View Poll Results: what do you consider "middle class"?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • 25k - 50k

    3 6.82%
  • 25k - 75k

    5 11.36%
  • 40k - 100k

    14 31.82%
  • 50k - 100k

    8 18.18%
  • 50k - 125k

    14 31.82%
  • 500k +

    0 0%
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 140

Thread: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

  1. #91
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I understand wealth enough to know that we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm. If fact, we had the strongest middle class in history! It seems to be you that does not understand that if too much wealth is concentrated at the top, a consumer economy cannot prosper. We had our first lesson on this in the Great Depression, and we are experiencing another lesson currently.
    It obvious that you don't.
    You're not going to reduce "the wealth concentrated at the top" by implementing different tax rates.

    Did you miss those bouts of high inflation during the 70's?
    Was that not hurtful to the middle and lower classes?

    What made the wealthy have more wealth?
    How did they get it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."


    Like the lesson that, scapegoating groups of people has turned out to be disastrously wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No one is talking about a massive confiscation of those resources. We are simply talking about reducing the "temporary" tax breaks enjoyed by rich, while the majority of our citizens, and the economy, suffer.
    You mean like the tax breaks in the 50's, 60's and 70's?
    I hope you know that the tax rates in that by gone era were statutory tax rates and not effective tax rates.

    The majority of citizens are not suffering.
    You totally exaggerate nearly everything.
    Nothing but red herring, after red herring from you.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #92
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I understand wealth enough to know that we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm. If fact, we had the strongest middle class in history! It seems to be you that does not understand that if too much wealth is concentrated at the top, a consumer economy cannot prosper. We had our first lesson on this in the Great Depression, and we are experiencing another lesson currently.
    While I agree with raising taxes and am against such a high concentration of wealth, let's not forget, during the 1940s and 1950s we had just spent HUGE amounts of money on defense.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  3. #93
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It obvious that you don't.
    You're not going to reduce "the wealth concentrated at the top" by implementing different tax rates.

    Did you miss those bouts of high inflation during the 70's?
    Was that not hurtful to the middle and lower classes?
    Inflation in the 70's had nothing to do with the tax rates. Please try again.

    What made the wealthy have more wealth?
    How did they get it?
    30 years of tax policies and cutting regulations, and all favored the wealthy ~ better known as trickle down economics.



    Like the lesson that, scapegoating groups of people has turned out to be disastrously wrong?

    You mean that crap about the working class needs to stop being lazy and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.


    You mean like the tax breaks in the 50's, 60's and 70's?
    I hope you know that the tax rates in that by gone era were statutory tax rates and not effective tax rates.
    I hope you know the effective rates were still almost twice what they are today for the most wealthy.

    The majority of citizens are not suffering.
    That's probably why they are also not protesting across the country...........oh, scratch that, they are protesting across the country.


    You totally exaggerate nearly everything.
    What am I exaggerating?


    Nothing but red herring, after red herring from you.
    Seemingly, anything you cannot respond to is a red herring.
    Last edited by Catawba; 10-15-11 at 04:04 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #94
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    LOL! You mean to tell me you are an employee of the federal government, and bitching about one of the most stable employers today, your own no less?
    yes. that's called "not being a hypocrite". though I find it interesting that not being completely self-seeking counts in your eyes as reducing my credibility.

    Let's see, the richest 20% own 85% of the wealth now, what do you claim the ration was 30 years ago?
    I couldn't care less as it is immaterial to the discussion at hand. the question was not who had what in comparison to each other, but the wealth redistribution - the active redistribution of wealth naturally attained by private citizens.

    So, for example, if one year you make $100,000, and I make $30,000; and the next year you make $125,000 and I still make $30,000; but we institute a redistributionist policy that has the effect of taking 5K from you and giving it to me - then the redistribution of wealth is occurring from the higher income earner to the lower income earner, irrespective of the fact that your adjusted income increase (20K) grew by four times my own.

    I'm so happy for you, unfortunately for the conservatives, the majority of the country has been forced into higher debt through lowered income relative to inflation and taxes.
    that is incorrect - the people of this nation have gone into debt because we became poor savers and stupid profligate spenders. we weren't forced by taxation and inflation to take out HELOCs in order to buy the latest plasma - we chose to do that. Income has risen over the time period that you claim that it has flatlined in real terms - but even if it had flatlined in real terms, then the ability of the American people to save would be the exact same.

    we weren't forced to move from a nation of savers to a nation of debtors. we chose to do that.

    It already was in 2007. Are you talking about the compensations that are being taken away such as the teacher's compensation's for ****ty pay?
    teachers generally don't get "****ty pay". they get okay to good pay - and I would like to see that pay increase for teachers of quality. what they do get, thanks to the fact that it is the path of least resistance for administrators under union pressure, is gold-plated benefits packages. this tends to lock teachers into the system - because their overall compensation is tilted towards the end of their career rather than tilting compensation towards performance.

    but yes, generally, benefits have risen faster than paychecks - largely because if I, as an employer, give an employee a 10,000 dollar raise, then I have to pay my share of the FICA tax on it, and he has to pay his share of the FICA tax on it, and then he has to pay the income tax on it; so it comes down me giving him an increase in compensation of about $8,000 at a cost of 10,700. If I simply purchase him $10,000 worth of free healthcare (or any other benefit), then he get's an increase in compensation at a cost of $10,000. that's rough numbers, but it ought to give you a general idea of why employers and employees have been tending towards the latter rather than the former.

    All the middle class has to do is to learn to lower our standard of living, right?
    certainly we need to lower our level of consumption. one of the silver linings of the recession is that we seem to have done so, and we will hope that that trend back to savings will be habit-forming.

    Where is this binge spending problem by the middle class that I missed?
    really?



    our spending has skyrockted, and it has risen much faster than our paychecks:



    and so we've gone deeper and deeper into debt to spend more and more:



    we've spent the last 20 or so years in a spending binge; we wanted bigger houses, we wanted the latest plasma television, we wanted the latest iPhone, and we were going to drive to buy these things in brand new SUV's that barely fit through the drive-through where we picked up our daily $5.35 grand non fat mocha cappuccino with whip cream and cinammon swirls. the Boomers have lived their entire lives in the sense that they were entitled to instant gratification, and as they hit their peak earning years and their kids graduated from college they decided they could spend whatever they wanted and so they went nuts.

    I was sort of under the impression that manufactures were not producing because there is no demand.
    since the latest Recession kicked off and we stayed stuck there, yes. since 1980, however, our consumption has skyrocketed.

    Sounds to me like you are going to have a hard time selling that case to the middle class voters.
    middle class voters seem to have already decided on it themselves. but yes, this year Republicans will have to run on a platform of getting people who have lived their lives in a cocoon of instant-gratification on growing up and accepting economic reality.

    You see that "all" part is what ain't been happening over the last 30 years. Very key that "all" is!
    every income quintile has gotten wealthier over the last 30 years - the difference is in the rates of advancement.

    Again, total BS, but a great campaign slogan for your side
    no, actually that's pretty solidly statistically accurate - as your own cited study says; out of all the ways in which people fall out of the middle class, the first is getting divorced, and the second is never getting married in the first place. and it's not all that great a slogan - it's awkward, difficult to address, and doesn't provide something simple and catchy. it's a poor slogan, in fact, it just happens to be socioeconomic reality.

    Because it is a dip**** idea that even the GOP wouldn't dare suggest. Social Security doesn't have a financial problem, the general fund has a financial problem.
    yes, as in it can't pay out to Social Security what it has promised. which means that now, yes, Social Security has a problem. Mind you, it's a problem that pales next to Medicare, but a problem nonetheless. however, the funding doesn't really address that issue - my plan increased by several factors the benefit that would go to low-income workers, and the left wanted no part of helping them get into a better plan.

    Actually, it looked like it was written by a Nobel prize winning economist that wrote it.
    then he sucks at forming tightly written logically consistent article-length arguments.

    Right out of Fascism 101 that one is.
    separating performance from compensation is indeed a facet of corporatism, which is the economic philosophy of Fascism, that is correct.

    If you can't afford education it is of little benefit.
    which would cause me to look askance at the government interference that is responsible for the high inflation in education costs that we have seen lately.

    fortunately, given the raw amount of scholarships and other programs designed specifically to make college more affordable, it generally is to any who is capable and willing to go. one of my good buddies is in his sophomore year right now - the man is a product of the street - raised in a single parent home, dropped out of high school in order to sell drugs, etc. how can he afford school? because he decided to improve himself - so he joined the military.

    Agreed, there is a greater need for more affordable education. It should be a priority.
    definitely. fortunately, there is a proven system for producing superior results with lower costs. it is called competition.

    And so easily solvable, just crack down on the employer's of illegal immigrants.
    agreed 100%. I like what Oklahoma did a few years back.

    It came from a misinterpretation of the Census data.
    what? it came directly from the Census data.

    No, GOP submitted bills to cut family planning, and they wish to cut funding for the support of children after they are born.
    you seem to have "giving people money to engage in irresponsible behavior" confused with "helping them".

    Another good reason not to cut funding for family planning as the GOP has proposed.
    on the contrary; it is a good reason to bring back the notion that you have and raise children in the context of two-parent families.

    You have no clue about the socio-economic reasons for the above list, do you? You see it simply as someone being too lazy to pull himself up by his bootstrap with his own little white hand, right?
    this is called an ad hominem fallacy - it's used when you are incapable of answering the data.

  5. #95
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    While I agree with raising taxes and am against such a high concentration of wealth, let's not forget, during the 1940s and 1950s we had just spent HUGE amounts of money on defense.
    Not sure how that is different than the last decade?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #96
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Not sure how that is different than the last decade?
    Taxes are drastically lowered.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  7. #97
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I couldn't care less as it is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
    Our discussion was about wealth, but if you don't care to discuss it, fine.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #98
    Student Whoppletraps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-25-13 @ 04:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    264

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Who would consider $500K+ middle class?
    A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul

  9. #99
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whoppletraps View Post
    Who would consider $500K+ middle class?
    John McCain.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  10. #100
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: what do YOU consider "middle class"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Inflation in the 70's had nothing to do with the tax rates. Please try again.
    Of course but then you claimed that,"hat we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm."

    I don't know about you but incredibly high inflation, is pretty bad for low to middle income people, otherwise known as, minor economic cataclysm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    30 years of tax policies and cutting regulations, and all favored the wealthy ~ better known as trickle down economics.
    The effective tax rates before Reagan was even elected were marginally higher than they are today.
    The total effective tax rate for the top 10% was 29.6 as opposed to 26.7 in 2007.

    The biggest spread was 37% in 1979 compared to 29.5 in 2007, for the top 1%.

    You think this is what caused the problem, seriously?
    Oh and before you go off on my libertarian source, it's a liberal think tank.

    Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You mean that crap about the working class needs to stop being lazy and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
    Nope, I mean that it's all the fault of Republicans and Reaganomics, all the fault of rich people, all the fault of the top 1%.
    You know, all your ridiculous, unfounded, claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I hope you know the effective rates were still almost twice what they are today for the most wealthy.
    Wrong, as seen in the link above.
    I bet you think that because you don't know the difference between statutory tax rates and effective tax rates.
    Funny, that you try to lecture anyone on the causes of anything, when you're clearly not informed on the basics of the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That's probably why they are also not protesting across the country...........oh, scratch that, they are protesting across the country.
    Great, that's another red herring.
    Protesting ≠ suffering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What am I exaggerating?
    Nearly everything.
    You over emotionalize topics, instead of debating the material.
    It's your modus operandi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Seemingly, anything you cannot respond to is a red herring.
    I responded to everything, including your red herrings.
    Do you even know what a red herring is?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •