Middle Class

[KevinKohler]

What is it? We have the government's definition of middle class, and I'm getting awful sick of seeing it posted. Supposedly, middle class means making 40K a year per household. Anyone ever see any middle class people making 40K per HOUSEHOLD? I haven't. If that's the case, then all the union jobs still around in this country are NOT middle class, they are RICH.

Which brings me to my next question. How far above middle class does one need to be in order to be "rich"?

Reason I ask is, I just see these terms bandied about a lot, and I think it would behoove us all to have a better understanding of it, in order to better address the debates in which they appear.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What is it? We have the government's definition of middle class, and I'm getting awful sick of seeing it posted. Supposedly, middle class means making 40K a year per household. Anyone ever see any middle class people making 40K per HOUSEHOLD? I haven't. If that's the case, then all the union jobs still around in this country are NOT middle class, they are RICH.

Which brings me to my next question. How far above middle class does one need to be in order to be "rich"?

Reason I ask is, I just see these terms bandied about a lot, and I think it would behoove us all to have a better understanding of it, in order to better address the debates in which they appear.

Defining class level based on income, is fallacious.
There are a multitude of reasons why one person making a smaller income, can have a larger usability of that income, than someone making more.

 

[KevinKohler]

I agree, but I'm trying to start a dialogue on this, for a specific reason, which I can't reveal yet.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree, but I'm trying to start a dialogue on this, for a specific reason, which I can't reveal yet.

Poor, middle class and rich are very subjective.
If we were to use international standards of living and income, nearly the entirety of the U.S. would be upper middle class to rich.

 

[KevinKohler]

Poor, middle class and rich are very subjective.
If we were to use international standards of living and income, nearly the entirety of the U.S. would be upper middle class to rich.

Yeah, I should have been more specific on THAT, in my OP. I am not thinking in any way about the rest of the world, only the US.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What is it? We have the government's definition of middle class, and I'm getting awful sick of seeing it posted. Supposedly, middle class means making 40K a year per household. Anyone ever see any middle class people making 40K per HOUSEHOLD? I haven't. If that's the case, then all the union jobs still around in this country are NOT middle class, they are RICH.

Which brings me to my next question. How far above middle class does one need to be in order to be "rich"?

Reason I ask is, I just see these terms bandied about a lot, and I think it would behoove us all to have a better understanding of it, in order to better address the debates in which they appear.

I define Middle Class as: "Any who can support their self and their offspring (if they have any) by any means they deem necessary and vital without the assistance of government or charity."

To me - it's a mentality and lifestyle rather than dollar sign target mark (etc).

Thus: some who might even qualify for government assistance but don't take it can be Middle Class if they take care of their own sufficiently - and what 'sufficiently' means is completely up to them and their preferences and standards.

Just like someone who rakes in hundreds of thousands ever year can just be the lower class.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yeah, I should have been more specific on THAT, in my OP. I am not thinking in any way about the rest of the world, only the US.

Are you wanting a specific dollar value?
If so, I can't give you one, because it's totally based on other resources and the reality which the person lives in.

 

[imagep]

If we were to divide our population into three groups, poor, middle class, and rich, by income then:

Poor are the people who make up to $333 million a year.

Middle class are people who make between $333 million and $666 million

Rich are those who make more than $666 million a year.

That is assuming that the bottom income earners have no income and the top income earners make about a billion dollars a year.

I know that it sounds crazy, but even people who we think of as being very rich are quite poor compared to the standards of the super duper uber rich.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

:rofl

Damn - at 70K we're a bit short.

****.

 

[Helix]

the numeric definition of middle class would vary wildly by geographic region; much more so than would "wealthy."

 

[Aunt Spiker]

the numeric definition of middle class would vary wildly by geographic region; much more so than would "wealthy."

Haha: "wealthy = making a hell of a lot more than me"

 

[MaggieD]

What is it? We have the government's definition of middle class, and I'm getting awful sick of seeing it posted.

You will never see a government definition of Middle Class:

[ Go to Questions ]

Since there is an official federal definition of “poverty,” does the federal government also have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income”? No. The federal government does not have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income.”

Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Poverty Guidelines and Poverty

Definitions of what constitutes Middle Class, Upper Middle, Lower Middle, etc. are put out there by various organizations, but the government isn't one of them.

 

[imagep]

I have been told that the standard definition of "rich" is someone who has a minimum of $5 million in net worth. So I would assume that everyone who has a net worth less than $5 million is either poor or middle class. The typical millionare, as defined by the book "The Millionare Next Door", is NOT rich. They are middle class.

Apparently Obama defines "rich" as someone who makes over $250k a year. I wouldn't personally call a $250,000.01er rich. But I would assume that by his definition, anyone who makes over the poverty line and less than the top tax bracket would be middle class.

I would suggest that to most people "rich" might would be anyone who makes over $400k/yr on a regular bases, or who has $5 million in net worth.

To myself, anyone who makes a penny more than me is rich, and anyone who makes a penny less is poor. But I am self centered - it's just the way I roll.

 

[KevinKohler]

So here's my point to this. While the government does not define middle class, they HAVE issued taxable income brackets. Effectively defining, monetary value, at least, middle, upper, etc classes. A few people who I really wanted to participate in this little thread seem to not be interested, and that's a shame...but I'll forge on ahead anyway.

My point is, our TAX CODE defines what class we belong to, and it looks ONLY at our income, and our dependents. It's truly a failed system, and is the REASON why middle class in america are vanishing. Yes, some jobs are getting shipped over seas, and that's very sad. But by far and large, the real issue is progressive taxation.

I am looking for a job. Just had an interview today, actually, and hopefully I get it. But I now have to low ball myself a bit...I would normally ask for 50K a year, minimum...but my wife got a raise this year...and so, if I get 50K, we go up a tax bracket. I either have to ask for 58K to break even on that tax difference, or I have to stick with 45K. That's why you don't find very many jobs in that pay range...seriously, look around for 60K a year jobs...they are more rare than 200K a year jobs. There's a gap between the pay scales. All of them. And you either have to resign yourself to a raise and bringing home less money, or you have to try to cowboy your way up far enough INTO that higher pay scale to bring home the same, or a little more money.

And that range is where the middle class used to work, live, and exist.

Thoughts?

 

[Samhain]

So here's my point to this. While the government does not define middle class, they HAVE issued taxable income brackets. Effectively defining, monetary value, at least, middle, upper, etc classes. A few people who I really wanted to participate in this little thread seem to not be interested, and that's a shame...but I'll forge on ahead anyway.

My point is, our TAX CODE defines what class we belong to, and it looks ONLY at our income, and our dependents. It's truly a failed system, and is the REASON why middle class in america are vanishing. Yes, some jobs are getting shipped over seas, and that's very sad. But by far and large, the real issue is progressive taxation.

I am looking for a job. Just had an interview today, actually, and hopefully I get it. But I now have to low ball myself a bit...I would normally ask for 50K a year, minimum...but my wife got a raise this year...and so, if I get 50K, we go up a tax bracket. I either have to ask for 58K to break even on that tax difference, or I have to stick with 45K. That's why you don't find very many jobs in that pay range...seriously, look around for 60K a year jobs...they are more rare than 200K a year jobs. There's a gap between the pay scales. All of them. And you either have to resign yourself to a raise and bringing home less money, or you have to try to cowboy your way up far enough INTO that higher pay scale to bring home the same, or a little more money.

And that range is where the middle class used to work, live, and exist.

Thoughts?

Back that train up. If you move from tax bracket A to B, only your income that gets you into B is taxed at the new rate.

 

[KevinKohler]

Back that train up. If you move from tax bracket A to B, only your income that gets you into B is taxed at the new rate.

Right, so if I go from 25% to 28%, or I should say WE, since we're married, our effective take home remains close to the same. You're thinking about this as a single person. Think about this as a combined income.

 

[Samhain]

Right, so if I go from 25% to 28%, or I should say WE, since we're married, our effective take home remains close to the same. You're thinking about this as a single person. Think about this as a combined income.

Ahh, yes, the marriage penalty. The more disparate income you have with your spouse the better off you are.

 

[KevinKohler]

Ahh, yes, the marriage penalty. The more disparate income you have with your spouse the better off you are.

And I would say most, or MANY, middle classers are married, with between 1 and 3 kids...

Single folks making that sort of money are defined, typically, as "yuppies".

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What is it? We have the government's definition of middle class, and I'm getting awful sick of seeing it posted. Supposedly, middle class means making 40K a year per household.

cite, please

 

[KevinKohler]

cite, please

34,500 - 83,600. AKA, the 25% ers.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

34,500 - 83,600. AKA, the 25% ers.

What source are you citing?
Is the source available on the internet?

 

[KevinKohler]

It's the income tax bracket.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's the income tax bracket.

And, how do you know that is the govt's definition of middle class?
And how does it support your assertion that "middle class means making 40K a year per household?"

 

[KevinKohler]

And, how do you know that is the govt's definition of middle class?
And how does it support your assertion that "middle class means making 40K a year per household?"

Well, first of all, that initial assertion was not my own, it was Catawbas, and a few others. It has already been proven false in this very thread by others. I think that 40K per household would be "the poorhouse", personally. If that household has 2 adults, and 2 kids, or something like that, as most households tend to have. the number came from the idea that the middle class in america must be 40K earners, because that is the median income of america.

The government, while defining poor or poverty via income, does not do so in so many words with the other economic "classes"...but again, a glance at the tax brackets paint another story, really.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well, first of all, that initial assertion was not my own, it was Catawbas, and a few others.

So you were intentionally and knowingly posting false information with the intent of...?

Sorry I bothered to read the thread.