• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

what do YOU consider "middle class"?

what do you consider "middle class"?

  • 25k - 50k

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • 25k - 75k

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • 40k - 100k

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • 50k - 100k

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • 50k - 125k

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • 500k +

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    36
liblady

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
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 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.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Around where I live would say 25,000-50,000 a year depending if you are single or have a family.
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

i forgot to make this public! can a mod change it?

don't you share expenses with your bf?
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah...think average col.
 
Temporal said:
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.
Click to expand...

not really......75k is middle class income for a family of four (IMO), how a person spends that 75k is another thing.
 
liblady said:
i forgot to make this public! can a mod change it?

don't you share expenses with your bf?
Click to expand...

I do, which gives me more capacity to save and spend than I'd have without his income, but I can technically survive on my own in an apartment that's less than $600/month, which is easily done down here. His income would put us in the 40k-100k category, but we both came into the relationship self-sustaining and have worked to make sure we stay that way (just in case).
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Are we talking for an individual, or for a married couple? For an individual, I'd say $25K - $75K is middle class. For a married couple...probably $40K-$100K.

And I disagree that it depends on where you live, or the number of people in the family (beyond the wage-earners themselves). Because people can choose to have 0 kids or 5 kids...and they can choose to live in rural Indiana or Manhattan. This is one of my pet peeves about some of my friends here in the DC area, who are fond of bitching that they'd be rich if they lived somewhere else in the country...well, they chose NOT to. I view it as akin to a guy with a Ferrari who complains that he's poorer than a guy with an equal income who has a Chevy Cavalier, because his car payments are higher.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was actually basing that on a family of four, not an individual. Myself and my wife make significantly more than that but I wouldn't consider us rich by any means, we're comfortable. We live in a house that is, at least last time I looked, worth about a million and a half. We can buy a new car whenever we need to, bought one this year, thinking of replacing mine next year. I have the ability to go out and spend whatever I want to spend, when I want to spend it. I still consider myself middle class, just at the upper end.
 
I would say 40k to around 80k a year is middle class. I voted 40-100 though.
 
tessaesque said:
Which is why I won't be having a child right now. I can't afford to provide for a family with my income
Click to expand...

you just explained why those in this income group are not middle class. a middle class salary allows the worker the option of having a child without being destitute.

i'm in the same boat. i simply can't afford to have a child.

that's not middle class.
 
Income is a poor indicator of class.

Anyone who is obsessed with how much income someone else makes simply has no class.
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

The economy being what it is I would not count on your income doubling in a year or two. That said, I agree that people should not choose to have kids until they can afford to do so. However, once you have kids, purchase a home and so on, you will then qualify for various tax deductions and credits that will reduce your tax liabilities. That is the beauty of a progressive tax system. When you are starting out, your taxes are lower because your disposable income is lower (most of your money goes to living expenses). As you earn more, your taxes go up, but then when you have kids they go down again until your kids are grown and out of the home, and then they go up again. Basically, the tax system currently doesn't punish the poor, lets people keep more of their money when they are raising kids (when they really need more money), but the trade off is that you pay more once your kids our out of the home and you thus have far more disposable income. The tax code is far more complicated than it should be, but the basic premise of it - while not perfect - is far better than any of the alternatives.
 
Last edited:
The definition of "middle class" would vary by region. For example, $50-$100k annual income might be fine for a family of four in the mid-west, but a family of four living in San Francisco, NYC, Miami, and other expensive areas would be economically stressed just to provide the basics. A family of four living on $25K a year is not middle-class anywhere; it's poverty-level existance.
 
Last edited:
I really hope someone reads that article I posted from the Atlantic. Especially my fellow liberals :).
 
Well, doesn't look like anyone is voting the high end. It always makes me :roll: when people talk about $200,000 - $250,000 middle class people. When you're making 4-5 times the national average it's not middle class anymore. Yeah, I know, noone wants to admit that they are rich because relative to some richer person they see themselves as poor. But if you're making that money, while you're not a billionaire, you're far ahead of most people.
 
In NYC, I think you're middle class when you have a single income of at least 60k or combined of at least 100k.

othe parts of the country, less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom