KRUGMAN: "do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?"

[kpete]

The Social Contract
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 22, 2011

.....................

On one side, we have the claim that the rising share of taxes paid by the rich shows that their burden is rising, not falling. To point out the obvious, the rich are paying more taxes because they’re much richer than they used to be. When middle-class incomes barely grow while the incomes of the wealthiest rise by a factor of six, how could the tax share of the rich not go up, even if their tax rate is falling?

On the other side, we have the claim that the rich have the right to keep their money — which misses the point that all of us live in and benefit from being part of a larger society.

............................................

Republicans claim to be deeply worried by budget deficits. Indeed, Mr. Ryan has called the deficit an “existential threat” to America. Yet they are insisting that the wealthy — who presumably have as much of a stake as everyone else in the nation’s future — should not be called upon to play any role in warding off that existential threat.

Well, that amounts to a demand that a small number of very lucky people be exempted from the social contract that applies to everyone else. And that, in case you’re wondering, is what real class warfare looks like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/krugman-the-social-contract.html?_r=1

[SlimJimmy]

1. For a couple making 250K in New York City or San Francisco, it may

feel like class warfare. At best, they are upper middle class given the financial demographics of these cities.

[My Good Babushka]

7. They can go cry on their nannies and door men. nt

[SlimJimmy]

13. Do you really think a couple making 250K in New York have a nanny or a doorman?

Get real.

[Orrex]

21. Any couple that can't get by on $250K doesn't deserve $250K

Because I can guarantee you a family of four lives within a mile of them and gets by on $25K.


Stick that in your doorman and nanny it.

[SlimJimmy]

22. And I guarantee that a family in central florida has one hell of a smaller

cost of living on the same 250K. I guess you just want your facts to be true? Well, it doesn't work that way.

[Orrex]

24. Again, if a couple can't scrape by on $250K, then that couple doesn't deserve $250K

Your point about Florida is pointless, because we were talking about New York. You're claiming that $250K doesn't represent significant wealth for a couple in NYC, and I'm (correctly, I might add) pointing out that families of 4+ are get by on far less just a few blocks away from those beleaguered $250K earners.

Why are you so determined to argue that quarter-million is a much smaller sum than it really is, when in fact it's a much larger income than most people will ever see? Why do you howl about the tribulations of the $250K crowd at the expense of those who are subsisting on a small fraction of that amount?



I guess you just want facts to be untrue? Well, it doesn't work that way.

[On the Road]

30. SlimJimmy is Not Saying They Can't Scrape by

or even that their taxes shouldn't go up a little. I think we all agree they can and they should.

$250K for a family with kids (more like $150K after FICA and taxes) supports a middle-class lifestyle in those places. If you really expect people in Manhattan and downtown SF to have doormen and maids on that salary, you are not in touch with the realities of those places.

[DrunkenBoat]

63. Median income for men in NYC is $37K. Median household income in the richest census tract in the

city = $188K.

A family making $250K in NYC is not "leading a middle class lifestyle". They are leading an upper-middle-class lifestyle or better, and they're better off than 90% of the population of NYC.

[Tunkamerica]

80. stop pulling reality into the argument. Commentor thinks everyone is like him/her.

[Enthusiast]

82. Yes, stop doing that!

:rofl:

Like on right wing sites we are to accept Republican talking points and just shut up.

[DrunkenBoat]

93. I don't know how people can say things like that with a straight face.

It's the top 5% even in NYC.

[Tunkamerica]

94. It's easier when you're in that 5%

[October]

96. Where is the link for those figures?

[DrunkenBoat]

102. Here

New York City has a high degree of income disparity. In 2005 the median household income in the wealthiest census tract was $188,697, while in the poorest it was $9,320.<217>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Demographics

New York City's per capita income in 2000 was $22,402; men and women had a median income of $37,435 and $32,949 respectively.

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

[SlimJimmy]

112. So they should be taxed more? Are we taxing the middle and upper middle class more now?

Is that the President's plan? He keeps saying only millionaires and billionaires, but it seems to me that his plan is reaching well below those levels.

When he gets down to 100k, 50k? Will you be against it then? Or do you think we *all* should be paying more taxes?

[SlimJimmy]

127. Are they *rich*. Are they the millionaires and billionaires of which the

President speaks? Lame.

[SlimJimmy]

45. Waving your hands and running in circles is not a good debating method.

My whole point was that there is *quite* a difference between 250K in NYC and 250K in central Florida. One family *might* be considered rich while the other is clearly middle class. It depends on where they live. The entire point of this discussion concerned those who are considered rich and *who* should pay higher taxes - not who can or cannot survive on a given amount. The entire point of this thread has eluded you. Why am I not surprised?

By the way, who are you kidding?

In 2006 the average weekly wage in Manhattan was $1,453, the highest and fastest growing among the largest counties in the United States.

That's $75,556 per year.

[Jakes Progress]

48. Being totally unaware of what it costs to live is not a good basis for your point.

I just spent two weeks with a couple with two children who live in Manhatten and make less than half what you consider to be "scraping by". They eat out regularly. They hire a girl to pick up their children after school. They can afford to eat organic. They have a nice life. They would not be affected by the tax. They agree that if they had twice as much, they would feel rich.

I think you are just out of touch and spoiled. Yes it costs more to live in Manhattan than rural Arkansas. Why would you think that is a newsflash to anyone? That is not the idea of this thread. The idea is that a quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money. It is more than 95% of the people in the country make. If their taxes go up a few percent, they will still have much more than my friends who consider themselves lucky and doing well.

If your quarter million isn't going as far as you want it, maybe you could consider moving to Cleveland. Or San Angelo. If you choose to live in a very expensive place, that is just that....your choice. I don't have to subsidize your choice to live there.

Maybe you could use your wealth to buy a clue as to why your insensitive and out-of-touch remarks draw such scorn.

And by the way. Why would you use your undocumented shade box quote to undermine your own argument? $75K is a long way from a quarter million.

[whathehell]

95. Just a thought, but

a people can't always "choose" where to live..They often

need to go where the job is.

"If you choose to live in a very expensive place, that is just that....your choice. I don't have to subsidize your choice to live there".

[fishwax]

117. well, that's true for many people, but

a people can't always "choose" where to live..They often

need to go where the job is.

it falls a bit flat in this case. Somebody making 250k per year does not have to live in Manhattan, even if that's where the job is.

[latebloomer]

133. If you make $250K in NYC you could move to any NYC suburb

and do very well on your $250K.

Nothing forces you to stay in Manhattan.

[SlimJimmy]

107. Congratulations, you'vr just bought into the class warfare argument as well. I wonder how

many progressives here and elsewhere would do the same thing if the President called for these taxes on those making 250k or more more publicly?

And yet another person who doesn't know that "Google" has a search feature. I left it undocumented on purpose to see how many would complain that I didn't provide a cite for the amount. And don't even start with the "You are required to cite all work". This is a newsgroup, not a term paper.

[Orrex]

52. Well Mr Moneybags, don't forget to tip your doorman

I could start by mentioning that you entirely missed the point of the "doormen and nannies" comment up-thread, which you took as literal but which was in fact a rather straightforward caricature of a lifestyle that would be characterized as "rich" by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population. The fact that you can't already see this means that you'll probably never understand it.

Second, your unattributed blurb about average wage is preposterous on two counts:
1. An average is just that: an average. If four people make $25K per year and one person makes $100K, then the average income is $40K, which is 160% of the income earned by most in this example.

2. $75,556 is less than a third of the income that you think it takes to scrape by in NYC. In posting this helpful statistic, you just decimated your primary argument, such as it was.


And, again, why are you advocating for the bottom segment of the "two percenters" rather than for the "ninety eighters?" Do you think that the wealthiest fraction of society really needs your help?

[SlimJimmy]

106. You have consistantly missed my point in this thread by a mile.

I'm not advocating for any income level. I'm asking the President to be honest. If he intends to tax those making more than 250k, then say so. Stop saying that only millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share. Say what you really mean, and intend to do.

You are the one starting and buying in to the the very thing that we say we don't do - class warfare. Well congratulations, you've been used.

And a simple "Google" search would have given you the cite. I left that work to you for a reason. You confirmed what I thought when you didn't do it.

[Major Nikon]

114. He does say so

It's right in the text of the bill he presented. Are you wanting him to read all 155 pages of it to you?

[SlimJimmy]

121. But not a word in any speech. And that is what folks remember. They

don't generally read the text of bills sent to Congress. You and I both know that he needs to be very specific about who he intends to tax - in his speeches. That's not happening, and it will be to his detriment in the long run.

[Major Nikon]

122. Perhaps for those who read too much into it

For the vast majority, not so much.

[SlimJimmy]

125. Nothing to read into. He said millionaires and billionaires. That seems pretty f'ing clear to me.

Feel free to show me any speech where the president said those making down to 250k.

[JDPriestly]

77. SlimJimmy, how much money a family needs to live can depend on

so many factors -- such as the support network available to them. If your mom or your mother-in-law picks the kids up after school every day and cares for them while you and your spouse work, you may need a lot less money than your neighbor who has absolutely no family on which to rely.

If you inherit a house or a condo in an area with good schools, or if you get a really great deal on rent in such an area, you may be able to save the money that another family spends on private schools or transportation to school or tutors or just providing additional opportunities for their children. Sometimes when both parents work, the family's income is higher, but their costs are also higher. Families in which both parents work at pretty demanding jobs full-time may be more likely to send their children to after-school care and summer camp for a hefty price.

The term middle class is used to refer to a broad range of lifestyles and incomes in my opinion.

As a result, most people consider themselves to be middle class. I notice that my peers who grew up in relatively well-to-do families expect a better lifestyle than people in my family do. If your father made a middle-class living working at GM back in the 1950s-1970s, you will define "middle-class" as including a lower income level than if your father made a "middle-class" income working as a corporate lawyer or a surgeon in a big city. Both are middle-class when compared to the very poor and very wealthy, but they may not perceive each other as middle-class.

One thing is undeniable, the higher your income, the more you probably spend, and barring some unusual circumstance such as a health problem in your family, the more income you can invest or spend on discretionary things.

[SlimJimmy]

105. I heard the President speak again today. He said "All I'm asking is that

millionaires and billionaires pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher." So, again, I say to the President. Say what you intend to do, Sir. Don't play games with words. If you intend to raise the taxes on those making more than 250k, please be honest and say so. Shading the truth is going to hurt us more than help us.

That's been my point in this thread, and not more than two people have understood that. Everyone seems to want to tell me how easy is it for those making 250k or more. That's the start of class warfare. The very thing we say we *aren't* doing.

[Major Nikon]

115. What do you think the income level of a millionaire is?

Millionaire refers to how much wealth a person owns, not their income. Most millionaires and billionaires (although certainly not all) are going to have incomes in the top tier, which is the tier that Obama is proposing a tax hike on. Someone with an AGI of $250K married filing jointly would see very little tax increase, if any. Income over that amount would see tax increases. That's how marginal tax rates work. So maybe you capture a few people who aren't millionaires that will see small tax increases, and maybe you'll fail to capture some millionaires and billionaires that make less than $250K in a given year and see no tax increases, but by and large you are targeting millionaires and billionaires with this tax increase. Since we don't tax people based on their wealth, that's the only legal way to do it. Nothing dishonest about it. It's simply reducing a 155 page bill to language most people will easily understand, YMMV.

[SlimJimmy]

126. Please, show me a millionaire or billionaire (even better) making 250k a year.

You can't be serious.

[Major Nikon]

128. No problem

Not only are there plenty of millionaires making $250K, most of them make less than that.

PORTRAIT Of A MILLIONAIRE

Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?

...

* Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000 . Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

And don't call me serious.

Cheers!

[SlimJimmy]

131. 130,000 annual income, my ass. And this is just one example.

Name: Mark and Laurel S.
Location: Austin, Texas
Ranking: 6 Star Golden Circles, 2 Star Crystal Executives
As Of: June 2011
Date Started Business: January 2003
Average Annual Income: $814,465

http://www.isagenix.com/ww/en/community_mark_laurel.dhtml

[Major Nikon]

135. Wow! You refute extensive research by a best selling Ph.D with what you just pulled out of your ass

Nice job. :crazy:

The book was published in 1996, so sure some of the income figures aren't up to date, but the basic premise is sound. Most millionaires get there through living below their means and saving, not by having extravagant incomes. And those who earn $250K or more over long periods of time who aren't millionaires, certainly had the opportunity to become one, so the net effect on income tax policy is the same.

You could have simply not replied and I would have taken your silence as tacit admission that you had no idea what you're talking about, but you actually went to the trouble to author one of the most lame retorts I've seen in quite some time. The entertainment value alone deserves commendation. Completely ignoring relevant evidence while favoring what you just pulled out of your ass is also a GOP trait. I'm starting to think that if you aren't a GOP plant, you really should be.

Good day and good bye!

[SlimJimmy]

136. The millionaitres and billionaires that the President is referring to

aren't the ones whose *assets* equal a million or more. He is referring to those that earn nearly a million or more as annual income. Many people in the United States (particularly small business owners and farmers) have assets that total more than a million. He was referring to the people like the one I profiled in my response who made over 800k a year as income. Total failure on your part. But I'm not surprised. You've been dead wrong this entire thread.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SlimJimmy]

139. I just did. (nt)

[SmileyRose]

28. +1

[julian09]

47. That is what the doorman makes

[Tunkamerica]

86. you really think so?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. If they are a qualified Sanctified Straight 'couple' making 250K

they do not pay any more taxes. The higher rates would apply to income above 250K. Adjusted incomes over 250K, no less. So if they got a raise and made 300K they'd pay more on the 50K that is in excess of 250, not on the entire amount. Such couples ought to be smart enough to understand that, if not, their CPA should be able to explain it to them.
That would apply to about 1 household in 50. So if it is 50 to 1, I'd suggest that if they 'feel it is like warfare' they should surrender at once, for they are greatly outnumbered, and they are fussing over not just a few dollars, but a few dollars MORE.
But to repeat, a 'Rick Warren Approved Sacramental Straight couple' making 250k does not reach the level for a tax increase under the current proposal. I am never impressed with people with high incomes who can not count and read.

[SlimJimmy]

12. I don't think anyone making under a million dollars needs to be paying more in taxes during this

downturn in the economy. If the President wants to raise taxes on couples making 250K or more, then he should be honest and say so. I'm getting very tired of all politicians shading the truth.

[Jakes Progress]

49. Gee. That's what billo says too.

And rush. And most of the GOP. Hmmm.

[SlimJimmy]

108. Mmmmm yourself. I have a mind and an opinion all my own. If you want

group think, I'd suggest you go to a site other than DU.

[keopeli]

53. You need a reality check, I do believe.

Someone making a million dollars is likely paying a lower rate than someone making 50k, if for no other reason than they can afford a CPA to negotiate the loopholes. (There are many other reasons and methods I'm omitting.)

As I see it, your PoV is from one of two perspectives:

Either you are wealthy or you socialize in wealthy circles and you are taking the tax increase personally instead of seeing the big picture OR you are not wealthy and are unaware of what true wealth in this country is and means, in which case your pity on the rich is likely attributed to envy. You want what they have so much that you actually believe that by "helping" them, you're helping yourself.

Personally, I have many wealthy friends, while I live right above the poverty line myself. My wealthy friends who are a-political or are moderates, independents and Democrats all believe their taxes should go up! My wealthy friends who are politically conservative mostly chuckle when they discuss keeping their taxes unreasonably low. "Nobody blames me for not wanting to pay taxes. Who does?" Sound selfish? It is.

Look up from your place in the world and see the big picture. No one knows what taxes will be like in 10 or 15 years. But, right now, they need to be significantly higher on the wealthy among us.

Peace

[Lorien]

65. Especially if their wealth comes from their investments

then it's not taxed as income, it's taxed as capital gains.

[SlimJimmy]

113. The reality is that the President plans to raise taxes on a signifcant number of folks who are not

millionaires or billionaires. I don't believe that is good policy. And he apparently agrees since he is not mentioning that fact in any speech he is giving. If he were honest, we'd be hearing all about the plan to raise taxes on those making 250k or better. I'm getting very tired of politicians of all stripes talking out of both sides of their mouths. And that has been my point this entire thread.

And to answer your question, I don't make anything approaching 250k a year. But I do make a decent living, and believe I am paying my fair share of federal taxes.

[hfojvt]

54. what does the economy have to do with it?

People making $350,000 are not hurting just because the economy is bad. The bad economy means that millions of people do not have jobs. Those are the people who are hurting - the ones who don't have jobs, and I am quite sure that 99.999% of THEM are making much, much less than $250,000 a year.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

67. Setting it at $250k is more progressive.

And therefor history suggests it will be more beneficial to the economy. I am not concerned about the livability of $250k, even in NYC or California.

[Tunkamerica]

87. under a million? seriously? what % of people make over a million a year? 5? 7?

[gtar100]

25. That's the part that all the repugs try to blow smoke over.

A progressive tax system is not about increasing the percentage on the entire amount, yet given the chance, that's what they portray it as. Even if the highest tax bracket were back at 91%, anyone making more money enough to get to that tax bracket would still be earning more net income. I wish more people got that. You said it brilliantly.

[JHB]

9. They aren't the problem. It's the multimillionaires and billionaires

The whole "above 250K" issue comes from lumping the "doing well" into the same basket as the unequivocally rich.

How about we go back to 24 brackets instead of just the few we have now? That's what we had back during the Cold War, when apparently we were communists and the Soviets were the evenmorecommunistier communists.

[SlimJimmy]

11. The problem, as I see it, is that President Obama's plan includes a tax increase for couples

making 250K or more. We keep hearing about how millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share (and I agree with the President on that) but the nuts and bolts of the plan take the threshold well below the million dollar mark.

[SmileyRose]

31. A couple making $250G's a year SHOULD be a millionaire

Unless the idiots are just flinging cash around like it grows on trees it only takes a few modest investments at that level to quickly mushroom into more than $1 Million.

Millionaires and Billionaires refers to the ability to amass wealth, not paycheck income.

[subterranean]

73. How much would taxes go up for a couple making $250K?

Can you answer that? What about a couple making $300K a year?

[Major Nikon]

118. Most likely zero

It wouldn't be much for a couple making $300K and it would still be considerably less than they would have paid when Reagan was presidunce.

[SlimJimmy]

17. That's my view as well. Although I would be more in favor of a flat tax with persons below a

certain income level exempt.

[defendandprotect]

38. We need progressive taxation -- no flat tax -- earn more, pay more ... no taxes on poor ... !!!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

69. The only thing more regressive than a flat tax is our current system where

many filthy rich pay nothing. Also, the cap on FICA should be doubled.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Doremus]

23. $250K is within the top 20%. 80% of the populace earns less.

Just trying to keep things in perspective ...

[phiddle]

42. Not accurate

$250,000 Household income per year is in the top 1% with 99% of the households earning less.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

[happyslug]

43. Only 1,5% of the population earn more than $250,000, not 20 %

In fact only 14.3% of the population earn more than $100,000

50% of the population earn less than $44,389 in 2005

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

In 2010 HOUSEHOLD median income was $49,445

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

In 2010 the top 20% of HOUSEHOLDS earn more than $100,065, the top 5% of HOUSEHOLDS are earning more than $180,810. Thus $250,000 income are still less than 1.5% of the population

To access 2010 income tables for HOUSEHOLDS:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/index.html

[Tunkamerica]

81. I was going to say... I don't know anyone making that. Not even the GM of my station.

[JVS]

61. They are the problem. The problem is that over 50% of the population seem to think that...

with a couple of raises and maybe a good investment or two they and their spouse are going to be one of the 250K couples. And that's when they they start voting as though it's an inevitability and making sure that when they enter that top 1.5% that life will be fucking sweet for them and they won't have to pay all their money in taxes to all the bums who weren't special enough to make it.

The outright plutocrat can be out-voted, but that huge chunk of morons who go for the $250K bait are the biggest obstacle to positive change.

[provis99]

29. boo hoo. They can live in Washington Heights or the Lower East Side.

or if they can't cut it in New York on $250,000 per year, move to fucking North Dakota, where the cost of living is cheaper.

The only rich people I hear whining about being poor more than New Yorkers do, are people from San Francisco.

[JVS]

40. Maybe they should learn to fucking commute.

[October]

97. They do -- which costs literally thousands in tolls per year...

Or train fare...subway... busses...


The East Coast is very expensive.

[fishwax]

51. it may feel like it, but it's not

certainly not class warfare against the rich. If the couple making 250k (which is still well above the median income for even the wealthiest district of Manhattan, let alone all of New York City) feels like they're only middle class, that is likely a consequence of class warfare in the other direction, leaving New York City one of the places of greatest income disparity. But however it feels to the the couple making 250k in NYC or SF, they should be aware that there are plenty of people living in the same city on 10% of that (or less).

[Taft_Bathtub]

55. You have no idea what class warfare is

Try living paycheck to paycheck and going bankrupt because you had the nerve to get sick.

[SlimJimmy]

137. So you are pissed off at the mid-level executive that makes 250k and didn't get sick? That

just doesn't make sense.

[ErikJ]

56. Rent $10,000 a month? = $120,000 /year

So they got $130,000 to play with. Sounds rich to me.

Anybody in the top 2% is by DEFINITION rich no mattter WHERE they live in the US. .

[October]

98. Interesting math. So you think they NET $250K?

[enki23]

58. Jesus christ, that's your first thought about this?

I am beyond fucking sick this genre. This, "gosh, barely making it into upper middle class in the most expensive places to live I can think of right now that might sound relevant to someone as moronic as I imagine the hoi polloi must be" horseshit. Anyone who thinks it's fucking relevant at all whether "they" consider themselves to be "upper class" or "barely upper middle class" has no fucking idea what it is to be a median citizen in this nation, much less below.

Take this from someone who actually knows at least a little about what it means to grow up poor, what with the limousine government cheese and the welfare queen free school lunches and the unaccepted full academic scholarship to a prestigious private college because it was determined that his family couldn't afford for him to live in fucking Cambridge to take advantage of it. You don't want to see the sort of class warfare I have in mind.

[Enthusiast]

85. "Jesus christ, that's your first thought about this?"

But look how effectively it has shut down the discussion. Mission accomplished.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. I had to check...Oh, yeah it's a thread about a Krugman column.

:argh:

[October]

99. Everyone struggles. We all have stories.Only the top 1% doesn't, at least not money struggle stories

[Yavin4]

59. I Live in NYC, and I've Lived in SF. 98% of the Entire Population Lives On Far Less than $250K

This is huge myth that everyone in SF and NYC lives on $250K.

In NYC, there's a huge working class population. People work 2 and 3 jobs.

[DrunkenBoat]

62. Oh, please. Median income in NYC = $37K for men, $32K for women.

Even in the WEALTHIEST census tract in the city, median HOUSEHOLD income = $188K.

A family making $250K in NYC is not upper middle class "at best," they are upper middle class FOR SURE.

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

[juajen]

66. You might want to add Seattle to that list. This is very true. Everything

is very expensive in those cities, from food to housing, etc.

[DrunkenBoat]

92. Seattle? Baloney. Median family income is $62K. Median male income = $40K.

I know lots of people in Seattle, young & old, and none make anywhere near $250K combined income.

[NWLib]

70. That's a tired strawman at best.....................

Bottom line: 66% of individuals make 40k or less. That's a solid majority. 96 to 97% of individuals make 100k or less. That's the vast majority of EVERYONE. If you're pulling in household income of 250k I don't care where you live you are NOT upper or any other brand of middle class. You are in the top 3 or 4%. It is way past time we all figured out that we are part of a vast society of workers blue and white collar both who have an overwhelming majority and should be making an impact in our society. Pretending a couple making 250k is middle class isn't helping. And no I don't give a shit what rents are in SF or NY. Live in the Bay Area? Make 250k? Don't live in an upperclass neighboorhood in SF. Simple.

[JDPriestly]

79. There are two ways of thinking about wealth.

One is mathematical -- how much do you earn, how much does the average person earn -- a pretty simple matter.

The other is -- how much does it take you to live a fairly good life.

If a couple with two children earn $60,000 a year, live in a small town in the Midwest in a 1500 square foot house a few houses away from their parents who pick the kids up after school every day and take care of the kids when they are sick and, in addition, have great public schools, they may be able to live better than a family that lives in an expensive but minuscule Manhattan apartment far from family with no inexpensive support systems earning $250,000.

So, a family earning "only" $250,000 in Manhattan might actually have less quality of life on that money than a family living on $60,000 in small town USA -- especially if there is a good college or university in the small town on top of all the other advantages.

Money is not the only measure of your lifestyle.

But of course for the economist and for tax law, all incomes have to be treated the same. So middle class is defined by economists and Congress strictly by money amount, but the reality is that the lifestyle one person can afford on $250,000 is not the same as the lifestyle another person can afford.

Best policy for everyone is to be realistic about how much your money can buy in your personal situation and live within your means.

[Major Nikon]

119. Nobody has to live in Manhattan

If someone lives in Manhattan it's because they want to live in Manhattan.

[subterranean]

72. They needn't worry. Obama hasn't proposed raising that couple's taxes by one dime.

It is only on income ABOVE $250K that taxes would increase, and then only by a few percentage points, to pre-Bush levels. All income up to $250K would still be taxed at the current rates. For some reason, that's a point many people seem to have difficulty grasping.

[Zorra]

74. If they'd learn how to manage their money reasonably well, it would not feel

like class warfare.

Helpful Household Hints for the budgetarily challenged well to do: Move out of the Upper East Side, sell the Mercedes and the Jag and get a second hand Ford Fusion and maybe a Civic, nix the membership at the Country Club, sell the vacation home in the Hamptons, take the kids out of Phillip's Academy, and downgrade just a bit from the Prada and Versace.

Major, unspeakable sacrifices, I know; but really, they'd be amazed at how much they could save!

[Tunkamerica]

78. whitewhine?

[Enthusiast]

88. I was going to add your name to 'the list'.

I found you're already on there.:rofl:

[DrunkenBoat]

90. Median income for men in NYC = $37K.

[krispos42]

2. Can't... rec... more... than... once...

Gah!


*Rubs his sore finger*

[Drale]

3. It is a redistribution of wealth

to the upper classes.

[krispos42]

4. No, only socialists do that!

This is... um...






er...






hmmm....




Ah! "natural market forces". Yeah, that's it.

[SlimJimmy]

5. We'll just call it *reverse socialism* then. That has a nice ring to it.

[krispos42]

10. Aha! "Anti-socialism".

There ya go! Sounds nice and patriotic...

[JVS]

60. Asocialism

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MedicalAdmin]

91. The going rate according to one source I read is 25 cents a post...

Thus the flame bombs and inflammatory language.

Its a job much like being a repo man, or an insurance claims denier, or IME. You get paid tO be a scumbag.

I know I couldn't do it but them again I own a mirror and a conscience.

[xchrom]

6. Recommend

[angel823]

14. Recommend

Krugman nails it again.

Angel in Texas

[Johnny2X2X]

15. Amazing

No one said the rich were stupid, they're smart enough to get millions of poor and middle class Tea Baggers to feel sorry for them and do their bidding.

That said, I though Obama was on the right path when he started talking about $1 Million a year. There is no doubt those people are rich while $250,000 creates doubt in some people's minds. Bump the threshold up to $400 or $500 K and the only argument the Right will have is the "job creators" one. Exempt small businesses much further up than that and that argument gets mostly shot down too.

[newspeak]

103. yeah, some of the teabaggers think being fair

is when the poor must pay even though they struggle to afford shelter or "put food on their families." a hundred dollars could be life or death for the working poor, but not even a blink for someone who is wealthy.

Some believe that a tax on food is fair, but property tax is unfair--because the poor or working poor can't afford property but those with means do. Their whole philosophy is so screwed up-no empathy or some have never been in someone else's shoes.

[ck4829]

16. Who is sharing the sacrifice? Who is cutting back? Not the wealthy. K&R.

[HughBeaumont]

18. "Shared Sacrifice" = "I take YOUR 'Share' . . . YOU 'Sacrifice'!"

See how that works?

[fishwax]

19. k/r

:kick:

[louslobbs]

20. K$R lol, class warfare against the rich now that's rich.

Lou

[DaveJ]

26. ** dupe **

[DaveJ]

27. It's really a weird campaign

Who would ever think "Tax breaks for the rich!" could be a campaign slogan? Unless they are actually trying to loose.

The Republican campaign approach is so dumb I don't even see how Republicans can buy into it.

This is sort of off topic, but in regard to job creation they keep talking about, don't businesses hire people when hiring makes them money? I do not understand this point that companies would hire more if they were taxed less. Makes no sense. They do not hire people just because they have some extra money on their hands. If hiring makes them money, they are going to hire, regardless of taxes.

[SmileyRose]

33. We got uppity - we are being punished.

[Cresent City Kid]

41. The yardstick of logic can't measure the volume of ignorance

They mostly replace "the rich" with "the American People" in your slogan. They usually avoid defending the rich out loud, just a few words about "job creators" when pressed, which the Dems don't do enough.

It's an easy to spin narrative that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, or get enough scrutiny to keep it from coming back. This plan will be sold as change when we're living in a decade's worth of its devastation, and schmucks will buy it.

[Martin Eden]

32. Krugman sums it up succinctly, as usual. K&R n/t

[avaistheone1]

34. LOL

On the spot. Thank you Mr Krugman.

[lonestarnot]

35. I can barely force my eyes to read this truth. Bastards!

K & R!

[defendandprotect]

36. Wealthy look like what they are ... beneficiaries of government subsidies, largess ... !!!

[johnaries]

37. Krugman - sometimes I love him, sometimes I don't. Right now,

I'm loving him.

It IS Class Warfare, and the Upper Class fired the first shots a long, long time ago.

[defendandprotect]

39. Who are the beneficiaries of our MIC/Imperialism ... warprofiteering --- ?????

[Initech]

44. Actually yes because they're winning. Wars usually have two sides.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

46. Adopt a Job Creator

http://youtu.be/xVwbYB2JfDU

[Jakes Progress]

50. K&R for solid thinking.

[DeSwiss]

57. Now that you mention it......

...no they don't look like class warfare victims......



K&R

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Reading the first half of this thread ...

demonstrates how many are confused about what the class war really is. Whether you are making $25,000 or $250,000, if that income comes in the form of wages rather you are in the same class. Granted one groups is doing much better than the other, but your interests are the same and the people waging war against you are the same ... the wealthy; whose income is passively "earned", i.e., earned off your labor.

[The Magistrate]

68. Very True, Sir

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. And the pitiful part is ...

DUers will spend days, if not weeks, casting ourselves as the bigger victim when all are victims.

I'm starting to believe that that is just a liberal trait.

[The Magistrate]

76. It Is A Symptom Of A Larger Confusion, Sir

People do not look at the matter of class squarely in this country, and, by and large, also lack any comprehension of what real wealth is. The tale is that this is a society without class boundaries, and that hard work is the respected route to prosperity and wealth: the facts are that this is a stratified society, in fact one in which the stratifications are growing increasingly more rigid; and that work, and the people who do it, are held in contempt, while the sharpster and the grifter are honored; and that damned near the surest way to a life of straitened circumstances, and often outright poverty, is to dedicate oneself to working hard at hard work.

People generally knowing, in their bones if not in so many words, what the actual facts of a society around them are, most are quite reluctant to identify themselves with their actual status as workers, members of the working class, and so the idea that 'middle class' is a measure of income arises, and has a collision, fortunate or unfortunate depending on ones point of view, with a very inaccurate perception of what the actual patterns of income, and its sources, are.

But 'middle class' is actually just a bastardization of bourgeoisie, or persons who make their living from the proceeds of a stock of capital, usually in trade or manufacturing or lending, or a body of knowledge, such as medicine or law or accounting, or even pedagogy. A person who sells labor, however skilled or at however dear a price, is not and cannot be classed as a member of the bourgeoisie.

What the United States had, for a period of several decades after President Roosevelt's New Deal was a prosperous working class, and large elements of this prosperous working class sold its birthright for a mess of racial and culture war cant sold by propagandists for the plutocrats perched on the pinnacles of wealth in this society. We no longer have a prosperous working class,and on present lines of development, are unlikely to ever see such a thing again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. Well stated ...

How about posting your comment (maybe in a expanded version) as an original thread. I think more DUers should read it; but then again, I don't know how many would handle being told they were sold, and they enthuiastical bought, a lie.

As you eloquently state, the "American Dream" of the resultant (upward) social mobility of hard work is an illusion . And I think a lot of the angst bubbling up to the surface in today's society, is the awakening of an increasingly formerly higher incomed working class (affectionately, known as the middle class).

As you mentioned that "working class sold its birthright for a mess of racial and culture war ...", I agree; and find this a natural reaction to a shattered dream. But I believe in many ways the African-American journey in America (and no doubt that of other minority groups, but I can't say because I am less familiar with other groups) can be somewhat instructive, as the majority of us grow up with a completely different bedtime story.

[October]

100. ! Excellent.

[upi402]

75. Yeah, no shit

Screw them. I'm fed the fuck up with that tired meme.

The traitorous media repeats their lies, the rich are the job creators.

Maybe jobs for Chinese wage slaves repressed by an authoritarian government..,,!

There's that.

[DonCoquixote]

83. for the 250k people who are stretched

Part of that reason is because the system is set to ensure you are stretched. Why do you think that rents got so high in the first place? because the billionaires and millionaires not only WANT it that way, they NEED it that way to keep YOU from being in a position to threaten them! If you are in the 250k to less than a million, chances are you make your money doing the work that these millionaire pieces of crap get credit for. You know the type, the office out of Dilbert where everyone knows the boss is CLUELESS, and would not be able to do JACK without the people working for him. Yet, that person went to the Ivy league School, the right church, the right social group, so no matter how competent you are, that person will always be ahead of you! If you make thousands, it is only so he can make millions!

So, how will Brad or Buffy make sure you stay in your place? First, they will make sure any attempt at housing prices and rent control is a JOKE. The fact that you have to piss away most of what you make in rent is NOT an accident, but by design! Why do you think they want all taxes to be sales and property taxes?, because those are the ones that will target YOUR income, ones that THEY have means to avoid! They want you running on the treadmill, making sure that you stress and run every bit as much as the Minimum wagers and temps that clean your office. They do NOT want you saving to form your own small business, where you compete with them! They want you desperate enough to work 70 hour weeks, and pay out the you know what for the medical insurance most other countries take for granted! They never, ever, ever want you to feel that you own anything, have rights to anything, or feel relief from desperation! That is why they want you to know that at any time, they can outsource you, fire you, and do anything to ruin you, and that the credit rates will be so high that everything you worked for can burn up like hay soaked in Vodka!

In short, whatever you are being asked to pay in taxes can and should be YOUR defense against your employers selling you down the river. Ideally,union dues would also be worth it, but we all know that has some flaws. Like it or not, the only thing standing between you and the corporations taking away everything you THINK you own is the government. The affluence you think you have is false, window dressing, an stage that the rich are, as we speak, dismantling and selling off, as the Chinese and Indians learn the sort of skills that USED to be the ticket to good jobs. If you think that somehow, your old family business, or your 30 odd years with the company, or your resume that sings like an operatic diva, means anything, than I challenge you, volunteer at your local unemployment office, and you will see people who had brighter futures than you did, suddenly reduced to nothing! The truth is, whatever you endure now,is nothign compared to what the rich have in store, if we do not keep them in check, because they will have no problem in their townhouse, their money in switzlerand or dubai.

[SlimJimmy]

109. But but but, I've been told repeatedly in this thread that 250k *is* rich, and that

a family can survive on that amount just fine.

[TheKentuckian]

110. It is very comfortable and a family can thrive on it just fine.

You can't cry poverty from the top 5% when people in the exact same economy are expected to be self supporting and upwardly mobile 1/15 of that. I'm talking the same cities.

If the folks making 250k are struggling then those at 15, 20, 30, and 40 grand are ground under the wheels and being crushed into bits down to the molecular and atomic levels.

There isn't city in the country where 250k isn't on the extreme high end of the income spectrum.

If that income level is struggling then their had better be an overflowing of sorrow for the plight of most. How do you sit by knowing there are people making about 15k for full time work? How does it not tie the belly in knots knowing that most hardworking families are subjected to a sub-60k existence, knowing they must feed, house, educate, provide for the health, and generally support families while paying taxes and everything else that goes along with being responsible members of a community?

[SlimJimmy]

111. Then the President should say *tax* them more . Why doesn't he? Why does

he only talk about millionaires and billionaires when his plan calls for raising taxes down to the 250k level. Here's my issue. Today 250k, tomorrow 100k will be considered *rich*. When it gets down to 50k, who will stand up for us then? You?

[Major Nikon]

116. Wow! Wingnut talking points repeated here on DU

Using your 'logic' the President could never propose any income level because the only direction it could ever lead is downward.

Brilliant!

[SlimJimmy]

120. I guess you consider President Clinton a wingnut then. He has called for a stop to

all tax increases during this economic turn down. So, using President Clinton's *logic*, the "President could never propose any income level because the only direction it could ever lead is downward.

Brilliant!"

I happen to agree with President Clinton. I don't think this is the right time to raising taxes on anyone, but especially those making under a million a year, and certainly not down to 250k a year.
.

[Major Nikon]

123. That also aligns you with the GOPhers

Obama faces a very different GOP than Clinton did. The GOPhers have painted themselves into a corner by taking the positions of no tax increases whatsoever and all bills being budget neutral. Obama very strategically handed them a bill in which they must either compromise on one or both of those positions or face the wrath of the electorate if they choose obstruction. Assuming Obama can use the bully pulpit effectively, my guess is they will cave on the budget neutral part in favor of no tax increases. Obama then gets a jobs bill with no tax increases and appears to have compromised, when in reality he never did. That's how politics works. That's right out of Clinton's playbook. He understands that better than anyone.

[SlimJimmy]

124. Bullshit. Clinton wasn't handed a bed of roses either, and he did a great job. I'd

take him back in a minute. If you are implying that President Clinton is aligning himself with GOP'rs, then you are delusional.

[Major Nikon]

129. You're barking up the wrong tree

If you think I worship at the Clinton altar, you're simply wrong. Clinton took from the poor and gave to the rich. If you think Clinton hasn't aligned himself with the GOP when it suited him, you're wrong about that too. Certainly there's some things that Clinton did that I liked, but the reality is that Clinton was popular because the economy was booming during his presidency and he didn't really have much to do with that. If the economy were then as it is today, Clinton would have gone down as a 2nd rate president at best.

Good day and good bye.

[SlimJimmy]

130. That's too bad. He was a better President than this one will ever be. I miss him.

If I ever have the opportunity to vote for him again, I will. And again, if you think he is in any way, shape, or form, right wing, you are being delusional.

[TheKentuckian]

132. Maybe but don't count on it too much because I'd sunset the entire Bush/Obama cuts

and only support relief for the bottom 40-60% of earners. The top 20% can certainly do more.

[SlimJimmy]

134. The sunset of the Bush/Obama cuts would cost the average family of four several thousand dollars a

year in additional taxes. This has been discussed on DU many times, so I won't resurrect it again.