But those deductions hardly mirror what it is to be middle class. Remove mortgage, replace with rent. Remove car payment, replace with incedentals. Etc etc. You're living a better than average life. Average being middle class.Jay wrote:
Ok. 40% of my paycheck goes towards social security, medicare, income taxes. I pay federal income tax, state income tax, and city income tax. On top of that I pay 8.875% in sales tax every time I buy something. I pay property taxes via my rent. So let's say I make a combined income with my wife of exactly $200k a year, 80k of that goes out automatically towards direct taxation. That leaves me with $120k. If I bought a house tomorrow my mortgage payment would be $3000/mo or $36,000 a year. Now I'm down to $84k. I pay $200/mo for cell phone service, $200/mo for cable/internet, $200/mo for utilities, $400/mo for the car payment, $200/mo for insurance, $400/mo for my train ticket, $500/mo for food. So there's another $25,200, now I'm down to $58.8k. Add in clothes, the cost of kids, a decent vacation, medical bills etc and that remainder goes quickly. You're not struggling when you're making $200k a year, but you're not rich by any stretch of the imagination.Pochsy wrote:
Yeah, not buying. If NYC was set as the highest (and it is by a massive margin), I'm not about to accept that many of those cities fall into the ridiculous requirements for middle class status offered here.Jay wrote:
NYC metropolitan area is 22.2M
Greater Los Angeles is 12.9M
DC metro area is 8.6M
Chicago metro is 9.8M
SF metro is 7.2M
Seattle metro is 3.5M
Greater Boston is 4.5M
Just those alone equal out to 68.7M or 22%...
FYI, that $3k mortgage payment is on a modest $500k home here. You're looking at a middling school district and maybe a 'ranch' home with three bedrooms.
Just because $170K or so is the median HHI in Newport Coast, doesn't mean you can afford a median house at $200K/yr income.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Like I said, combined earnings of $100K is middle class in the majority of the US should be good. Certainly $200K/year is above the bare minimum for middle class, but not necessarily in the top 1%
But Middle class is mortgage in suburbia with 2 cars.
Newport beach isn't middle class unless you're living on the peninsula
http://www.trulia.com/NY/Queens/#for_sa … _r/3p_beds
This is a middle class neighborhood. Look at the prices.
This is a middle class neighborhood. Look at the prices.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
$180,000 for a two bedroom apartment.
My girlfriend and I have looked at prices for a two bedroom apartment in Crows Nest (inner north shore, Sydney). $500,00 is the median.
My girlfriend and I have looked at prices for a two bedroom apartment in Crows Nest (inner north shore, Sydney). $500,00 is the median.
Says who? I guess the wildcard here is what it is to be middle class. And obviously there's a huge gap between the bottom threshold and the top threshold.Ilocano wrote:
But Middle class is mortgage in suburbia with 2 cars.
Cheap. I could afford and I don't make $100k/year.Jay wrote:
http://www.trulia.com/NY/Queens/#for_sale/11361_zip/1_r/3p_beds
This is a middle class neighborhood. Look at the prices.
I wish 180 was the average around here. Looking at around 280-300 for a two bedroom. If you want any yard around 500.
You could buy a million dollar home and pay $57k a year on your mortgage with a $100k salary? Good luck.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Cheap. I could afford and I don't make $100k/year.Jay wrote:
http://www.trulia.com/NY/Queens/#for_sale/11361_zip/1_r/3p_beds
This is a middle class neighborhood. Look at the prices.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Dude, the lowest priced residence from that link is $179K.
Who wants to live in an apartment or a co-op? Yes, I could buy a shitty house in a shitty part of town for cheap. That's not the point, now is it? The point of this conversation is to define what is middle class, yes? I think we've established that $200k in NYC is well short of wealthy.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dude, the lowest priced residence from that link is $179K.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i thought you said it was a middle class neighborhood? Shitty part of town? It's still middle class right (albeit perhaps on the lower end of middle class, as opposed to million dollar homes being 'upper' middle class)?
My point is (and I thought I elucidated well enough) you are saying when you take away your mortgage (not necessarily a gauge of middle class) and a car payment (not necessarily a gauge of middle class), you only are left over with 'x' dollars. I'm saying the metric of middle class does not necessarily mean having a mortgage and car payment. Renters are automatically precluded from the middle class? People who buy cars outright or pay $4K for a car aren't middle class? You have the skewed view, not me. You choose to have a mortgage and car payment - that's a luxury you can afford, but not a baseline metric of what defines 'middle class'.
My point is (and I thought I elucidated well enough) you are saying when you take away your mortgage (not necessarily a gauge of middle class) and a car payment (not necessarily a gauge of middle class), you only are left over with 'x' dollars. I'm saying the metric of middle class does not necessarily mean having a mortgage and car payment. Renters are automatically precluded from the middle class? People who buy cars outright or pay $4K for a car aren't middle class? You have the skewed view, not me. You choose to have a mortgage and car payment - that's a luxury you can afford, but not a baseline metric of what defines 'middle class'.
Don't forget that when FEOS said "you knuckleheads" he really meant the US media and public.Ty wrote:
Romney called these people dependent, he called them self-designated victims, he said they refuse to take responsibility, he said they were self-entitled - to such trivialities as food and a roof over their heads - and on top of that they don't pay income tax. While 'human garbage' is my words not his, please tell me that's not painting this 47% as a group of useless scrounging victims. Romney said the words, it's not hypocrisy to point out that it reflects a very poor opinion towards this 47%, regardless if it means as the Obama side is saying "Romney's writing off 47% of the country" or if it's just "Romney doesn't regard Democrat voters very highly."
See we agree that Romney was wrong and he was right to apologise. Believe me, I am taking this on face value. I'm clarifying what he said, not analysing it to determine what it means.
But look, this is probably the most disconnected man who has ever run for president. That's all I think the 47% comments reflect, not anything to do with policy, just another example of Mitt's strange two-dimensional outlook on society. Earlier on in his campaign he joked around with people who are actually unemployed, struggling to find work and struggling to make ends met and he cracked "I'm also unemployed." Yeah Mitt, you really know what it's like brother. He referred to the middle class as "those who earn between $200,000 to $250,000 a year", (ahh, no,) later qualifying this by saying he meant total household income, (still no - try about a quarter of that.) He was at some Republican back-slapping function as some garish rich person's house and commented "A Democrat would say no-one should live like this, a Republican would say everyone should live like this". Please Mitt, tell us how you're going to run the US so a teacher can afford a mansion with its own golf course. His rhetoric doesn't acknowledge that most people aren't ruthless businessmen or entrepreneurs, they just have jobs. They don't want mansions, they want financial security and independence. The 47% thing is not anything vitriolic from Mitt. I think he's a nice guy who really believes that his ideology is what will benefit the most people. But no amount of appearances in his tie-less casual-shirt-and-jeans combo is going to change the fact that he doesn't know very much about regular life in America.
The classic definition of middle class is just as ilocano said: two cars and a house in the suburbs. It means you have a certain standard of living. I mean what's your definition of middle class? Completely being able to meet your basic needs every month without going into debt? A certain square footage per person in the family? By your definition, anyone above the poverty line is middle class. I'm not the one with the skewed view, you're the one with no standard.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i thought you said it was a middle class neighborhood? Shitty part of town?
My point is (and I thought I elucidated well enough) was that you are saying that when you take away your mortgage (not necessarily a gauge of middle class) and a car payment (not necessarily a gauge of middle class), you only are left over with 'x' dollars. I'm saying the metric of middle class does not necessarily mean having a mortgage and car payment. Renters are automatically precluded from the middle class? People who buy cars outright or pay $4K for a car aren't middle class? You have the skewed view, not me. You choose to have a mortgage and car payment - that's a luxury you can afford, but not a baseline metric of what defines 'middle class'.
My definition of middle class is being able to afford our living expenses if myself or my wife lose our jobs without going into debt. I don't define it as living paycheck to paycheck with the very bare necessities of life. I don't live in Central Africa or China, sorry.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no, middle class is the gap between working class and upper class. The classical definition of middle class hahahaha. Whatever you guys say.
No, please, define middle class.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal"Ty wrote:
Romney called these people dependent, he called them self-designated victims, he said they refuse to take responsibility, he said they were self-entitled - to such trivialities as food and a roof over their heads - and on top of that they don't pay income tax. While 'human garbage' is my words not his, please tell me that's not painting this 47% as a group of useless scrounging victims. Romney said the words, it's not hypocrisy to point out that it reflects a very poor opinion towards this 47%, regardless if it means as the Obama side is saying "Romney's writing off 47% of the country" or if it's just "Romney doesn't regard Democrat voters very highly."
See we agree that Romney was wrong and he was right to apologise. Believe me, I am taking this on face value. I'm clarifying what he said, not analysing it to determine what it means.
But look, this is probably the most disconnected man who has ever run for president. That's all I think the 47% comments reflect, not anything to do with policy, just another example of Mitt's strange two-dimensional outlook on society. Earlier on in his campaign he joked around with people who are actually unemployed, struggling to find work and struggling to make ends met and he cracked "I'm also unemployed." Yeah Mitt, you really know what it's like brother. He referred to the middle class as "those who earn between $200,000 to $250,000 a year", (ahh, no,) later qualifying this by saying he meant total household income, (still no - try about a quarter of that.) He was at some Republican back-slapping function as some garish rich person's house and commented "A Democrat would say no-one should live like this, a Republican would say everyone should live like this". Please Mitt, tell us how you're going to run the US so a teacher can afford a mansion with its own golf course. His rhetoric doesn't acknowledge that most people aren't ruthless businessmen or entrepreneurs, they just have jobs. They don't want mansions, they want financial security and independence. The 47% thing is not anything vitriolic from Mitt. I think he's a nice guy who really believes that his ideology is what will benefit the most people. But no amount of appearances in his tie-less casual-shirt-and-jeans combo is going to change the fact that he doesn't know very much about regular life in America.
That's not at all "disconnected," is it?
You're buying into the spin. Romney is no more or less disconnected from the public at large than any other candidate for any national office. One could easily argue that the President, after four years of living in a bubble surrounded by sycophants, is the most "disconnected" of any person in the country.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
i just did. That's the classical definition - the gap between working class and upper class. I guess you want me to define working class and upper class?
Remember when Steve Forbes couldn't quote the price of a gallon of milk? Now that's disconnected!!FEOS wrote:
"If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal"Ty wrote:
Romney called these people dependent, he called them self-designated victims, he said they refuse to take responsibility, he said they were self-entitled - to such trivialities as food and a roof over their heads - and on top of that they don't pay income tax. While 'human garbage' is my words not his, please tell me that's not painting this 47% as a group of useless scrounging victims. Romney said the words, it's not hypocrisy to point out that it reflects a very poor opinion towards this 47%, regardless if it means as the Obama side is saying "Romney's writing off 47% of the country" or if it's just "Romney doesn't regard Democrat voters very highly."
See we agree that Romney was wrong and he was right to apologise. Believe me, I am taking this on face value. I'm clarifying what he said, not analysing it to determine what it means.
But look, this is probably the most disconnected man who has ever run for president. That's all I think the 47% comments reflect, not anything to do with policy, just another example of Mitt's strange two-dimensional outlook on society. Earlier on in his campaign he joked around with people who are actually unemployed, struggling to find work and struggling to make ends met and he cracked "I'm also unemployed." Yeah Mitt, you really know what it's like brother. He referred to the middle class as "those who earn between $200,000 to $250,000 a year", (ahh, no,) later qualifying this by saying he meant total household income, (still no - try about a quarter of that.) He was at some Republican back-slapping function as some garish rich person's house and commented "A Democrat would say no-one should live like this, a Republican would say everyone should live like this". Please Mitt, tell us how you're going to run the US so a teacher can afford a mansion with its own golf course. His rhetoric doesn't acknowledge that most people aren't ruthless businessmen or entrepreneurs, they just have jobs. They don't want mansions, they want financial security and independence. The 47% thing is not anything vitriolic from Mitt. I think he's a nice guy who really believes that his ideology is what will benefit the most people. But no amount of appearances in his tie-less casual-shirt-and-jeans combo is going to change the fact that he doesn't know very much about regular life in America.
That's not at all "disconnected," is it?
You're buying into the spin. Romney is no more or less disconnected from the public at large than any other candidate for any national office. One could easily argue that the President, after four years of living in a bubble surrounded by sycophants, is the most "disconnected" of any person in the country.
Well, from your previous posts, you seem to define upper class as anyone making more money than they need to survive. You consider a house and a car a luxury so...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i just did. That's the classical definition - the gap between working class and upper class. I guess you want me to define working class and upper class?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
When did I say that? Good deductive reasoning there. In fact I clearly mentioned that making $200K a year is maybe on the upper spectrum of middle class, but hardly the 1%. I feel like I'm having a discussion with a brick wall. Can you bounce the ball back to me please.
it happens all the time.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
When did I say that? Good deductive reasoning there.
If you mathematically determine middle income in the US measured by percentage of incomes it comes in at around the $30,000 to $100,000 range - which is a fairly big slice of the population. $200,000 to $250,000 is in the top 3%. Granted there are a lot of things to take into account, 'middle class' is a pretty loosely defined socio-economic concept that can also take into account education, employment, political views, you name it.
But while Romney's assertion that the middle income was $200k - $250k can be argued to be correct-ish as at least falling within a range that represents middle class (in some areas at least,) if you're going to pick a number that represented the general middle class it's too much and can be further used as an example of Romney being out of touch.
For more on the US middle class consult your local Wikipedia.
But while Romney's assertion that the middle income was $200k - $250k can be argued to be correct-ish as at least falling within a range that represents middle class (in some areas at least,) if you're going to pick a number that represented the general middle class it's too much and can be further used as an example of Romney being out of touch.
For more on the US middle class consult your local Wikipedia.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
He wasn't defining it as the median income, he was simply stating that 200-250k is indeed middle class and that Obama's definition is absurd. $200k and you're a baller in a lot of the country. In other parts you're barely at the point where you can save anything substantive without making big lifestyle sacrifices. Obama has been making a class warfare argument for 4+ years, Romney was simply setting the bar higher.Ty wrote:
If you mathematically determine middle income in the US measured by percentage of incomes it comes in at around the $30,000 to $100,000 range - which is a fairly big slice of the population. $200,000 to $250,000 is in the top 3%. Granted there are a lot of things to take into account, 'middle class' is a pretty loosely defined socio-economic concept that can also take into account education, employment, political views, you name it.
But while Romney's assertion that the middle income was $200k - $250k can be argued to be correct-ish as at least falling within a range that represents middle class (in some areas at least,) if you're going to pick a number that represented the general middle class it's too much and can be further used as an example of Romney being out of touch.
For more on the US middle class consult your local Wikipedia.
And some Democrats agree:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/po … wanted=allThe president’s proposal could also put him at odds with Democratic leaders like Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who have advocated extending the cuts for everyone who earns up to $1 million.
I despise Schumer 99% of the time, but hey, here's that 1%.
Last edited by Jay (2012-10-31 19:17:49)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat