The Vanishing Middle Class

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*

 

[gsoxx]

It's all ok as long as the poor are getting a little bit richer too.

 

[Phier]

None of those statistics listed that I read (I've seen it before so I skimmed) really had a whole lot to do with the middle class.

It was typical daily kos left wing, 'eat the rich' BS. What matters is where 'the middle' is in relation to the past. Last time this came up which was not surprisingly an election year, the story was how the middle class is worse off than their parents generation of the 50's and 60's. I was able to quickly shoot it down just by seeing they didn't compare the 1 vrs 2 car family in terms of transpiration costs, the multiple expenses like cable tv, cell phones, and the internet which didn't even exist then, and the like. Redoing the numbers it was rather clear that todays (this was 2006 I think) middle class was in fact better off than their parents.

There is some odd nostalgia, where people had one family income, one car, usually did not go to college, less food options, no air conditioning, little entertainment beyond the actual theater, less access to specialized health care, and reliance on a company pension was somehow superior to the current situation.

They then compare this living to people today living WELL beyond their means due to their own choice, as if they are forced to use their credit card to buy their HDTV at gunpoint.

So meh, whatever, November elections are coming but the scare tactics have only just begun.

 

[Poach]

(And it is profoundly fair that the wealthy are taxed more - way more - because they use and profit from infrastructure created by the tax dollars of all. It is wholly hypocritical for someone whose wealth has been made possible by the system of taxation to consider themselves exempt from it.

Now, your premise itself is sound, but this statement just smacks of dislike for the wealthy. I see no fairness in applying heavier taxes to the rich. It is favouritism toward the less wealthy, the flat tax is, in my opinion, the fairest tax model. Why should one man have x% more of his earnings taken from him simply because he is successful? It's punishing success.

There are simpler ways to protect those on the lower half of the income ladder, instead of the same old tired "class war" BS you people spew forth constantly: increased job security, raise the mandatory minimum wage, utilise government funds to assist those who struggle to pay bills (means/lifestyle tested ofcourse), a stronger education system, better social services/amenities.

Taxing the rich as much as possible is simply dislike of their success being implemented into policy. A great many (not all, I grant) earned their positions and wealth, and now have to put up with being unfairly taxed as a result of their efforts.

And no, I nor my family are rich. We're firmly middle class, before anyone jumps the gun and assumes I'm speaking from observing my own bank account.

 

[Strelok]

inb4phi-

Too late.

It was typical daily kos left wing, 'eat the rich' BS. What matters is where 'the middle' is in relation to the past. Last time this came up which was not surprisingly an election year, the story was how the middle class is worse off than their parents generation of the 50's and 60's. I was able to quickly shoot it down just by seeing they didn't compare the 1 vrs 2 car family in terms of transpiration costs, the multiple expenses like cable tv, cell phones, and the internet which didn't even exist then, and the like. Redoing the numbers it was rather clear that todays (this was 2006 I think) middle class was in fact better off than their parents.

....though I would agree that there are simply more things to spend on is a considerable causation.

 

[gsoxx]

None of those statistics listed that I read (I've seen it before so I skimmed) really had a whole lot to do with the middle class.

It was typical daily kos left wing, 'eat the rich' BS. What matters is where 'the middle' is in relation to the past. Last time this came up which was not surprisingly an election year, the story was how the middle class is worse off than their parents generation of the 50's and 60's. I was able to quickly shoot it down just by seeing they didn't compare the 1 vrs 2 car family in terms of transpiration costs, the multiple expenses like cable tv, cell phones, and the internet which didn't even exist then, and the like. Redoing the numbers it was rather clear that todays (this was 2006 I think) middle class was in fact better off than their parents.

There is some odd nostalgia, where people had one family income, one car, usually did not go to college, less food options, no air conditioning, little entertainment beyond the actual theater, less access to specialized health care, and reliance on a company pension was somehow superior to the current situation.

They then compare this living to people today living WELL beyond their means due to their own choice, as if they are forced to use their credit card to buy their HDTV at gunpoint.

So what has this to do with the fact that the middle class as such is shrinking. True, if you are "in it" you are better of then before. But the problem seems to be that less and less people achieve this status when the goal of every free and liberal society should be to keep this class as broad as possible.

Also: "transpiration costs"

 

[Phier]

....though I would agree that there are simply more things to spend on is a considerable causation.

My wifes parents are now officially rich. He quit working for a major company as a cubical dweller back in the 70's to work on his own small businesses which barely made money.

Her mother never went to college and worked for a big company starting as a secretary when she was 18.

When I met my wife in 1992, her family had one phone line, no internet hook up, no cable tv, and no cell phones. They only used the air conditioning at night to sleep if it was really hot, and only a wall unit. They drove crappy cars, and rarely ate out. My wife had to do her shopping at JCPenny from her baby sitting money for clothes.

How are they rich? THEY DIDN'T SPEND THEIR MONEY ON CRAP THEY COULDN'T AFFORD. They invested their money, were smart about it, and stayed within their means.

Most people can't seem to comprehend that their 'necessities' are really luxuries.

If her parents decided they need the TV's and cars, and cell phones etc, they would be up to their eyes in credit card debt and part of the whole 'whoa is me its not my fault, damn those rich people!' demographic (well not really they are not a-holes, but you get the idea).

 

[Strelok]

No. I'm pretty sure that connecting to the internet feeds the specific chemical called Lataibronikaibronchous into your brain which is a necessity for maintaining both psychological and sexual health.

 

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*

 

[xcorps]

Most people can't seem to comprehend that their 'necessities' are really luxuries.

Forever this.

 

[Poach]

It is not dislike for the wealthy. There are wealthy people in systems with fair taxation. Heavier taxes for the rich are wholly fair. Even though BP is funding some of the clean up - who do you think will bear the heaviest cost? Taxpayers. And beyond that - as I said before - the wealthiest are wealthy because of infrastructure created by the tax system and they use more of that infrastructure to create their wealth - not taxing them more is unfair.

I fail to see how BP are even related to this. Any taxation on BP would fall under taxing a corporation as an entity, not individuals.

Every man utilises the infrastructure provided by the state, infact I would argue the poor use it more often than the rich: how often is a rich man seen wanting some sort of social security check, or using government money for healthcare? How often is a rich man the source of a 999 (or 911 as it it for you) call-out? The children of the rich are more likely to be sent to private education, rather than being put through the public system. Etc.

The rich tend to voluntarily segregate themselves from the poor, which necessitates foregoing the use of many state provided or subsidised amenities.

Even with this not being the case: assume every man uses the state-provided services equally. How does this then justify taxing the richer man more of his share than the poorer man? Surely, if both utilise the services equally, both should expect to be taxed an equal proportion of their incomes?

 

[JP226]

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=98123,00.html

Hate to be a stickler here but, under the gross income stats done by the IRS, show the 30k to 100k class physically growing from 04 to 08 1.3%, 2.8% 4.1% and -0.9% respectively. And you should expect a negative in 08 given the recession. Likewise, income was growing 1.7%, 3.4%, 4.3% and -0.8% respectively. Again you shoul expect the negative given the recession. So... ingeneral we have a postive trend with what looks to be a continued, albeit closer to 04 growth levels. So... where is the disappearing part?

 

[Asmodeus]

They are vanishing????........oh phew.....you mean in the Americas, you have class there???.
You learn something new everyday as my old governess (good solid middle-class lady) used to say.

Oh and money does not equal Class.....it helps a lot, many rich people are still of the lower orders and will allways be.

 

[JP226]

In America birthrite doesn't equal class. We are a bit more spohisticated in that dept.

 

[Poach]

Nor does birthright = class in the UK, JP. It's a cultural and lifestyle thing, ya see.

Asmodeus were, in all liklihood, referring to either spoilt rich kids that like to act all ghetto or emo because pretending to have a hard life appeals to angsty teenagers no matter how easy they have it, or chavs who have made it big somehow (lottery, some stupid TV show like The Scheme paying them a lot of money, etc) that still act like chavs.

Hence, money does not equal class.

 

[JP226]

I suppose we do have white trash with cash or the other more offensive terms for those types.

 

[Plan C]

In America birthrite doesn't equal class. We are a bit more spohisticated in that dept.

We've all seen Gettysburg: "There is only one aristocracy, and that is right here [i.e. the mind]", and I think we all agree on this. You still split my sides with the "sophisticated" bit. Instant classic.

 

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*

 

[JP226]

We've all seen Gettysburg: "There is only one aristocracy, and that is right here [i.e. the mind]", and I think we all agree on this. You still split my sides with the "sophisticated" bit. Instant classic.

I haven't. Read killer angels... twice. Anyhow, it's difficult for me to talk to nonamericans sometimes. A bit like if you were to speak with an Afghan. Just we Americans maintain that burden with the rest of the world.

the right to earn a fair wage and retire with dignity, the right to housing and food?

What is a fair wage and retiring with dignity?

 

[Poach]

Oswald, honestly man. If you want people to take your arguments seriously stop coming back with such cliché communist buzzword crap. Subvert the media? Come on. American Media is largely, if anything, regarded as political in nature, not a tool of class suppression.

 

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

[*

 

[Asmodeus]

Nor does birthright = class in the UK, JP. It's a cultural and lifestyle thing, ya see.

Asmodeus were, in all liklihood, referring to either spoilt rich kids that like to act all ghetto or emo because pretending to have a hard life appeals to angsty teenagers no matter how easy they have it, or chavs who have made it big somehow (lottery, some stupid TV show like The Scheme paying them a lot of money, etc) that still act like chavs.

Hence, money does not equal class.

Nail on the head..
Other than the first part of my post..was having a little joke at our Amercian cousins and at the sametime at us British ... not the best piece of comic prose I must admit..but one does have to try.

 

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/04/news/economy/Geithner_Speech/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

 

[Phier]

Na - the scare tactics and lies started from day one. (death panel etc.)


This kind of crap even though most are paying less taxes under Obama.

Recessions always do that for some reason, can't get blood from a stone.

What like healthcare, the right to earn a fair wage and retire with dignity, the right to housing and food? Those are luxuries.

This is babble. The right to housing and food? SINCE WHEN IS IT YOUR RIGHT TO BE CLOTHED AND FED? Thats socialist mental disease at its apex.

Your bowing at the alter of the avarice nouvell -- unlike misers of old who denied themselves and everyone else everything, a la Scrooge, the new misers are those who allow themselves everything and deny others everything - like the aristocracy of old. I am forced to conclude that democracy and freedom in the U.S. is dead. It's dead because people don't know what it is.

More babble. Hard work, taking care of your self, not over spending, THAT is what being in the middle class was always about. Attacking the rich and whining about it as if their wealth is why others are poor is just left wing nonsense aimed at getting votes under the guise of retaliation (no one is ever really better off after).

Its a known psychological effect too. They have put people on conditions where if they did X both would make money and if they did Y neither would. People were more likely to screw the guy with the money even if it cost them money doing so. For example if the test would be every time you pushed button A you started from zero and made 10 bucks, and the other guy in the room made 20 and started with 200, but every time you pushed B you made zero and the other guy lost 10, people were more likely to screw the guy with the money rather than take some for themselves.

This illogical bit of human nature is why the left exists in modern society. Its not about making things better, its about making others 'even'. Its a lazy philosophy, which is understandable hard work and living sensibly takes actual effort. Hurting someone else, much easier.

 

[Thorn777]

You don't understand Oswald, big-business and Washington regulators figured when you create a "philosophy" of maintaining a middle-class and "relatively well off", yet large lower-class, by a 13.6 Trillion Household and Non-Profit Debt, you don't have to hinder economic growth, it even encourages growth. Its that simple....

 

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*

 

[Thorn777]

They dont "hate democracy", at the end it will all trickle down...just hold on.

 

[Admiral Piett]

My wifes parents are now officially rich. He quit working for a major company as a cubical dweller back in the 70's to work on his own small businesses which barely made money.

Her mother never went to college and worked for a big company starting as a secretary when she was 18.

When I met my wife in 1992, her family had one phone line, no internet hook up, no cable tv, and no cell phones. They only used the air conditioning at night to sleep if it was really hot, and only a wall unit. They drove crappy cars, and rarely ate out. My wife had to do her shopping at JCPenny from her baby sitting money for clothes.

How are they rich? THEY DIDN'T SPEND THEIR MONEY ON CRAP THEY COULDN'T AFFORD. They invested their money, were smart about it, and stayed within their means.

Most people can't seem to comprehend that their 'necessities' are really luxuries.

If her parents decided they need the TV's and cars, and cell phones etc, they would be up to their eyes in credit card debt and part of the whole 'whoa is me its not my fault, damn those rich people!' demographic (well not really they are not a-holes, but you get the idea).

However, if I remember correctly, other services back then were a little more expensive. Ontop of this, people had things like pensions and the ability to retire back then. Less and less middle class will be able to fully retire.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

My wifes parents are now officially rich. He quit working for a major company as a cubical dweller back in the 70's to work on his own small businesses which barely made money.

Her mother never went to college and worked for a big company starting as a secretary when she was 18.

When I met my wife in 1992, her family had one phone line, no internet hook up, no cable tv, and no cell phones. They only used the air conditioning at night to sleep if it was really hot, and only a wall unit. They drove crappy cars, and rarely ate out. My wife had to do her shopping at JCPenny from her baby sitting money for clothes.

How are they rich? THEY DIDN'T SPEND THEIR MONEY ON CRAP THEY COULDN'T AFFORD. They invested their money, were smart about it, and stayed within their means.

Most people can't seem to comprehend that their 'necessities' are really luxuries.

If her parents decided they need the TV's and cars, and cell phones etc, they would be up to their eyes in credit card debt and part of the whole 'whoa is me its not my fault, damn those rich people!' demographic (well not really they are not a-holes, but you get the idea).

I agree, poor and communist people use the financial crisis as sign for capitalism failing. Then yet again they have been profiting taking loans they can no way payback, buy properties, inflate the prices of houses and land. And then comes the day that they are not able to pay the loans, and so the card house falls down.
Today its harder to get a loan, the banks have finally learned.

 

[Basil II the B.S]

classes? Satan help us...