E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhat is the middle class, anyway? There's no official definition, but Americans and their leaders seem to know it when they see it.
And after five tough years of a recession and slow economy, there's plenty of evidence that fewer people see a middle-class life when they look in the mirror.
“You can’t define middle class, but you can ask people, ‘Do you still feel middle class?’ And more and more people don’t,” said Tim Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin.
Still, as election season heats up, that’s not stopping many politicians from promising to help the middle class, whoever they may be.
"The whole attraction of middle class … is it doesn’t mean anything," said Dennis Gilbert, a sociology professor at Hamilton College who studies class issues. "Middle class means anybody who might vote for you."
The focus on the middle class starts at the top of the ticket, where President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have both repeatedly invoked the middle class in their quest to win the presidency next month.
Obama told voters during last week's debate that he cut taxes for middle-class families “because I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well.”
Then he questioned whether Romney had the same dedication to the middle class.
“And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good? Is it -- is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them?” Obama said, according to a transcript provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Romney argued that Obama’s policies have hurt the middle class and would continue to do so.
“There's no question in my mind that if the president were to be re-elected you'll continue to see a middle-class squeeze with incomes going down and prices going up,” he said during the debate. “I'll get incomes up again.”
The traditional political focus on the middle class comes as fewer people feel like they’re still part of it. A Pew Research Center report this year found that 49 percent of people define themselves as middle class, down from 53 percent from four years ago.
“Statistically, that’s a significant shift, but beyond statistics it feels right,” said Rich Morin, a senior editor with Pew Research Center. “It’s been a tough four years.”
In fact, Morin said, Americans’ sense of how the middle part of the economic spectrum is doing is surprisingly accurate. The polling data on whether Americans feel like they are still part of the middle class matches well with the researchers’ economic data on median income in the United States, which has fallen in recent years after adjusting for inflation.
Still, experts say the term middle class has a cultural connotation that goes beyond the number on your paycheck or tax stub.
Kevin Leicht, director of the Iowa Social Science Research Center at the University of Iowa, said many Americans think of a middle-class life as being one in which you have a stable job, own your own home and occasionally buy something substantial like a new car. You also either went to college or have the aspiration of sending your children to college.
Beyond that, he said, the term middle class invokes the type of person who gets married and has kids, pays their bills on time, doesn’t get in trouble with the law and maybe goes to church.
“In the United States, it’s probably more of a cultural category than an economic one,” he said.
He thinks Americans’ affinity for the middle class also comes partly from a natural suspicion for both the richest and the poorest Americans. Audacious wealth has traditionally been frowned upon in this country, he said, while there’s also often a fear-based bias against people who are poor.
“Because a lot of us are two missed paychecks away from being in exactly the same position, we have to act like there’s something systematically wrong with people who are in that position,” Leicht said.
The sense of a shrinking middle class also comes amid evidence that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, discouraging many Americans.
“They are aware that economic inequality is growing. And a majority – a substantial majority – say it’s a bad thing,” Morin said. “Everyone aspires to be upper class, but people are aware that as more Americans move up into the upper class, more Americans are moving down, and that’s not a good thing.”
The big question now is whether Americans’ discouraged attitudes about the middle class will change if the economic recovery starts to pick up.
In general, experts say that history would show that Americans will grow more optimistic about the middle class, and the American dream, as economic conditions improve. But, they note, this recession and weak recovery has been different from any other we’ve experienced in recent decades, and the future remains uncertain.
“I’m sure a strong recovery would help, but that’s a ways off,” Smeeding said. “Our standard of living is lower now than it was in 2006.”
Readers, how do you define a middle class life and do you think you are living it? Send me an e-mail, including contact information, and and we’ll use some of your responses in an upcoming story.
Related:
Rags to riches? That's Hollywood fiction, study finds
Many in middle class say they are doing worse financially
Economy's long slump pushing many down the ladder
Mitt Romney's campaign has released a new ad suggesting President Obama would raise taxes on the middle class. Vice President Joe Biden went on the defensive saying the president would raise taxes, but not on the middle class. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson joins a Friday wrap-up analyzing the first presidential debate of 2012.
Leave a Comment:
i don't know anything about the rich, middle class, poor, etc....
all i know is i want want kim kardashian has. it is my right. i don't have it and i am mad.
Romney wouldn't know the middle class if he had to live in an apartment in the projects for a week.
That would probably do him in actually.
You are middle class if:
1. you have to think about your children getting a job when they get older
2. you don't go to an attorney as soon as your baby is born to shelter and give them 5 million dollars.
3. you have money borrowed for a home, car, education and all big items.
4. you have no problem finding your home because you only have one.
5. you have a dream about being able to buy health insurance for your family
6. you could care less about the inheritance tax rate.
7. you never have a problem with the servants because it's you
8. you wonder how much higher your tax will be to support the wealthy tax breaks and loop holes.
9. you wonder why people running for president think you care about how to reduce the tax of someone who makes a 100 million a year.
10. you are trying to figure out how people who run for president think you are better off with less pay, more tax, no health care, no retirement and no social security.
Well I can DEFINITELY relate to #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and especially 7!
there's the problem. The University of Iowa Social Scientist Prof says "it's a cultural designation, not an economic one". Well, it used to be economic. Back in the days when we were successful. It's a classification that places people in classes based on income measured in dollars ! So the professors are doing to the econ system what they did for the education system. Muddle it up so it's not usable for anyone. Great job Professors!
Dear Congressman/woman: Here's an idea you probably will not propose, but here goes:
For every job that leaves the U.S. there should be a head tax ($100) against the company and put back into a special unemployment insurance and training account. I think there's something like that now, but whatever the amount charged should be doubled. Maybe the Apples of the world will think twice about moving jobs offshore.
Middle class means church-going? Actually, church attendance is often highest amongst the poor and the less educated.
Atheists tend to be highly educated thinkers and thus are typically middle-to-upper class Americans. Some of the smartest and most knowledgeable people you will ever meet are atheists, and they flourish in successful scientific, technological, and academic circles.
Our Framers never mentioned a "middle class" in any founding documents.
But Karl Marx did.
And so does Barack Obama.
The principles of individual liberty, free markets and equality of the rule of law relates to EVERYBODY, not some arbitrary "class" defined by income level.
Labels, numbers, statistics, the list goes on, it's a marketing tool. America in a nut shell today is marketing a product..
Let's see....In the 1800's there was only rich and poor. As we moved forward we defined middle-class as doing better than poor. Our image of middle-class is a Husband(man) working 1-job, married to a Wife(woman) stay at home, and having 2.3 childern, Suburb home, a car, and not living on any government assistance. (any 1950's TV family show). But in the 21st Century like all other words and phrases they have no difinite meaning (Unless we can hate crime it). Of course someone will take these words, and define their own context. Whether my intent or not.
amietamant:
Too bad that in the end it all means nothing. Problem is, you are talking about the wrong kind of knowledge. Consider the verses below and you will see that you are seriously deceived if you think atheism is the answer.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:
and the knowledge of the holy is understanding"
Proverbs 9:10 (KJV)
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths."
Proverbs 3:5-6 (NKJV)
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."
James 1:5-6 (KJV)
The middle class has been outsourced to a communist country called China that has no environmental protection and pay is around 100 dollars a month.
All this brought to you by the Republican party of Reagan.
Mr. Steady...so we should be goaded into believing what a tribal savage wrote 2,000 years ago because it defines wisdom. No thanks...I'll stand with logic and reason over fantasy and fairy tales any day.
Your funeral, Reaper. I'll choose eternal life and truth. Just because you choose to disbelieve it doesn't make it any less true.
Just because YOU chose to believe a fairy sky monster doesn't make it true either. You're half lived life.......but me, I chose to live it to the fullest knowing I've only got one shot.
Here is a quick way to determine if you are in the middle class.
Do you collect any assistance from the government? If so you are not middle class, you are poor. Sorry if that hurts people's feelings.
Do you or your household earn over $250,000 per year? If the answer is "yes" you are wealthy.
Everybody else is the in middle class.
I would not call $250K/year wealthy. Well-off, OK. But not wealthy.
"Shaq is rich. The guy that signs his check is wealthy." - Chris Rock
Those replying to Mr. Steady
Please familiarize yourself with the state of affairs in the world today and then get your Bible and read Zechariah chapter 14 which was written some 2500 years ago.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Anyone that gets up every day and goes to work because they must is not wealthy. However, in most parts of the US 250K is a pretty good chunk of change.
uh uh arthur66, the wealthy get more than their share of liberty, free markets and equality of the rule of law than the less financially well off. it's closer here than most countries, but it's by no means equally distributed.
wealth buys access to power. buys access to the rulemakers.
You can never trust someone you fear. You need to face your fear. Eliminate the source of your fear. Knowledge is power. Knowing that the myths of Bronze Age savages aren't real can set you free.
When will Barry Hussaine send me my "middle class" cell phone?
You mean your Reagan/Bush cell phone don't you?
What is the middle class, anyway? There's no official definition.
I believe its called the other 47%.
BTW - the free LANDLINE program may have started under Reagan, but the free CELLPHONE program has grown by HUGE numbers under Obama's administration. This is what idiots like you have trouble understanding. Most conservatives don't mind giving a helping hand to the truly needy. But democrats/liberals are ALL ABOUT using taxpayer funded giveaways to buy votes with and absolutely have an agenda of getting as many people hooked on government handouts as they possibly can. God, liberals are SO stupid.
The Bush cellphone program should END!
You say CELLPHONE as if the free phones are something to be envied. I'll be frank. I have one, and no, I don't consider myself "entitled" to anything free that comes my way. I am disabled from a sever lung disease not brought on by smoking or any form of self-abuse. Yes, I get SSI from the government, and it allows me to rent a room in a stranger's house and to take a bus for disabled people since I can longer afford to keep a car. And that CELLPHONE you are referring to? It gives a 'massive' 250 minutes a month, does not have a camera, has no keyboard, and isn't strong enough to get reception in the back of a local supermarket. What it does allow me, though, is to call to make sure my bus will get to my doctor's office before my oxygen tank is emptied, and it allows me to be able to contact 911 and my family in case of an emergency. I appreciate having this phone, but I don't appreciate it when people shoot their mouths off about it, sounding as if people like me are living in the lap of luxury. Trade places with us for a while, why don't you? As for me, I don't have to be in your position to know what it's like. I was once "middle class" and I had the same struggles as most. I know what it takes to keep a home and raise a family. I also know that the position I'm in now is not one to be envied, and I resent folks such as yourself making the attempt at making it seem so. I would imagine that if you received one of these free CELLPHONES, you'd probably still go out and buy another one with a few more bells and whistles, just because you can.
I worked for a cell phone company back from '05 to '09...lifeline programs ran rampant...I wonder who was president back then? Of course, go ahead and blame the current president for something all presidents for the last thirty years have done. Doesn't make you look like a clueless a**hole at all.
Reaper, YOU are the clueless a$hole. It's easy to write stupid stuff like you just did without any facts to support your BS - but the FACT is that the free phone program has grown expotentially under Obama's administration. What part of that are you having trouble with, you dolt?
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/03/why-is-taxpayer-money-providing-some-people-with-free-cell-phones/
"Spending for the program went from $488 million in 2000 to $1.8 billion in 2011."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/where-do-obama-phones-come-from/article/2509203
"In 2008, the program was expanded to support cell phones which quickly escalated the cost of the program. In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion."
Once again, LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS.
Seriously? You're using Fox News as your information sources and you're calling the liberals idiots? Ha ha...teabaggers crack me up.
BoJap, Fox is just as legitimate a news source as NBC, ABC, and CNN - in fact, more so, because they tell the truth. Liberals HATE that. Liberals ARE idiots, and you just proved it once again.
Oh, and how nice for you that you conveniently ignored my OTHER source, the Washington Examiner - I suppose they don't meet your standards for "truth" either, huh, idiot?
BoJap, instead of addressing the information in the article, you attack the source. You crack me up. What about the Washington Examiner? Is that a problem too?
really? I mean really? look at what you wrote. You sound like a 6th grade bully who just got caught doing something wrong.
Perhaps you might want to scroll up and read what Noliah Jones wrote as a beneficiary of one of those phones.
Such mean-spirited greedy behavior on the part of the right.
And you are surprised, why???? This is a liberal you are talking to. When all else fails, attack the source or play the "Fox News" card. Only thing that surprises me is that he didn't play the race card.
mj, really? You really don't understand that Noliah Jones is the exception rather than the rule to the use of the free cell phones? Please tell me you really aren't that naive.
Thank you Noliah Jones! You put that into perspective for us.
Noliah...first, I hope some kind of cure is found for your condition. second, I don't mind one bit my tax dollars going to help an individual such as yourself that truly needs assistance.
What I do object to is some pants-on-the-ground fool with $2500 gold grill, $5000 worth of tattoos and perfectly able-bodied getting one of those cell phones. And what I object to even worse is some pathetic politician giving that fool a cell phone, paid for with my tax dollars, for the soul purpose of securing a vote. That is not only immoral and unethical, it should be a crime.
i want kim kardashian....i recently saw her nudes and i want what she has too
You want what she has? Okay, Abracadabra! You're a girl!
me three, I want Kim
Google "Cheater rants" at the BleepFreePress blog. If you punch a clock you are working class. Doesn't matter whether you make minimum wage or a hundred bucks an hour. If you are salaried and your salary depends on how many hours you spend in the office you are working class. Deal with it.
Professionals like doctors, lawyers, and college professors are middle class.
Many professionals work on an hourly basis and are not self-employed or salaried.
The premise that professionals comprise the middle class attempts to draw an artificial distinction based on education, not income- and fails the test of time.
In clear fact, those boundaries are traditionally defined by purchasing power and how one lives as a consequence- not what you know or what you do.
I'm salaried - all that means is that now, if I have to work 60+ hours a week to cover workload + travel, no one has to pay me extra for it. But I'm glad to know that you see me in the same class as those professionals who make at least twice what I do.
I agree with FeO2. My husband is an RN and I am a secretary, by no means doctors or lawyers, and we consider ourselves middle class. We own 3 vehicles and a home, all free and clear, all gotten by hard work and saving. You don't have to have an 8-year degree to live a middle class lifestyle. It's all how one lives as a consequence.
Working class is part of the middle class.
I would consider middle class to be those with incomes that range from about $50k -$150k
@Sally in Chicago....the idea you raise is interesting in that:
1) It really wouldn't matter.
$100 or $1000 or $10000 per head off-shored is a drop in the bucket to the savings a company sees when it sends the jobs away from the US. That is the rub. The penalty would have to be equal to or greater than the savings to make a company think twice.
The other side of the coin is that emerging nations are accepting the jobs, but as time goes on, the cost of those off-shore people starts to increase significantly. India once was the 'go to' place for technology companies to get a 3 for 1 or 2 for 1 employee exchange. Then Russia started to come into the fold as salaries in India were increasing 10-15% annually. Now it is China given the huge 'untapped' working population and the amount of poverty.
As long as there are impoverished nations, there wll be places where US companies can and will send jobs.
That was quite a leap....if you are hourly you are working class? Middle class extends over a wide area of living standards. The professionals you described are typically upper middle class to the bottom of the wealthy. As ProtectAmericanJobs stated, middle class starts at $50k, it does end more at the area of $250k. That is a huge difference and includes lower middle class, middle class and upper middle class. Working class is used in social sciences to describe those who are working in what some may consider the lower tier jobs--cashier, waitress, physical labor. It does have hourlay wages just as upper middle class jobs may have hourly wages.
Hope that clarifies it for you,John.
The definition is really fairly simple; adjust as you see fit. Full disclosure: I believe the numbers are close to accurate so if they're off please make the necessary corrections:
If 20% of the population earns more than $100,000 and 20% earns less than $20,000 than we can say the middle class (60%) earns between $20,000-100,000. Coincidentally, the median income is very close to $50,000.
Not sure what the numbers are for a top and bottom 10 or 15% and a 70-80% middle class. Hope this helps with the discussion.
The white collar / blue collar thing has nothing to do with "middle class."
Middle class has to do with the median wage and/or median assets of the population.
As others have said, it's based on income, not the type of job a person does.
I've also read many times where $40,000 annually is the bottom rung of what's considered middle class income.
Ain't buying it John. For political purposes, it's strictly about the Benjamins. Otherwise, I've seen lots of well paid people who are definitely LOW or NO class.
All I know is that I'm tired of Obama saying we are wealthy because together my husband and I make $250K per year. We have work 47 years each to get to this point. I don't know why we worked our a$$es off every day just to have the government tell us we make enough to be considered wealthy so we should redistribute OUR "wealth" so others who don't want to get up at 0500 everyday and go to work for 9-10 hours don't have to. They can just sit home and collect from the government. Now we are hoping to retire next year. But our house is worth less and our taxes keep going up. And by the way, jobs are going off-shore because the unions have driven them away. I don't understand how anyone can thing unions are good any more. They fight for more pay and more benefits and they they turn around and raise union dues--what kind of gains does a person get? I'm just glad I never drank that kool-aid and can think for myself.
The middle class has the ability to help itself. In other words, when work needs to be done on the house, a middle class person can go to the bank and get a loan. When it's time for a vacation, the money is in the bank. Medical insurance is in place. Children are clothed and not hungry, and they have what they need for school.
The middle class does not go to the French Riviera, but may go to Fort Lauderdale. They own two Toyotas, but not a Lamborghini.
The middle class has the ability to roll with the punches, not get knocked out by an unexpected emergency.
to quote the article: "Kevin Leicht, director of the Iowa Social Science Research Center at the University of Iowa, said many Americans think of a middle-class life as being one in which you have a stable job, own your own home and occasionally buy something substantial like a new car. You also either went to college or have the aspiration of sending your children to college."
That seems to be almost the same as what Dianne-745697 mentions. Someone who has a stable job, which means a bank is more willing to loan someone money who has had a job for a lenght of time. One who owns one's home ie bought a home and has a mortgage, and paid it on time, is someone a bank is more willing to loan money to, as that person is has shown the ability to pay back loans.
The other thing about the middle class is they do not depend upon government assistance to meet basic living expenses because they have a stable jobs, live within their means, pays the bills on time.
Again, to quote the article: "Beyond that, he said,[Kevin Leicht] the term middle class invokes the type of person who gets married and has kids, pays their bills on time, doesn’t get in trouble with the law and maybe goes to church".
If the author looks at history of "the middle class", from the late 1890s through 2000, including the economic, social, and cultural impacts of the organized labor movenment, the "New Deal" during the "Great Depression" and subsequent economic and political policies after WWII, the idea of a middle class, and ideal of a middle class, wasn't about economic equality, rather the economic stability of a society.
Then maybe I'm NOT middle class, after all!
By that definition, as soon as someone loses his/her job, he falls out of the middle class since few banks will lend to unemployed individuals. Unfortunately, it is too easy to fall out of the middle class, yet Romney/Ryan seem intent on shredding the minimal safety net that we have in place in this country.
I think the Middle Class are the ones who keep working as long or longer than ever, and feel the grocery, gasoline and utility price hikes every time now!
The middle class these days may very well not have the disposable income for a vacation or even a 2nd vehicle. The cost of basics keeps skyrocketing (I just paid $4.69/gal. for gas) yet incomes are stagnating. And we are the lucky ones because at least we still have jobs...
I was just thinking, I consider myself middle class now whereas I never would have at this income level a few years ago. That's just because so many other people have got knocked down to our income level.
By other standards, there's no way, we're still "poor" but yet I can't consider us poor since we have everything we need and then some.
The reality is that very few people in this country actually meet that definition. Many people who consider themselves "middle class" are only a couple of pay checks away from not being so, meaning that they do not have the savings and stability to truly be "middle class."
Moreover, in this day and age of tightened lending practices, many people who could get loans from Wachovia, IndyMac, etc (all of whom were writing mortgages with their eyes closed during the housing bubble) no longer qualify for bank loans.
If the definition really is based upon a stable economic life (home ownership, car ownership, regular vacations) and financial security (savings to weather most unexpected repairs/emergencies, etc), without living a lavish or opulent lifestyle mind you, probably only about 20% of the American public meets this definition, perhaps less.
The key to being "middle class" is to live somewhat beneath your means, rather than attempting to live vastly above one's means (which is what a lot of people in the US do).
With the natinal savings rate in the US being -.3% for the past 25 years I would say most Americans don't know how to live in their means. I know more than one family with over 100K earnings and they live pay check to pay check. If you ask them what they spend their money on they don't know.
We are in the middle class and we are in the top 20% of households with an income of 91K the wife is an E-7 and I'm a Auto tech. We were no financially free until we paid off out debt we had when we got married (91K consumer debt when our income was 70K)
You want to know a big part of the decline? people Are trying to keep up with the Joneses and they don't realize the Joneses are broke keeping up with the Smiths down the road.
Without the Middle Class there would be no USA! We keep this country running and we are the ones who support the 47%, without us the 47% would be beggars.
Not only do we support the 47% we also are forced by regulations to support the crooket dimwhitcraps in the process!
The 47% make 11% of the total income. The top 3% make 33% of the total income. That leaves the 50% in between making 55% of the income. The implications are obvious.
Well, kinda. Most of the 47% pay other forms of taxes and just make too little to pay income tax. Most of those people don't get any other assistance however.
Also, a large portion of the 47% are retired. They get money from the government, but presumably they already paid into the system... so they are supporting themselves in a round about way.
I'm sorry, my numbers were off a little. The top 3% make 30% of the total income. So everyone with income between $30,000 a year and $200,000 a year are 1/2 the country making 60% of the income.
Yeah Pat, who cares about the people on social security, or disabled, or retired/disabled veterans. What have they done for us lately, huh? Miserable parasites.
Damn people who are only good enough to make twice the minimum wage should just die from malnutrition like they do in other parts of the world. Who cares if they have a safe work environment or cancer. EEOC? Hey, if they don't want to screw their boss or aren't happy with making half what a man makes... well, that's the life of a woman, isn't it! More women should be bosses. Right?
Members of the middle are in the 47%, too.
Barry, not all the middle class are in the 47%, We have paid taxes for 42 years and never once did we get all our money back, just a couple hundred every year. Believe me there are a lot more of us than you think.
I didn't say "all" were in the 47%. But, retirees on Social Security do fall within that "47%", even if they consider themselves to be middle class.
Shawn, try collecting Social Security if you are seeking a return on investment. However, I think you missed the point. As Bad Bob (lol) pointed out, there are people in the 47% that not only paid into the pot, but are in situations that preclude them from getting what you consider to be a good paying job. They may be vets that are disabled, retired parents living on SSI, disabled people that cannot pay for healthcare and use Medicare, etc. So congratulations on your achievement, but please take the time to see the forrest through the trees!
Retired people on Social Security are not in that 47%. They have income taxes withheld from their monthly payment or pay a portion at tax time.
It is embarrassing how high an income a family can have and still wind up receiving back more money in refunds than taxes withheld (IOW a government handout). This happened to us back in 2006 and we were definitely not poor. Now that was a fluke for us personally and we have definitely paid more than our fair share of taxes over the past decade (primarily due to the ******* AMT).
Only low-income families should escape the income tax, nowhere remotely close to 47%. Maybe 20 or 25%.
I love anytime their is an article on here the Occupy Group of the democratic party start with their propaganda. Romney this, Romney that, why dont you people get a real life. You get really boring after awhile.
Odd...I thought the right had been targeting the middle class for decades- in order to eliminate them and revive feudalism.
..and so have the democrat incumbents.
There are no saviors, saints or nannies in the democrats that have helped the middle classes.
NAFTA and GAFTA were urged for passage by william fefferson clilnton. And a democratic CONgress. Get off your partisan pedestal and wake up to the fact that none of them give a damn about you.
Last I saw the unions leaned far left. They have targeted the middle class more that 5 centuries of people on the right.
Your wrong---thats the left so to speak. If everyone is poor-------no one is better off than anyone else.
Clinton was the first President I recall seemingly working to eliminate the middle. Obama is doing his fair share too. He even said at the debate, he promised to bring people up into the middle, and he has done that. No s**t!!! He takes it from the middle, gives it to the poor, and sooner or later they will be on equal ground. This is his perfect idea of redistribution!
Paul-596618 Your statement # 9.9 "Retired people on Social Security are not in that 47%." is wrong. Maybe you meant to say some retired. IRS says 22% of the 47% are senior citizens who pay no federal income taxes. Though they do pay federal taxes.
http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505
THat is so funny we paid less than 3% in state and local taxes on 91K. and they make 0-18K (49% of them own their home) with an avrage income earner of .6 people.
That is even funner they have an income of 18-34K(58% of them own their home)
Please tell me what federal taxes people on S.S. pay????
Here is another fact households making 40-50K pay an average of 3.2% federal income taxes. the 6.7% S.S. is a forced retirement contribution it doesn't count really as a tax unless you want to count 401K contributions also as a tax.
and the average household with an income of 75-100K pay an average of 7.2% (we paid 6% could have paid 5% and that is with no montage deduction on 91K)
Whoever is considered to be in the middle classes, THIS is for certain:
There are a lot less of them than there were 5 years, more likely 10 years, ago.
And the other fact is that they are 'growing' as a class, smaller each month.
And the idiots in the middle classes continue to vote for incumbents.
My husband and I still have our jobs, and combined income is over $100K before taxes, so I think that makes us "middle class," BUT it sure doesn't feel like it sometimes. We've both got money set aside for retirement, but pretty much NO emergency savings cash. One daughter is finishing college, and the other is starting, and we have NO REAL WAY to help her out beyond buying her some textbooks. Like another poster said, we have one home, two cars (neither one is a Lamborghini), and would be doing good to afford a vacation at Ft. Lauderdale, forget the Riviera. We worry about the cost of gas and food. I spent $40 on an oil change and had no extra money out of this paycheck. Yes, I still live paycheck to paycheck, and if my car breaks down I'll have to borrow to fix it. I haven't had a raise in 4 years, but I'm not looking for another job because I doubt I'd find one THIS good! Yet I'm still better off than a couple I know that were also middle class until both lost their jobs last year. Now she's working for $10 an hour and he's going back to school. Yes, my life could be so much worse, and if even ONE of us lost our job we'd really be hurting.
The middle class continue to vote for the incumbents because the alternative is no better - in fact, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Don't even get me started on Health Care.
T Bourlan - I think you fit the description of "lower middle class."
T Bourlon - combined income of over $100,000 puts you all in the top 25% of all families in the country. The thing you have more of than everyone making less than you is discretionary income. My bet is that you have chosen to live in a house more expensive that you should and have nice cars with note payments. In my profession I see it every day. The secret to your financial future is rice and beans.
$40 oil change? It takes less than 15 minutes to change the oil in a car and costs about $10 for the oil and filter. There's $30 times 2 you can start saving immediately.
I have spewt about $200 a week eating out over the past 40 years. I figured that the difference between that and rice and beans is about $1.5 million, if I had invested it. Yep, that's how young families become millionaires.
The problem with defining "middle class" by using a hard income number is that the cost-of-living varies so much throughout the country. A handsome salary in the midwest leaves one scrimping and living in a tiny apartment in NYC. But, I recognize the impossibility of developing an income policy while taking into account these differences.
Bad Bob, $100K is not all that much money in certain areas. The northeast, for example, is way expensive. I make over $100K, my wife and I don't spend frivolously (haven't been on a real vacation since our marriage) and STILL we aren't able to save much after all of our expenses and retirement savings. Everyday expenses consumes most of the income. Unexpected events such as car/house repairs or medical issues consume just about everything else.
The middle class are the ones that continue to make it possible for politicans to keep the richer, rich.
You some how think that Obama's net worth of somewhere around 10 to 15 million dollars, makes any more difference to those who struggle than Romney's net worth of 200 to 250 million dollars.
The middle class are the one's who built this country. The ones who die for this country. The ones with the innovative ideas that keep this country one step ahead of the rest of the world. They are the one's that made this country the richest the world has ever seen. And while they were doing this they thought the media was watching out for their best intrests. The government grew, went it's own direction and turned us into the largest and most hated debtor nation the world has ever seen.
Vote every incumbent in every state out. It is the only message they will ever understand.
Isn't it funny all these rich politicians comming in rich leaving richer. But some how keep putting the middle class further in debt.
And the ones who talk about redistribution of wealth are the same ones who would not give up their wealth. If they like redistribution so much then they should give their money away and live like middle class America!
Middle Class is what we had before the union demands put them in upper income and middle class in lower levels.
Middle class? They're easy to identify- everytime you politicos raise taxes they're the ones you are raping.
I think I'd define the middle class as self sustaining. We're not poor and we're not rich, though many may be very comfortable. We don't get many tax breaks other than our home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. We don't need government help for anything other than some financial aid for our kids' college tuition. We don't have a whole lot in savings other than IRAs or retirement plans. A lot of middle class families are just a few paychecks away from slipping into the lower class. And even insured middle class families are just one medical crisis away from losing everything.
That, WinWin, was a perfect description. Couldn't have said it better!
That doesn't sound very self-sustaining to me. Those tax breaks on mortgage interest and state/property taxes can be quite large, and you're going to need Social Security when you retire. I'm not criticizing your comment. I'm just pointing out that people are far more financially intertwined with the government than they might think.
1. Anyone who has taken advantage of the recent very low mortgage interest rates are not going to find themselves with a very large mortgage interest deduction. In fact, in many cases one is better off taking the standard deduction.
2. DON'T EVEN START about the social security issue. SS is NOT an entitlement. I pay into it, and quite generously, with EVERY pay check I receive and I damned well expect to get it back when I need it. I didn't ASK to pay into it, I was TOLD I HAVE TO. Don't even get me started, lest I get VERY PISSED OFF.
Mr Steady, like you, I have paid into SS and Medicare my entire adult life. It sure as heck IS an entitlement! You and I are ENTITLED to those benefits when we retire, because we funded them for all of our long working careers. For the government to try to screw us out of those benefits we worked so hard for would be treasonous.
It infuriates me to hear Romney talk about how his plans for Medicare reform will not affect anyone under 55. Thanks Mitt, I'm just a couple years shy of 55. It sounds like you're saying people my age will get screwed the most. My retired mother will be fine, and my 20-something year old kids will never see those entitlements, but they haven't paid much into them yet either.
Company pension gone, company retireee medical plan gone, and now the government wants to modify SS & Medicare too so I won't get full benefits from those either.
My guess is at the very least they will implement a means test. They will look at my 401k and say "oh, you were thrifty and responsible and you have some money saved up there. You don't need SS & Medicare nearly as much as the guy who never saved a dime. We'll give your benefits to him instead."
Sorry Mr Steadyand Azdad. SS IS most assuredly an entitlement. What we all pay is a tax, no different than Income tax. Numerous SCOTUS rulings have confirmed that fact. You don't have to like it, but them's the facts. AND as an entitlement, it can be abolished at any time by Congress (although they don't have the stones and there would be a revolt by us old farts if they did). Mr. Roosevelt's early SS administration told numerous lies to make our parents all believe that we had a new retirement program, when in fact it was just a new tax. There is no account with our names on it!!!
I think the lack of responses to this column is because few believe defining an economic status determines "class".
Most who identified themselves as "middle class" in the past were small businessmen, mid to upper level managers in corporations, or professional people. Of these groups, those more highly educated, BA or better, generally considered themselves upper middle class. The middle class received monthly wages not based on Union scale or number of hours worked. Lower middle class were in the lower income and educated group but were still white collar workers with fixed monthly wages.
Union and non-union workers who worked at hourly wages were considered "working class" The elite of that group were the electricians, plumbers, welders, pipe fitters, etc. whom received hourly wages substantially higher that other "working class" members of society and close to the income of small businessmen and management level white collar workers.
Over the past 40 years, these two groups have been merged by society into a single group as the "working class" wages increased to a level where all within both groups could afford large homes, new autos frequently and college educations for their children.
As a result of the economic collapse, these groups are becoming fragmented again and the Upper middle class has continued to prosper while the Lower middle class now suffers from lack of good paying secure jobs.
The politicians have chosen to continue to consider them an integral group even though politically, they still maintain the political positions of the past. Calling a group "middle class" does not make it so. The political needs of those who's total income is $50,000 a year are considerably different from those who's total income is $150,000.
According to Nate, “National Polls Show Signs of Settling”
The newest research from Nate has it as the NOV 6 factors:
“Obama chance of winning 78.4% Romney 21.6%”
“Projected Winner Obama 307.6”
Another poll has Romney winning, let's face it we won't know until the last vote is counted!
Actually, individual voters have less influence over who wins the Presidency because of our electoral college system, NOT simple majority. Your scenario of waiting until the "last vote is counted" doesn't accurately describe America's Presidential voting system.
Obama 2012 -- please!
The electoral college is considered electoral votes!
I will define the middle class for you... We are the ones who make enough money so we can not collect welfare and not enough to buy a Tesla.... We are also the ones who do not have enough deductions so end up paying higher taxes so the rich don't have to...
Wow! The rich don't pay taxes? Romney paid a little over 2 million in taxes. Still not enough for ya?
Why do I get the feeling he could give all his money to the IRS and you still wouldn't be happy? Why do I get the feeling that Obama spending more of our money than all the previous presidents combined is OK with you but what Romney does with his own money is of more importance to you?
Almost forgot. The 1% rich you say don't pay taxes actually make up 40% of all taxes paid.
Man, sure sounds like the rich pay taxes.
We are in the midle class and make 91K and paid 6% in federal taxes with no mortage deduction.
Here are some numbers from CNN
In other words, 80% of Americans have an effective rate below 15%.
If you consider income tax liability alone, the average effective federal tax rate for people with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000, for instance, is just 3.2%, according to Tax Policy Center estimates. (In measuring income, the center uses gross income and adds to it other forms of compensation, such as the money your employer contributes to your retirement savings.)
The lowest income families actually have negative average effective tax rates when income tax liability alone is measured.
For families making $50,000 to $75,000, the effective tax rate is 5.7%. From $75,000 to $100,000, it's 7.2%. And if you make $200,000, it goes up to 9.9%.
And according to Romney, he wants to change the tax rate to 20% across the board, so 80% of Americans will get an income tax increase if he is elected.
ROMNEY, LIES ABOUT WHATEVER, AND HE LIED IS ASS OFF IN THE DEBATE, IF HE THINKS HE swayed my vote he is stupid, and all one had to do was watch how he jumped around and acted like he was on crack a high of lies, lies lies lies
diana, quit listening to the news and pay attention! The biggest thing I noticed during the debate was Obama was lecturing you and Romney was talking to you. No matter when Obama speaks he sounds like a professor lecturing a class.
That is becaue he has never had a real job.............he lectured occassionally at a college.
So is it your contention that what Romney was "talking to you" about was truthful?
"I don't have a 5 Trillion dollar tax cut." was a truthful statement by Mr. Romney?
"President Obama has raised taxes on the middle class" was a truthful statement by Mr. Romney?
"The President took $716 Billion dollars out of Medicare to fund Obamacare" was a truthful statement by Mr. Romney?
Shawn-#'s your response was pure deflection. The issue is a lot of people have with your candidate is his inability to TELL THE TRUTH. By the way, what do you have against professors lecturing? Got education envy do ya?
Sayitaintso You are spreading lies about Romney. The fact checkers proved it.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
SayitaintSo, When you people quit getting your opinions from the news and think for yourselves this country might survive. If I education envy how do I know how professors lecture? We need all new blood in Washington and at the same time we need to take away the credit card.
@ ted patrick- I love your sarcasm. This is from the link you posted
Thanks for proving my case.
Shawn, we tried that "clean house" approach. That's what got us 87 Tea Party hostage takers. Somehow I don't think that worked out to well for America. As for the "need to take away the credit card", I sure didn't hear a lot of that language prior to January 2009. Don't get me wrong, I agree we need to control our ratio of debt to income but implementing austerity type policies is not the way to achieve growth, the European's have already proved that. We need to reduce expenditures through program cuts, increases in eligibility, and increase revenue by way of reforming our tax code and expiration of the Bush era tax cuts. My point is why wasn't the same level of outrage exhibited during those wonderful 8 years of the previous Republican administration; the era where we went from projected surplus to 1 Trillion dollar deficits?
SayitaintSo. Yes OBama did raises on the middle class it's called Obamacare. The healthcare reform and a lot of people are already feeling the affects. My good insurance went from HMO to PPO due to health care reform requirements where all these companies are now going to a "cost sharing" program due to health care reform. This means more out of pocket up to around $2,500 just to meet a deductible before your insurance will even cover 90% of medical bills. The president is a liar. He has raised taxes in that form and will raise taxes on everyone if he is re-elected. You left wing democrats need to go watch Obama's America 2016. Or read his books and get a real sense of where President Obama wants to take this country. It's called government dependence where you tax up to 100% of a person's income. So long as......(Obama voice) "Everyone's getting their fair share" from the government. As you can see this is true just based on the food stamp spending alone during this administration. Not to mention the free cell phone program people were fighting over at the top of this thread. Obama wants to make our country like that of third world countries while others are replicating the old way of the United States of America and exceeding with their countries growth and prosperity. But, you idiots are too dumb to see that because you voted for a president based on the color of their skin. I guarantee if 50% of the people that voted for Obama told the truth, they voted based on race. To be part of history, to show that America is no longer a racist nation and to see the first black President in the history of the United States of America. The only problem is you all voted for the wrong African American. You voted for the one who if re-elected will put the nail in the coffin on this country. The deficit will more than likely be doubled again and we will never see a true recovery during our life time. The fact is Obama had nothing to say because he was called out on his failure as president just as Shawn said. I honestly am not a Romney supporter. But the United States can not afford four more years of Obama. Obama got his butt handed to him in the debates. So will Joe Biden and the same will go on the next two presidential debates. The President has failed to tell what he will do if re-elected. He isn't going to tell us because he knows he won't get the vote of those that worship him like he is some God or the greatest president on Earth. But it's ok, just blame Bush.... Just like Obama and all you supporters will do even after his next four year term is up. If you want to blame Bush don't forget about some of the policies put into place prior to him that went south.. Who was that again? Just saying....
No jobs and a mounting debt of 16T is whta's hurting the middle class. You can take everythinbg from the rich (both Dems and Repubs are wealthy) and it will not fix the problem. Obama needed to address the Debt and crate more jobs unfortunatly that hasn't happened. At 118,000 jobscreated a month it will take 8 yrs.
Hey aren't you Republicans the ones who keep telling us "government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does." And don't you republicans tell us "You have to cut taxes so that the JOB CREATORS have money to invest and create jobs"?
Using your party's logic, we should be at full unemployment since TAXES ARE AT A HISTORICAL LOW, and the blame for lack of jobs should be on those JOB CREATORS since you've already told us government doesn't create jobs the private sector does.
Which one is it yall?
Nobody is claiming that the government doesn't create jobs. Problem is, for every one they DO create, it just puts us further in the sh*t hole. Too bad Obama and you libs can't figure that out.
And I so love how you totally sidestepped the issue; that being TAX CUTS BY THEMSELVES DON'T CREATE JOBS.
If they did, we should be at full employment since taxes are the lowest they have ever been.
I never claimed that tax cuts create jobs. But neither does heavy regulation. And neither does the government spending money like drunken sailors on useless programs that don't work.
And I love how YOU sidestepped the issue: Every government job puts us further in the hole. And Obama is all about creating government "shovel ready" jobs. FAIL.
Neither does increasing taxes as Obama and libbies think. You know what does though? Giving $90 billion to green energy companies that fail! That will definitely create jobs SayitaintSo.
Middle Class has been defined right here in the comments...maybe "they" need to ask us so we can help them write a better article AND provide the candidates clearer direction.
Regardless of your political affiliation: this congress is out of control in spending and spinning facts to suit their own agenda.
We need MAJOR UPHEAVAL in both congress and the president...let them know who they are working for.