- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
assume average cost of living.
Depends on the area someone lives in and the number of people in the family, but I think 50-100k is fine, maybe higher for more expensive areas. For people who own their own business and count business revenues on their own personal income taxes, certainly that number can go up.
I think this kind of demonstrates why the whole idea of basing "middle class" on income is ill-conceived. I make less than 30k a year right now, but I have a nice car (paid off in another 8 months, woot!), I can afford rent, I'm saving for a house, I have a nice cell phone/calling plan, high speed internet, spending money, health insurance, etc....and I receive no government subsistence aid for housing, health care, food, general expenses, etc. Based on the standard view of "middle class" I would fit, but based on income many people would discount me.
Depends on the area someone lives in and the number of people in the family, but I think 50-100k is fine, maybe higher for more expensive areas. For people who own their own business and count business revenues on their own personal income taxes, certainly that number can go up.
I would define it as having a reasonable amount of disposable income in addition to survival expenses being covered, as well as lacking political power. "Upper class" is the above + political power. Lower class is both lacking in disposable income and political power.
If you judge "middle class" based on income level alone, it's not accurate. A person can make 75k but not have disposable income because of the mortgage cost of their house, for example.
i forgot to make this public! can a mod change it?
don't you share expenses with your bf?
I think this kind of demonstrates why the whole idea of basing "middle class" on income is ill-conceived. I make less than 30k a year right now, but I have a nice car (paid off in another 8 months, woot!), I can afford rent, I'm saving for a house, I have a nice cell phone/calling plan, high speed internet, spending money, health insurance, etc....and I receive no government subsistence aid for housing, health care, food, general expenses, etc. Based on the standard view of "middle class" I would fit, but based on income many people would discount me.
If you are not married and have no kids, the federal government would consider you middle class. However, if you had kids, you would be considered working poor. I remember years ago when I was single and earning 32k a year I almost had as much disposable income as I do today, married, with kids, and earning 100k a year. Living is pretty cheap until you have a family.
I think this kind of demonstrates why the whole idea of basing "middle class" on income is ill-conceived. I make less than 30k a year right now, but I have a nice car (paid off in another 8 months, woot!), I can afford rent, I'm saving for a house, I have a nice cell phone/calling plan, high speed internet, spending money, health insurance, etc....and I receive no government subsistence aid for housing, health care, food, general expenses, etc. Based on the standard view of "middle class" I would fit, but based on income many people would discount me.
assume average cost of living.
Which is why I won't be having a child right now. I can't afford to provide for a family with my income
Which is why I won't be having a child right now. I can't afford to provide for a family with my income...at least not while maintaining the flexibility I have now. I see no reason to pop out a kid or two and then struggle or relegate myself to government aid to get by. In a year or two my income will almost double and my financial obligations will decrease in other arenas. At that point I'll consider children.