Reply With Quote
And for an accounting firm employing a dozen people it's squeaking by too. Good thing that's not what the figures are referring to.
what fuzzy wuzzy bull . I'll take the hard stats over your bull .
median household income is $50K
"The median U.S. wage in 2010 was just $26,363"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bX0L_blog.html
the top quintile starts at about $90K.
And for an accounting firm employing a dozen people it's squeaking by too. Good thing that's not what the figures are referring to.
For the second time, class isn't determined by quintile.
It's also a lot harder to advance in your career when you have 4 kids who need to be taken care of. 88k is a very healthy living if it's someone who's responsible.
lol poor people thinking 250k is more than middle class.
lol poor people thinking they are middle class.
Where do you put the lower ceiling on the middle class?
This conversation is really pretty irrelevant unless you factor in geography.
I'd put it at $100k give or take. Below that is working class.
Agreed.
The actual annual salary varies partially by location.
It seems too many people don't understand the "class" part of "middle class." It's not the amount of money someone makes that determines their class, but their job and social network. Those in the upper middle class can easily make six figures, and still be middle class. Boutons seems to think "quintiles" matter.
the top 20%, quintile in household income starts at $88K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ates#Quintiles
'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less
Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.
But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.
The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have repeatedly painted him as out of touch with average people.
Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income -- the midpoint for the nation -- is just over $50,000.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6073358.story
Gecko, out of touch 1%er, unprepared for Presidency (doesn't do his homework, he's got $100Ms) and dumb as .
He also said this week that he'd close the inequality gap by raising the 99% wages!
The stupidity of his remarks perhaps exposes how well he realizes the ignorance of his base. or maybe not! He really is that stupid.
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
where's Obama quote that $250K is middle class, when it's actual top 5%?
Regardless, what's "middle class" is subjective while what's "middle income" is not.
class isn't determined by your opinion or ideology. Any household above the median $50K is upper something.
in your typical right-wing ideological self-imposed blindness and ignorance, you refuse to see how HUGE "wealth America's" sub-$50K, 2nd class population is, how the avg hourly wage is about $17/hour.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=773
88k for one person? Squeaking by?
Dude, I have three kids, one with special needs (15), one in private school (5), and one under 1 year old in day care. My wife and I *together* make 76k(pre tax). I own a 2300 sq ft house off of the northern part of bandera rd, a 2004 car with <85k miles (paid off), a 2007 van with <40k miles (13k left to pay), and a paid off 2006 motorcycle. I also have a dog.
I will admit, after a few bones to the investment account and 6% to my retirement (I know not enough), we squeeze by. We are comfortable, but we are squeezing. I also should say that I was making a little more money when we decided to have the last kid (lest you think I am too much of a moron).
Either way, if ONE of us was making 88k, that is most certainly rich. , if I was making that much, I would let my wife stay home and do some bull home based business (she has done pampered chef in the past) until our son was in school. Then we would be back to upper middle class (an ENTIRE HOUSELHOLD making say 95k).
If a certain income level is in the top 5% it is most certainly NOT middle it is TOP. If you try to say that it is upper middle class then you are considering someone who makes 15k middle class too, just lower middle class. In this case the term means nothing.
Edit: Yes I realize that I made the classic Spurstalk mistake of revealing something about myself and now the vultures come. Oh well.
Last edited by Drachen; 09-15-2012 at 09:57 AM.
As I said before...
So is the middle class doing just fine or is the middle class vanishing as you have argued many times before?
You don't know the meaning of the word poor you arrogant prick.
Grew up that way so yeah I do. You don't know the meaning of rich.
with the median household at $50K (say $30 for the man, and $20k for mom), the middle class is pretty poor.
Real household income has been essentially flat for 35 years. 48K in 1980, and
$50K today.
Big question is how long this downward slope will continue downward
Note how Repug tax cutting did nothing for household income in the 2000s.
The Repugs/conservatives are simply lying about high taxes as a problem and tax cutting as a solution.
Sure I do. You have the nouveau riche like you and Then you have the truly wealthy who have ac ulated their wealth over multiple generations.
I'm not rich.
At least we know who doesn't have any children.
For a single person, or even a couple without children (or even one depending on locale), I'd agree though.
Well then you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.
That is a 110%+ complete fail.
Why? The Romney/Ryan plan is wildly skewed toward the rich. If you're not rich and vote for Romeny/Ryan you're voting against your own financial interest. So unless you're a single issue voter voting for something that won't change, you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
