2"]$24,100.00[/font][/font]
economic power value of that income or wealth is [font size = "+2"][font color = "red"]$15,500.00

[/font][/font]

Now, if we want to compare the worth of that $250,000 income to the year Reagan took office, we get this:

In [font size = "+2"]1980[/font], the relative value of $250,000.00 from 2014 ranges from $41,300.00 to $102,000.00.

A simple Purchasing Power Calculator would say the relative value is $87,000.00. This answer is obtained by multiplying $250000 by the percentage increase in the CPI from 2014 to 1980.

and this:

If you want to compare the value of a $250,000.00 Income or Wealth, in 2014 there are four choices. In 1980 the relative:

historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $87,000.00
contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is $75,600.00
economic status value of that income or wealth is [font size = "+2"][font color = "red"]$57,800.00[/font][/font]
economic power value of that income or wealth is [font size = "+2"][font color = "red"]$41,300.00[/font][/font]

See? Because wages have fallen so far behind inflation and cost of living, an income of $250,000 now is middle class. Furthermore, the people earning that kind of income usually are not living in a place with a low cost of living. They are living in places where they have to pay $4000/month or $5000/month for an apartment, thousands more a month for childcare, and millions if they want to buy a crappy little house.

[Starry Messenger]

210. ^^Must Read^^

Excellent post. I'm bookmarking.

[tblue37]

211. Thanks. nt

[MADem]

214. This is exactly the point I was making upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251952724#post183

You want to live like Ward and June Cleaver, you need way more money than most people make now. Just because it's the median wage doesn't mean it provides a middle class lifestyle.

[Romulox]

218. Unless you show income distribution in the pertinent years you compare, this means nothing. nt

[whathehell]

259. Income distribution is not relevant to the argument.

That income distribution has become distorted towards the high end since the 1970s has been demonstrated statistically over and over again. We cannot think about a narrow range of incomes constituting "middle class" as though income distributions are still relatively linear.

The medium income has been crushed since the 70s. So if someone makes 4 or 5 times the median income, can they be properly called "wealthy" and lumped together with people who make 1000 times or 10,000 times that median income? We must expand the range of what we call lower to upper middle class, and $250,000/yr can fall within that range.

[Romulox]

267. Of course it isn't. Because it invalidates the entire post. LOL. nt

[My Good Babushka]

244. In light of these statistics,

when you pair them with the fact that half of the people working in the U.S. make $500 a week or less, it should really illustrate the horrendously, criminally exploitative state into which the economy has been allowed to degrade. It would still be hard to make the case that we should be wringing our hands about a middle class tax increase, when the working class is being exploited and abused into an early grave; and it is an ongoing, observable catastrophe. Yet that doesn't get the kind of attention as a tax increase that hasn't happened yet.

[samplegirl]

212. Yet we still have tons of people who still don't understand

the concept of voting against themselves.

[madville]

246. 250k is the top 2% in my county

At 75k I'm in the top 21%, I guess that's middle class. County has a population of 18,000 with a median household income of $26,000, it's a poor area but it has a low cost of living.

[Hiraeth]

255. upper middle, especially in some areas for the country. Nice income, if spent wisely.