The Middle Class Dilemma

In this country we have the two party political system. We talk about third parties but their impact in the political sphere is negligible at best. So you're left with a choice of voting for the Right and knowing that the representatives on that side are basically completely in the pockets of the 5% of the country that consist of the richest Americans and serve their interests first, or you can vote for the Left which governs extremely ineffectively even with a significant majority of seats in the House, the Senate and when they hold the White House.
As a middle class voter, you basically have no representation no matter who you vote for. The Right is too corrupt and the Left is too ineffective. Regardless of whose propaganda you currently ascribe to, if you assume my analysis of the two sides of the political spectrum is accurate, what do you see as a solution to garner more middle class leverage in the political arena? All I can think of is stop paying taxes and withdraw from buying anything you don't need to survive.

 

First, let's define Middle Class. In my experience a lot more people think they are 'Middle Class' than actually are. There is a stigma to being part of the poor and also part of the rich so that ends up making the Middle Class the place where everyone and their brother wants to put themselves.

For example, Jack laid out some of his figures and said he didn't think he was rich. By my calcs, his figures were in the top couple of percent of Americans for household incomes and probably real close to the top 1%.

Now, from what I have gathered, the median household income in the US is around $50k. So, I think a reasonable definition of 'Middle Class' to me would probably be in the $25K to $75K range. Now, if you want to actually look at distribution of household income, the numbers are still pretty close. The Top 25% make about $80K and Up and the Bottom 25% make less than about $23K. Again these are Household Incomes.

So, to answer your question (as someone who is in the middle class by either of those definitions)...I am as concerned (or more concerned) with social freedom and liberties as I am with how the government is going to take care of me or not take care of me financially or economically. Probably the biggest thing the government can do to mess up my life economically or financially is to go bankrupt and tank the whole system. Which, btw, they seem to be hell bent to do since they want to give everyone everything and pay for nothing.

As for what I do. The 2 party system is screwed. They are really just one party when it comes to the things I care about...and neither meets my needs. So I am now voting third party.

 

Well put Stu! And I think you nailed the importance of defining the middle class in this country. I believe that the middle class is the bulk of us who aren't fantasically wealthy but get by just fine and aren't so poor that life is a day to day struggle. For claification, I'd define myself as upper middle class with a working class frame of mind.

 

Stu
You have me wrong bigtime. Upper 1% ? Are you kidding?

 

.

 

Jack, I am not trying to disparage (and I purposefully didn't and won't quote your figures) by calling you the 'R' word. Nor do I think people who make good money don't work for it.

I chose to make less money than I do in order to be where I am and do what I do. I have no issues with what other people make, including you or anyone else here. I am happy for people if they are happy with their lives. Really. Nor do I have any problems with the work people do...sweaty or not. Work is work. If you are a productive member of society...and I am sure you are...it really doesn't matter.

But I got the figures I used from Wikipedia who sourced them to the census bureau - 2005. Maybe it has moved but with the economy in the last 2 years, I kind of doubt it is that significant.

$167K was the 5% threshold, $250K was the stating point for the top 1.5% and $350K started the top 1%. These are Household Income figures (not individual) from the US.

And, really, six figures is far from average. It is the top 15% of household incomes in the US. Now I guess you could say that 85% of the country chose the wrong path, lack effort/are too lazy to make it or whatever. But, the fact is people like Oprah and Warren Buffet are not the starting point for the top 1 or 2 percent of the incomes in this country.

 

.

 

I am not messing with the numbers. lol But 'Rich' is about as ambiguous of a word as 'Middle Class'. The meaning depends a lot upon the vantage point of the person viewing it. And making more money is like moving to a bigger house...you expand to fill the space.

Just to throw some more figures out there. I live in Southern Illinois, btw.

Median Household Incomes from 2008:

IL: $56,235
My County: $38,613
My City: $43,927

Trust me when I tell you that $100K is not average for everyone in the US.

 

I'm a little shocked at the Wiki definition of middle class/5% range myself. I guess that I never saw myself in that range because of my working class sensibilities. I'm not so sure money is the only parameter we should consider but it certainly is a biggie in our society.
You guys have jogged my memory regarding another question I wanted to ask. Since this thread is already all over the place, I'll pose it.
I routinely here people that talk about how they worked hard and became successful at one endeavor or another and they seem to have absolute resentment of people they say are too lazy to work at becoming as successful as they have. I can't figure out why people that have had so much success, regardless of how they got there, spend so much time resenting others that haven't been as fortunate. I'll admit that my household income falls pretty well into upper 5% and both my wife and myself have worked pretty hard to get here, we put off having kids, we rented for years, we paid off two sets of student loans at 10 year each, and we spent 20 years in school. It never occurred to either of us to resent those less fortunate than ourselves for not achieving as much as we have. I simply don't get people that have been blessed in their lives that resent others for not being as blessed as they have. Is it just me or is this the ugliest aspect of personal success imaginable?

 

It is an ugly aspect. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't take many 'bad' decisions in life to lead someone to a low income life. And it doesn't have to be drugs or alcohol or laziness involved in those decisions. I have seen it in my own family.

And, whether people realize it or not from their vantage points...some people don't have to make any actual bad decisions to get to that point. Not every kid from a poor (and I mean poor) family is going to be able to break out of it no matter how good his decisions are.

I seriously doubt anyone here got to where they are totally on their own. They may have had a good family. Or maybe good teachers. Or a good mentor. Had better than average intelligence of a knack for a skill of some kind. Maybe some lucky breaks along the way. Whatever it might have been...to go along with their hard work. Not everyone gets those in life.

 

BTW: Here are a couple of the Wikipedia links I was referring to...

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

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

It is interesting reading and, for me, surprising too with some of the income numbers.

 

We are the middle class...somebody makes a dollar more than we do and we make a dollar more than somebody else.

Everybody has their own definition because there may be people out there 'happy' making $40K a year where for others, it is not even what they pay in taxes to fund redistribution socialist programs.

Just remember...you can't have employees with somebody becoming an employer first and foremost. An employer runs the risk with his/her capital, an employer has the idea of starting his/her business, an employer works longer and harder, an employer starts out the business and yes...if it grows and succeeds, he/she hires employees.

But there are many in the left that will cry out that it is not fair that an employer makes more than the employee and hence you have class warfare and envy. Class definitions are then thrown around (usually by the left) so they can go after the producers (employers) and then take more and more and then have the nerve to call it fair when our progressive punishing tax system is far from 'fair'.

Of course, the left doesn't think that by continuing to raise taxes that employer's behavior will NOT change. How wrong they are! Those that are getting over taxed and over regulated are in fact changing their behavior by either moving or worse yet, closing shop! Look at the exodus of businesses from California or look how many businesses and 'employers' had it with the left-sponsored tax rates in New York and New Jersey.

Well guess what? That leaves employees now WITHOUT a freakin' job. So what happens when the tax rolls start to decline because smart people are leaving? The idiot liberals propose and push for MORE taxs to make up the differance and then wonder why more 'behavior' changes and businesses move and/or shut down.

And then more employees have no place to work.

When is it enough? The top 50% of all wage earners already pay almost 98% of all taxes collected...but it still isn't enough for the left....even when the bottom 40% doesn't pay any income taxes AT ALL! (Source: IRS)

 

That is an odd definition of middle class. If you are paying as much in taxes as the median US Household Income, you are not even close to "middle class" by anything except an out of touch politician's definition. The bottom 40% has a Household Income of $35K or less. And that is nationwide. In my area of the country, I can bet the bottom 40% make a good bit less.

Some posts make me wonder if people ever really open their eyes as they are leaving their subdivision or if they just look straight ahead at the road until they get to their destination and ignore what is going on in the vast majority of areas of this country.

I live in a good subdivision. Solidly small town upper middle income to lower high income families and houses. But, it certainly doesn't take much work to see that there are many more areas out there that don;t even come close to that.

 

That is why I believe it is a state of mind.

$40K is just a number I threw into the discussion. I know I personally can't live on 40K because I choose (at least I have a choice for now) to live that way. It wasn't given to me and no, I didn't inherit it (as most liberals want you to belive). I grew up in Buffalo (hence my avatar) and I come from a blue-collar family who taught me work very hard for my earnings. I just don't understand that because I work for my earnings and I earn more now gets me punished for my efforts by graduating into higher tax rate so the governmet can redistribute my earnings to somebody else.

As I stated, Some are very happy making "X" dollars per year....some complain and look to the goverment to give them "Y" dollars (at the expense of somebody else) and some want to achieve, work harder and earn more than where they are.

There is always somebody making more and yes, we are making more than somebody else.

Hence my definition of the middle class.

The last thng we need is some government official or state-sponsored college professor (who never worked in the real world, but yet will tell us how it is) to tell us who we are and how we should feel making "X" dollars per year.

Class warfare in an effective tool used by the liberals. It is easy to go after the producers and tell the masses you are a "lower class" and because of that, you are entitled to punish the "upper class". It is an easy sell for the stupid people of this country that liberals cater to...blame somebody else, NEVER yourself.

Between class warfare and liberals using the hyphenated Americans for classification (i.e., African-American, Canadian-American, Irish-American, etc.) to divide this country instead of uniting it, its sole purpose is to create another entitlement mindset against those that somebody else states and tells us is NOT in their "class", hence let's punish them.

 

To me that is a BS definition of 'middle'. It is like saying you weigh 400 pounds and there are always going to be people who weigh more and people who weigh less so you are in the middle as far as weight goes.

The middle isn't some arbitrary number as far as numbers go. And it has nothing to do with Class Warfare or leading a Happy Life. Or a State of Mind. Or anything else, really. It just is.

And, for the thread topic...my contention is that neither party does much for those that are in the true middle so voting for best interests is tough for a lot of people because there is no best interest to be had.

It is very hard for me to say that there is a party of the actual "Middle Class".

 

Again...one's definition and finanical comfort zone is differant from people to people. It is like the minimum wage argument...I believe the market should dictate what one is paid instead of the government telling businesses how much they should pay. I remember working as a stock clerk when the minimum wage went up. "Oh boy". I thought...I am making another 35 cents per hour but then my hours got cut because the grocery store owner could not raise prices as he kept his margins low to compete to pay for government enforced wages. So, I actually lost hours and money!

As for the "middle" class...sure, if you want to find the actual mean and look at the standard deviation of all wage earners and complete a statistical analysis, you will find the "middle" and call it statistically the "middle class".

But I will always work hard to be ahead of whatever the government deems to be the "middle" class and will always know that I make a buck more than somebody and that somebody makes a buck more than I do. Do I envy these people who make more? You bet...but I don't think I should take their money to give it to me. It's a goal that I work for...to better myself.

As for which party works for the "middle class"...well, as I see it, liberal democrats do NOT want to see people succeed, but rather that these people are always dependent on the government for their existance...in return for votes and power.

Republicans are supposed to (not what both Bush's did in office) be the party of less government, fiscal responsiblity and a strong national defense. Less government, less taxes and less government regulations unleashes those that produce and want to be "employers" which help people move from the middle to the upper 50% (not the middle anymore, statistically, right?). Less taxes have always benefited job growth and added more tax payers and improved the "middle" class. Again, you need employers first...then come the employees.

Today's Democrats keep their supporters (voters) down and miserable because democratic leaders understand that if their voters are dependent on the government for all, then they can count on their votes to keep these elitest in office.

Just like "Joe the Plumber" during the election. He didn't want the government help, he just wanted the government to get out of his way so that he can one day own his own business...and become an employer.

B.O. can't understand that mindset...just look at his actions.

 

Again, though, I don't see it as a matter of comfort or a 'government's definition. It is actual numbers. To me, it was a surprising and (as Jack said, humbling) realization that so many households are making much less money than I am. In my case, about 70% of American households make less than mine does. If you are in the 6 figure range, it is more like 85% or more make less. That is nowhere near middle.

We have a tendency to think most people are 'just like us' because (ta da) we hang around people 'just like us'. The reality is much different when 70-99% of people are making only a fraction of that kind of money.

As far as the two parties, I would say that, from a fiscal ideology, the Republicans certainly go for the six figure plus demographic. Now, they can't win elections with just those people so they do try to expand the middle class definition and fool people into thinking they are for the middle class. That still isn't enough so they have to go for the religious vote too.

I tend to agree with you to some extent on the Democrats. I think they do end up keeping people down a lot of times. I am all for a safety valve in society that helps those people who are not as fortunate as I am. I don't like the idea of a total 'net' concept because it seems to consist mostly of handouts. And studies show that handouts only help for so long and then they start to hurt as people adjust to their situation, put off making things better, and find a comfort zone, etc.

I would like to see more of a 'ladder' that helps get people out. Education and job skills are a key. The government should provide that to a much greater extent than we do. A free high school education is just not enough. We need people who have more to be successful as a country.

Who would pay for it? Businesses for one. Studies also show that businesses go where the education and skills are. They obviously want them. The reality is they need them. I have no problems making them pay for some of it. And the rest of us too. As the world gets more and more advanced and global, how long do you think this country is going to prosper if we don't have an educated and skilled work force? Hint...we won;t and it is already showing.

And the Democrats really don't have to wade very far into the middle class to get their votes, either. They tend to get their votes from lower income automatically which is almost enough to win by itself if they get the vote out. And then they get a portion of the middle and upper income who want to help out those less fortunate. And civil libertarians too.

 

Oh and Joe the Plumber just took an opportunity to try and become a celebrity. He lucked into what he got from it. Period. He is no shining example of how to make the country better.

 

Can't say that I disagree with you. Nowadays, it seems that I am voting for the lesser of the two. It would be nice to vote for soemthing and someone instead of casting my vote against B.O. like I did in the last presidential election. I still can't understand how McCain got nominated. I never met one person who really was a strong supporter of McCain. Oh well...

I just think that this "great society" that our government started is just too big and too encompassing for one person or political party to handle.

The growth of government HAS to stop or slow down at the very minimum. We just can't exist if we have more and more people working for an enity that doesn't produce anything for the free market but taxes the free market to dead for its existance.

 

The thing is. We really aren't even paying for it. We just keep borrowing for it. Imagine if we actually had to pay for all we are doing. Taxes really would be too high then.