General Discussion

Romulox

(25,960 posts)

12. That's silly. My entire house's value wouldn't make the downpayment on many "encumbered properties".

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:08 PM

Jul 2012

"Equity" is key.

In addition, the fact that one leases their Mercedes or Lexus also does not put one in "the lower portion of the socio-economic order."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you take home more than $250,000 a year, are you middle class? [View all] hedgehog Jul 2012 OP

Since netting more than $250,000 a year would put you in the top 5% of sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #1

It's not TAKE HOME PAY, fucking get it right, OP! It's net income, after annual 1040 deductions Lionessa Jul 2012 #96

I go nuts also LynnTTT Jul 2012 #105

Exactly. Most folks making $500K are only taxed on about $200K, people just don't get it. Lionessa Jul 2012 #106

In some locations, like Manhattan, if that income comes from two salaries, pnwmom Jul 2012 #2

If you choose to live in an expensive wealthy area you are not middle class Marrah_G Jul 2012 #5

You don't think a firefighter and a teacher who live in Manhattan pnwmom Jul 2012 #15

So, is class determined by income, or what you do? oldhippie Jul 2012 #16

I think that's a good question. I think it's more than income; the source of the income pnwmom Jul 2012 #33

half the households in nyc make $50K or less. $250K ain't middle class even in nyc. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #48

It's not based on how sympathetic their profession are; it's based on how their income ranks. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #20

I think it's based on more than just income, and that the cost of living pnwmom Jul 2012 #35

Your hypothetical couple is still making over *three* times the median family income for NYC, though Romulox Jul 2012 #37

Twice the median of Manhattan would still put them in the broad middle range. pnwmom Jul 2012 #40

Nope. It puts them in the top 5%. Damn numbers! nt Romulox Jul 2012 #43

top 5%. not middle class. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #49

So, should the middle-class now walled off from Manhattan? San Francisco? San Jose? leveymg Jul 2012 #53

Sorry, top 5% of income is not middle class. To be in the middle of anything Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #50

It's all relative to where you work. $250K would make you relatively poor in many areas of NYC, SF, leveymg Jul 2012 #55

That's already been debunked several times over on this thread. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #75

That's not true. I have lived in all the areas you've mentioned and others even more expensive, Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #101

Well, I'm sure you will agree that PotatoChip Jul 2012 #112

Um, no. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #109

If they were two single people, they would be middle class. Does marrying make them upper class? pnwmom Jul 2012 #61

Yes. It's statistics. That's *exactly* how it works. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #76

Only if current income is the only factor involved in "class." pnwmom Jul 2012 #80

The distribution of income is a mathematical question. The implications of that distribution Romulox Jul 2012 #83

"Middle class" doesn't necessarily mean "middle income." Only "middle income" pnwmom Jul 2012 #87

I simply don't see any evidence for that. It seems like a self-serving theory put forward by the 5% Romulox Jul 2012 #90

The evidence is in any dictionary or encyclopedia. The meaning of "middle class" pnwmom Jul 2012 #93

"Middle class" doesn't mean anything at all. It's a marketing term to convince you that Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #102

TAKE HOME?? That's $5000/week or thereabouts. NO, kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #3

BS 250k is not middle class Marrah_G Jul 2012 #4

You're exactly right! $250k is NOT "middle class". BlueCaliDem Jul 2012 #59

We are the 95% B2G Jul 2012 #6

The entire "1%" framing is an attempt to enhance the 2 through 10%'s power... Romulox Jul 2012 #7

+1 Aerows Jul 2012 #19

+1 Johonny Jul 2012 #38

I think the '1%' framing served an extremely valuable purpoose initially, in that it coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #85

Great post. Something for me to think about. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #89

Upper class but by no means plutocracy... Fumesucker Jul 2012 #8

Doubt it Aerows Jul 2012 #21

They wouldn't have to be a $250K person for long to get out if they really wanted to.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #32

But a lot of the proletariat sympathize with the plutocracy Johonny Jul 2012 #42

Yeah, I know. Humans aren't rational animals but rather animals that rationalize.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #54

I kind of really depends Johonny Jul 2012 #66

The Problem, Ma'am Is the Absurd Over-Inflation Of 'Middle Class' Here The Magistrate Jul 2012 #9

Here is where we run into the confusion between the amount of money you have hedgehog Jul 2012 #10

True, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2012 #14

That's silly. My entire house's value wouldn't make the downpayment on many "encumbered properties". Romulox Jul 2012 #12

Amen ! A major pet peeve of mine is when people say they "own" vs "rent" SoCalDem Jul 2012 #17

Nope. It doesn't work that way. Look up "equity of redemption". Romulox Jul 2012 #22

Lots of the upper class carry mortgages on their homes. Major Nikon Jul 2012 #111

It all depends on what the definition of "middle class" is these days SoCalDem Jul 2012 #11

Shoot - by that definition I'm lower middle class - hedgehog Jul 2012 #18

Us too. We had a good start, but our first child had serious medical problems SoCalDem Jul 2012 #34

I think you've identified the real issue right here. Middle class has become meaningless except as Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #60

that's upper middle class. n/t progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #13

quick question Sekhmets Daughter Jul 2012 #88

no text, meaning there's nothing in the body of the message fizzgig Jul 2012 #108

If you carry a purse Aerows Jul 2012 #23

On a national level, no. Proud Public Servant Jul 2012 #24

median household income in dc = $58K. that's the middle. your household income is more than HiPointDem Jul 2012 #51

I'd quibble, but perhaps agree Proud Public Servant Jul 2012 #64

if middle class isn't the middle of the income distribution, it's a pretty arbitrary (& thus meaning HiPointDem Jul 2012 #67

May not be middle class but it is still WORKING CLASS and that makes them more like me CBGLuthier Jul 2012 #25

Exactly Aerows Jul 2012 #27

That is not what "working class" means. Not historically, at least. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #28

Excellent point Sekhmets Daughter Jul 2012 #86

one word answer...no AnOhioan Jul 2012 #26

I make about that FreeJoe Jul 2012 #29

I think we should tax the hell out of luxury goods Aerows Jul 2012 #30

They tried something like that in the 90s. Nye Bevan Jul 2012 #103

That's about what you need to be solidly middle class Warpy Jul 2012 #31

Taking home 250K is a far different matter than earning 250K. Ikonoklast Jul 2012 #36

Not that far FreeJoe Jul 2012 #41

I figured it at around earning 320K to take home 250K. Ikonoklast Jul 2012 #46

Alas, it is a situation I will never have to contend with. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #39

Upper middle class, maybe. not sure. nt boston bean Jul 2012 #44

A single person living in Lubbock on that: rich 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #45

The may average for 3 BR Manhattan was over 5K. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #65

Depends on where you live, but in general the answer is "NO". HopeHoops Jul 2012 #47

In Kansas, no. In and expensive city yes taught_me_patience Jul 2012 #52

It depends on how much you have to spend every year slackmaster Jul 2012 #56

I would like to make that much to find out. liberal N proud Jul 2012 #57

We think of ourselves as middle class Fresh_Start Jul 2012 #58

We don't earn near that much as a couple, but we hedgehog Jul 2012 #95

its tough because effectively we've traditionally identified three groups qazplm Jul 2012 #62

yes. That is not even close to being rich. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #63

The top 5% doesn't make you the middle of anything. Unless it's sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #68

By that reasoning only 0 people are middle class. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #69

Uh? I would say the 'middle' is like 40-60%. sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #70

OK, different statement than before. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #71

Percentiles. The middle class is defined most often as the 3rd. & 4th. sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #73

I'll try again. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #74

We used to call that "upper middle-class". ieoeja Jul 2012 #72

You could make meth in a trailer yellerpup Jul 2012 #77

It depends on where you live. Blue_In_AK Jul 2012 #78

I think a more relevant question is how dependent is your income on those incomes above you, compare patrice Jul 2012 #79

that's the 98.5% percentile Enrique Jul 2012 #81

Yep Sekhmets Daughter Jul 2012 #82

MORE than $250K is a pretty open ended range. But no, it wouldn't be middle class. n/t pnwmom Jul 2012 #84

Upper middle, yes. MrSlayer Jul 2012 #91

16 times the minimum wage is not middle class. rug Jul 2012 #92

No thelordofhell Jul 2012 #94

"Middle class" is a ridiculous concept. It's completely arbitrary and invented... lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #97

Here is the heart of the problem in the US nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #98

I would count myself most fortunate if I made $250,000 per year. It is certainly upper middle class Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #99

kick for more discussion nt steve2470 Jul 2012 #100

If you're 95 years old, are you middle aged? eom Tanuki Jul 2012 #104

Tell you what - let me try it for about 20 years, and I'll let you know. drb Jul 2012 #107

Threads like this are honestly why I prefer the Marxist definitions of class. white_wolf Jul 2012 #110