The Middle Class vs. The Rich

[nickshepDEM]

At which point do you consider a family to be Middle Class vs. Rich? ( Household income ).

For this poll lets assume we are talking about an area like Baltimore, MD or Richmond, VA or Denver, CO. Two Parent family with 2 kids (aprox 5-7 years old).

Also, if you're up to it, what should the marginal tax rate be for the YOUR cutoff point?

[Deep13]

1. apples and oranges

Rich is a relative term. Class distinctions are more objective (though one may disagree on the specific characteristics of each). $500,000 per annum is richer than almost anyone, but it is still middle class.

[nickshepDEM]

3. Thats why I worded the question to be a personal one.

Its strictly an opinion question.

[Greyhound]

57. WTF? Anybody making half is in the top 2%, and that is rich by any reasonable standard. n/t

[IndyOp]

2. People who earn anywhere from 18,000 to 260,000+ consider themselves middle

class -- the corporate elite has done a great job convincing people who are living in the lower-class that they are really "middle class". We need far, far more class consciousness a la Jim Webb.

The marginal tax rate for the uber-wealthy - multi-millions per year in income should be 70% to 90% - FDR put it at 90% (during wartime) and it was at about 70% during Truman's time. Everyone else's marginal tax rates should be adjusted relative to the maximum.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

11. I guess you don't travel much...

...or else you'd know that even "poor" Americans are actually rich.

The problem with "rich", "poor", and "middle class" is that people see them as relative. Live with a mere $250,000 a year next to people who all have $10+ million a year income, and pretty soon you can convince yourself you're just scraping by. On the contrary, the village elder who has more than everyone else around him, is considered "rich" no matter how meager his possessions from an American perspective.

As one african child rather poignantly put it, "I want to go to America, where the poor people are FAT". Depending on where you live, you can get pretty fat on $18,000 a year. What you can't get is status, bragging rights for conspicuous consumption, which is the human species' way of determining fitness for procreation. Nobody wants a "loser".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[IndyOp]

23. My comparison was only "within country." Of course many poor

Americans are wealthy (in $) compared to the majority of the world's population.

[Leftist78]

32. yes that's fair.

It's one of my favorite tactics of the wealthy in America. Look at the poor here and say "You know, you've got it made compared with people in Africa, India, South America etc...". Whatever it takes for them to justify their criminally opulent lifestyles I suppose. Maybe it helps them sleep at night.

It's completely fair to judge the poorest citizens in the United States by the standards of nations whose GDP is smaller than the worth of some of our Fortune 500 corporations. Yes lets judge the poverty of the wealthiest nation in the history of the earth with the yard stick of 3rd world dictatorships. :eyes:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

43. "Criminally opulent lifestyles"?

It's now a crime merely to be rich?
A businessman who does nothing wrong, involves himself in no shady dealings, is just good at building organizations that make things that people like to buy (giving jobs to thousands) should be prosecuted simply because of his own success?

I think you and the vast majority of the Democratic Party part company on that point. Democrats want equal opportunity for all; it's unreasonable and unrealistic to demand equal results. Unless you want the U.S. to adopt old-style Soviet communism. Or as the Russians themselves joked, "The Capitalists allow unequal distribution of wealth; we have equal distribution of poverty."

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Many people envy and dislike Americans for the same reason you envy and dislike the American rich, Leftist78. What percentage of your income do you give away to the 90% of the world's population who make less than you? Or is income redistribution only something only to be favored when it comes from others to benefit you? :eyes:

[Leftist78]

45. You misunderstand

not surprisingly of course. I believe some of the people in America lead a morally reprehensible lifestyle. "A business who does nothing wrong..." show me such a person. Show me someone wealthy who has not made that wealth off the backs of others. I am not a Communist, but it is predictable that someone named "ConservativeDemocrat" would use that Red baiting bullshit in an argument. I simply want my country to be a country that rewards people for more than just greed and blind ambition.

I often find it ironic that the things that we supposedly value as human beings; community, love, friendship, trust, sharing, teamwork, goodwill toward mankind, appreciation for nature, and happiness are not rewarded by our society. While the things we supposedly abhor; greed, apathy, selfishness, dishonesty, and profit at any cost is rewarded, and rewarded handsomely. The "values" our economic policies hold dear are in direct opposition to the values that make us human, and if we don't change one day we will pay for that.

As far as where I part ways with the Democratic Party I could really give a damn. Anyone who doesn't know by now that the Democratic Party is funded by a slightly less scary version of the corporate interests that fund the Repukes isn't paying attention.

Lastly, you have no idea what my income is, but of course I know that most of the world lives on less than I do. Unlike you however, I care about it. I think that as a nation we need to make amends for the wrongs that our government and our corporations have done around the world. Those who won the genetic lottery have a human responsibility to those who didn't in this country as well as abroad.

[NotGivingUp]

48. some people think it's a-ok to use people...

use their time, their labor, their brains, their lives...and then go on to say that the USERS deserve all the wealth because they're "...just good at building organizations that make things that people like to buy.." what a pile of shit! i'm with you leftist78. the 'values' that are rewarded in this society are not deserving, and only serve to warp our society further every day.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

50. Oh I understand; I (and most Democrats) just disagree

You may not call your beliefs Communism, Leftist, because the ideas that embody that word have been throughly discredited. But when you then claim the entire capitalist economic system is morally repugnant, and issue warmed over critiques of it straight out of Socialist Review circa 1978, you are pretty much fooling only yourself.

Now I'm not going to try to convince you I'm right. That's silly. You have your opinions as to whether private business should be allowed to prosper, and I have mine. What I will tell you is the same thing I tell my moderate Republican and Libertarian friends who are concerned about government waste: tarring an entire social institution through blanket condemnation is not the way to reform it. If you refuse to distinguish between good or bad (or perhaps merely better and worse), and act to reward the good parts of the system, you are being overwhelmingly counterproductive to the very views you believe in.

So here's some homework. Rather than me going out and finding "A business who does nothing wrong...", so that you can nitpick my opinions to death, do the same thing yourself. If you really aren't Communist, surely you must be able to find some capitalist enterprise ("corporate interest") that you don't hate, right? Maybe Ben and Jerry's? Google? If, on the other hand, every single successful corporation is, in your world-view, inherently evil - you need to start admitting to yourself that you are Communist.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. It is my experience that businesses that live the ideals you list - community, love, friendship, trust, sharing, teamwork, goodwill toward mankind, appreciation for nature, and happiness - do considerably better in the marketplace than those with an internal culture of fear, greed, and vicious infighting. Which is one of many reasons Democrats, and Democratic leaning corporations, are consistently so much better for the economy.

[Leftist78]

52. ok

You really should read up more. Maybe if you weren't getting your ideas on who is and is not a Communist from old style McCarthyism you'd realize that not every person opposed to a market driven economy is a communist. We come in all flavors. Welcome to the 19th century. :sarcasm: Now, rather than argue with you with childish "am not...are too" posts that you seem to enjoy. I'll just paste something from a recent post from a different thread that sums up in very broad terms where I stand in general.

"Personally I don't actually favor either system on the whole. I prefer a blended system. Capitalism has proved itself highly inadequate in dealing with people's needs, but it does a relatively good job (properly regulated of course) dealing with the desires of the masses. The problem is in assessing what is a genuine desire and what is a manufactured desire. Capitalism is very good at creating wants that otherwise would not exist, and often cause all sorts of social and communal problems once the mania for the new product that will make your life complete hits the shelves or showroom or whatever. A highly regulated capitalist system for the Coffee shops and clothing stores isn't so bad, but only when blended with socialist protection of everyones basic needs including health care, education, housing, food, transportation etc... Of course this is all just my opinion."

Of course, this admission on my part that capitalism could be useful in some very limited form will probably not appease the "free market or death" crowd, but I think their work speaks for itself and if we were honest with ourselves as a society we'd see that it's time for a change.

P.S. I'm just curious, but what's with all the post scripts? :shrug:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

53. I say potato, you say potahto...

<i>Maybe if you weren't getting your ideas on who is and is not a Communist from old style McCarthyism you'd realize that not every person opposed to a market driven economy is a communist.</i>

You could say that. You could also say that white folk who go around screaming "nigger" aren't actually racist, they're just 'ethnocentric'. Or doing bad comedy.

I don't particularly feel the need to indulge this kind of self-indulgent euphemism, but that's just me. While there hasn't been a single real world "socialist" economy that hasn't also been a single-party-state dictatorship, if you want to ignore a full century of experience with this horrific form of government by making a Orwellian name change and insisting on meaningless distinctions, you go right ahead. I won't stop you.

In fact, I'm amused. My God, these days even the Communist Party of China is tripping all over itself to adopt free market practices to better provide for their masses (of people). But you've totally kept the faith, haven't you? The furthest you're willing to go is to allowing competition into coffee shops and clothing stores, which by my recollection, is actually more restrictive than the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ( They allowed small farmers to sell surplus crops from their gardens, and most things handmade; even with the restrictions, this comprised 35% of their total GDP. )

I might be less amused if you, like the batshit-crazy neocons you're the mirror image of, had real power to actually inflict your schemes on an unsuspecting world. But powerless as you are, you're (intelectually) cute.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. I use postscripts to add things on the end, ideas that I think of at the last minute, and don't want to spend time trying to fit into the overall flow of what I've already written.

[Leftist78]

54. I'm not advocating state socialism

If you'd actually read the link I provided you'd know that Socialism is actually far more broad than what you think, but whatever, I don't have the will necessary to argue the point to someone who sees Reds around every corner. I suppose the names Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Eugene Debs, Bill Haywood, Helen Keller, Susan B. Anthony, none of whom were communists but were socialists of various stripes mean nothing to you. Guess you're probably not to fond of basic welfare, public education, or social security either, all of which are socialist ideas incidentally.

There are those of us, who despise the Soviet idea of Socialism, and see it for what it was; an excuse for an authoritarian regime to take control of a population. Russia moved from a Tsarist monarchy to a dictatorship simple as that. Now they are a Capitalist state pseudo-democracy moving toward right-wing dictatorship (how's that free market stuff working for them by the way? Last I checked not too well.) By the way, I'm sure the Chinese government truly has the best interest of it's people in mind in its move toward Capitalism. :eyes:

Maybe if you could learn to look past your black and white definitions of Communism vs Capitalism you'd see that both systems have their place, but I suppose a true believer in the Market's ability to fix all the worlds ills like yourself wouldn't dare be open to that possibility. So have your free market fun. The change will come. "The moral arch of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."-Martin Luther King Jr. (yet another of us evil socialists)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

61. There ain't no other kind...

Socialism is State control of property and distribution of wealth. Without State power backing it it immediately falls apart. Like it as not, people just aren't that generous to strangers.

All the different kinds of Socialism you brag about are just variations on how the government of single-party socialist State is organized.

Also, I'm hardly the extremist here. As a Democrat, I do recognize the need to have many governmental systems in place to give every child a fair starting point, for however far their talents and drive take them. It's you, who reflexively villianizes the entire entrepreneurial class, and who can't bring yourself to praise a single free market business (except in the theoretical abstract for a small handful of industries), that is the extremist. That you're rolling your eyes :eyes: because China turned its back on Maoism (quadrupling their citizen's median income in the last 20 years) displays your willingness to cling to ideology over fact.

You're the left wing mirror image of a Bush-bot, projecting onto others your own black and white view of the world. And, like a Communist, still muttering dark threats about us bad guys "having our fun", and dreaming of the day "the change will come" when people like me will surely be sorry. I suppose I'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, but would you really be able to pull the trigger?

It is kind of funny. And a little cute. But mostly I'm finding it sad.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Leftist78]

62. I can see now...

this is pointless. You and your DLC buddies have a nice day.


P.S. Capitalism collapses on itself without government support (Great Depression anyone?), and who said anything about pulling a trigger? Again you're assuming things about me based on Marx or Lenin or who-the-fuck-ever. have a nice life.

[NotGivingUp]

49. this is not equal opportunity for all...and it not ok to use people...

use their time, their labor, their brains, their lives...and then go on to say that the USERS deserve all the wealth because they're "...just good at building organizations that make things that people like to buy.." what a pile of shit! i'm with you leftist78. the 'values' that are rewarded in this society are not deserving, and only serve to warp our society further every day.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Leaving aside whether or not you're right -

- (I don't think you are, but neither of us is going to convince the other and we'll just make one another angry) - do you agree with me that

1) the majority of Democrats views on this matter are closer to ConservativeDemocrat's than leftist78's and yours?

2) That a political party campaigning on the views that you're advocating would, currently, be unelectable in America?


Even if both those are true that doesn't prove that you're wrong, of course - there are lots of things most people agree with that are wrong - but it's something you should possibly take into consideration if you haven't done so already.

[yurbud]

4. rich is when you can stop working, do what you want the rest of your life, and have enough

money to leave to your kids so they can do the same.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. Indeed

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Depends where you live.

Price of real estate purchase and property taxes determine how much of $50,000 you spend, if not all of it, within a year.

[nolabels]

22. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner

The best thing to know how to spend and or save money wisely. Many high income earners go to the poorhouse because they never learned how to manage their money

[Catchawave]

29. My dream home is a Manhattan 400sqft studio

But I would have to sell my 3000sqft lakefront home in SE Virginia to make it happen :silly:

But a girl can still dream :)

Edit to add size of studio apt for better comparison.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. $50k does NOT make you rich in any sense of the word.

I make nearly $50k, and I am getting by with a 400 sqft studio apartment. If I'm rich, you'd need a whole other word for what real rich people are.

I said $200,000 is the breaking point for middle and upper class. Anywhere near this city (DC), you'd need at least $150k income to own a home in which you could comfortable raise children in a safe neighborhood. I don't consider that to be a luxury. Give a little breathing room from that and there's your threshold.

[danalytical]

7. 50K

Are you people insane? Do you have any idea how much a ahome costs or a new car? 50K is nothing for a family of 4. Trust me I know.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. That's what I'm saying.

I have no idea what the hell these people are thinking that voted $50k. Hell, I'd classify anything LESS than $50k to be LOWER class, not middle class.

[GOPS Worst Fear]

19. The Gov. Povety line is $24,000!!!

For a family of 4.So almost double that and I would say 50K's is middle class

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. The poverty line is a sham.

I don't think anyone who made that line has ever actually witnessed a family trying to survive on $24k.

[rman]

27. double that is nothing - multiply it by 10, 100 or 1000

then we're talking "difference".

fmr Exxon CEO made $150,000 per hour
Steve Jobs of Apple computers makes $1 per year (as do google CEOs)- but they have billions in the bank

*that* is rich.

[Ellis Wyatt]

31. God Bless them

They have billions in the bank because they created extremely successful companies from scratch. They've created either directly or indirectly millions of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue. Not the mention the incalculable economic benefit to the entire world for the amount of time they've saved people (e.g. desktop publishing for apple, and research tiem for Google)

That they are only paying themselves $1 a year is extremely selfless and borderline insane.

[rman]

33. point is they get much much more than what they are paying themselves

[Ellis Wyatt]

35. Not really

They get some stock options, but was a % of their overall net work, it's nominal. The reason they are worth a billion dollars and more is because they founded their companies, owned 100% of it, and sold off various chunks to venture capitalists, gave some to employees, sold off to the stock market.

Their net worth is from selling a stock that is only worth a penny because they created the company. Entrepreneurs' net worth is mostly comprised (the vast majority) of equity in the companies they created. Their net worth that isn't held in their old company is mostly that way because they sold off some of their own company, and bought other stuff to diversify

[rman]

47. I think you use a peculiar definition of "some"

as in "They get some stock options".

It may seem like it is not much as long as it is not quantified.

[lastliberalintexas]

41. And the labor of the guy breaking his back to lay bricks is truly

worth such a small, tiny fraction of their wealth? What about the nurse who takes care of you, is his effort really worth such a pittance just because he didn't "create jobs"? What about the labor of the teachers who create the next generations of innovators and creators? Are they too worth so much less because their efforts didn't produce a "product" as defined by our capitalist system? Or do you believe that the likes of Job and Gates have somehow worked so much "harder" than the proletariat and they therefore "deserve" those billions?


I'd wager that we would strongly disagree on the tax treatment of earned vs. unearned incomes.

[danalytical]

37. You obviously have no real world experience in "living"

24K$ breaks down to 2k a month. Take out taxes, social security, and insurance and your left with maybe $1500 if your lucky. That's roughly $375 per week. Now tell me how you are going to get reliable transportation, afford food, buy clothes, pay your bills, and live in a safe home for that?

A 2 bedroom apartment in a decent town is going to cost at least $800.

Feeding two adults and two kids will cost you at least another $75 per week (we all know it'll cost more that that), so that's $300 a month.

Gas, bus fare, whatever is going to run another $20 per week. That's $80 a month.

Assuming you don't have a car payment, you still need insurance, we'll go cheap at $50 a month.

Electricity costs at least $75.

Heat costs up to $300 (no I am not kidding) but lets just say $100.

Uh oh forgot about yearly property taxes on your car. That's gonna run you around $100 for a beater. So that's a measly $8 a month.

School supplies and clothing for your family, lets say you shop at the Salvation Army and Walmart, you can figure $400 for the whole family per year, $33 per month.

A phone would be nice. $30 a month.

Let's add up these basic necessities and see what we get.

That's already $1480 per month.

That leaves you $20.

But let's be realistic.

If you are that poor, you probably have a credit card with racked up debt for that time of year when Jr. needs a dental check up and you need groceries at the same time. Then you run out of toilet paper and toothpaste. On the credit card it goes. What are you gonna do brush your theeth with dirt and use junk mail to wipe your bum?

Let's make that a small $2000 debt with a minimum monthly payment of $20.

There's $1500 right there. And we all know there is a lot more to pay for in life that these few things.

What if your child is still a little baby.

Diapers. $30 for a box of 120. That will last most of the month.

But you will need wipes too. That's another $12 for a box of 300. That's assuming you have a BJs or Sams club membership for those low prices...

which will run you another $40 a year of course.

$24,000 a year is a joke.

Double that and you can afford a reliable new car. Oh wait that's $300 a month, plus another $100 for insurance. Tax rates go up, so you don't even get double the take home pay. You're lucky to take a yearly vacation and have cable.

[Ellis Wyatt]

8. I would really be interested

How people would like to see the tax code altered. I hear people talk about the rich paying their fair share, but there is rarely any hard numbers behind it.

This is a good thread, and I'be curious to see what people feel is "rich" and what people feel is "fair share"?

If three people make $25k a year, $250k a year, and $2.5 million a year do they pay 10x each other? Obviously not, that's a flat tax. Do they pay 100x each other? Do some pay tax while others pay none?

This really a semantic question because I've always disagreed with the "fair share" statement. I think it's too easy to argue against. "Fair" is treating everyone equally. Well, it could be argued that the only "fair" tax code wouldn't merely be one where everyone gets treated "fairly" by paying the SAME TAX RATE (say 50%), but one where everyone pays the SAME TAX (say $25,000 a year). Now clearly no one here would support such a horrible tax code, but when someone says "fair share", it to me is very nebulous and I've always preferred a different term like "affordable share" or something like that.

[Ellis Wyatt]

9. "rich" is like "old"

"old" is always 10 years older than you are. No one actually thinks they are old. But there's millions of people who will think you're extremely old, while others will think you're extremely young.

It's kind of the same as "rich". I think most people will just say that "rich" is 5x what they make (or some multiple close).

I would never think I'm "rich", but I know I'm in the top 10% of earners in this country. I'd probably classify "rich" as a million or more. But in actuality, I'd define "rich" by how much they HAVE, not how much they make.

[GoneOffShore]

10. Went for 200k

But I assume that you're talking gross income here.

Tax rate 30%.

[Ellis Wyatt]

15. you realize

that's a significant tax cut from what they pay now, correct?

[GoneOffShore]

17. Yes

But we cut out some of the deducitons and tax higher earners on a scaling rate.

In addition, change the way that corporations are taxed.

[Ellis Wyatt]

24. Very few deductions

Thanks to the AMT, there are very few deductions for those over $250k. Even mortgage interest can't be deducted immediately. Those over $250k can't really lessen their tax burden in many ways other than deferring compensation.

[GoneOffShore]

25. Time to scrap AMT or to alter

so the point at which it applies is higher.

[Ellis Wyatt]

30. Very brave

So you are suggesting that the tax rate for those making $250k should be reduced from 42% to 30% and that we should remove the AMT?

Both of which would significantly benefit those making hundreds of thousands of dollars?

While I would be very interested to hear your economic argument for how that will benefit the country, I think that most people here would tar and feather you before you got a word out.

[slackmaster]

36. AMT should have been indexed for inflation

It was intended originally to affect only truly wealthy people. Inflation has caused it to creep into the middle class.

I almost got hit with it in a year where my AGI was about $74 K.

[DuaneBidoux]

12. There is something between rich and middle class

I don't think rich people have many constraints on the way they spend (at least that is how I think of rich). I'm in a household over 100,000 but less than 150,000 and believe me it's not as much as you would think. Are we comfortable? yes. Rich? No way. We are worrying about how we are going to be able to afford to send our kid to college without a huge home equity loan. Of course many in the middle class are probably prevented from even sending their kids to college, but when you realize that you have to borrow against your house to send your kid to college you ARE NOT rich.

[Writer]

13. That is where we are - "upper middle class..."

enough to cover the basics and some luxuries, but not enough to seriously save for retirement/college.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Does reality matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_quintiles

Median family income is $43,200.

Only 20% of households earn more than $88,000.

Only 5% of households earn more than $157,000.

If $156,999 is middle class, then so is $5,000. Annually.

If 90% of the people are middle class, it makes the term kind of meaningless.

US tax policy can't be written for the outliers. There are undoubtedly places where a lot of money isn't a lot of money. So move.

[Leftist78]

26. Exactly!

It seems pretty obvious that your average DUer skews a little higher than most people's incomes in America. If you want some perspective, look at the hard data. Or better yet, drive to those parts of town that most of us avoid.

[Connonym]

18. Fair would mean

that all people can afford to live in a safe place, would be able to afford healthful foods, would have some form of medical coverage and folks with a modest lifestyle would at the very least be able to afford to pay all their bills each month.

Of course words like "rich", "fair" or "modest lifestyle" are entirely subjective. My subjective opinion is that the middle class has shrunk and more and more people (at least the ones I know, including people with advanced degrees) aren't able to make ends meet. Pay rates are simply not keeping up. The government version of the cost of living is a bullshit measurement for inflation because it doesn't include all the variables.

[Hawkowl]

21. Marginal Rate

Anything above 300K per year 40%. However the Social Security tax STOPS at $90K per year. It should not stop at ANY LEVEL. Meaning the rich have to pay the 7.65% on every damn dollar they earn. You could also fix Social Security by adding that 7.65% tax to non wage income of over $200K per year (in other words a capital gains/dividend/interest tax or a tax on the wealthy leisure class).

Also, my marginal tax rates wouldn't stop there. Anyone making over $5 million a year gets slapped with a 65% marginal tax rate. This would be called the tinman tax or "get a heart" tax (After the tinman in the wizard of oz). Why? Because anyone accumulating this much money just loves money more than anything. More than family, more than living life. I know people this wealthy and they are not happy.

[rman]

28. Rich is when income (from wages) does not matter

Rich is to have millions in the bank, billions even. I'd say a couple 100k at least.

Rich is to be able to live comfortably off of profits from stock trade, dividends, interest etc.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Unfortunately, every time this question is asked here...

... it's asked in the context of annual income, not wealth.

A person with a $1m income isn't necessarily rich, just high income.

A person with a $5m net worth, arguably rich, isn't necessarily high income.

[Odin2005]

34. $500,000

Working class: below $30,000
Lower Middle Class: $30,000 to $80,000
Middle Midle Class: $80,000 to $200,000
Upper Middle Class: $200,000 to 500,000
Lower Upper Class: $500,000 to $5 million
Middle Upper Class: $5-50 million
Upper Upper Class: $50-500 million
Super Rich: $500 million +

[snowbear]

59. Wow...

Lower Upper Class: $500,000 to $5 million

Whodda thunk theyr'd be a "Lower Upper Class"!!

[lastliberalintexas]

38. Almost anyone who MUST work for a living is not rich

Annual income is not a very good measure to use in deciding who among us is "rich"- accumulated wealth/assets is a much better tool.

Yes, someone who earns $200-500K a year is well off and comfortable in (almost?) any part of this country. But even they are working because they have to and are still subject to being decimated by a medical crisis or unemployment.


I'm not saying that the OP intended to do this, but I REALLY, REALLY hate these posts that divide the 98% of us proletariats about whom the truly wealthy could give a darn.

[FormerDittoHead]

40. PLEASE visit "lcurve.org" for some perspective.

http://www.lcurve.org

[Greyhound]

60. Great graphic, drives the point home very effectively. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. "Rich", "Reich", what's a few letters between friends.

"I call you my base."

[Kelly Rupert]

44. Rich is $50k more than I make.

Always.

[sandnsea]

46. Top 10% earn $130,000

Whatever you call it, when you're in the top 10% of income earners in a country that is the wealthiest in the world - you're doing pretty damned good.

[Uncle Joe]

51. I didn't realize how f**king poor I am, until I saw this poll!

:wow:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. I'm afraid I think it's solely context-dependent.

This is why I hate politicians (and DUers) talking about a policy "being good for the middle class" or "benefiting only the rich" - it doesn't actually mean anything.

If you say "this will benefit people earning up to X" or "I think people earning over Y should pay more taxes" then we can be certain that we're communicating accurately.