Obama thinks $97k is upper class

[Ricki]

I guess it's been a while since he has lived on that much. Especially in a city where a "starter home" costs $600k. The senator from Illinois was a little out of touch on the Social Security debate tonight.

[incapsulated]

1. This is the thing about that

A two-income family who consider themselves middle class could easily pull in that much and they would not be living high off the hog by any means.

We aren't talking millionaires here.

[sandnsea]

That ISN'T a two income family

That is the income of ONE person who could have a spouse that also made that much money. They are not middle income or middle class.

[incapsulated]

4. But that is my point

Most families think of their combined incomes and will hear "upper class" applied to them and roll their eyes.

[sandnsea]

8. No they won't, they aren't stupid

They know they have to make $100,000 before the cap kicks in.

[incapsulated]

10. Please show me...

Evidence that voters listen to the fine details and not the soundclip message.

If a family makes a combined income of 90,000 and hears "upper class" mentioned in the same sentence they will resent it, especially if they are living in large city, where that is nothing.

[sandnsea]

14. If they're lied to

by someone pretending this social security cap applies to them when it doesn't. I can't imagine any Democrat doing that.

And I am really sick of people living in cities whining about making that kind of money when I know damn good and well there are maids and waiters and receptionists who have to figure out how to get by on half that or less.

[incapsulated]

22. Someone like the republicans, perhaps?

If Obama gets the nomination I don't want the repukes using this, which would be easy to do.

"How many hard working families here make $97,000 a year? Well, Obama thinks you are RICH and wants to raise your TAXES!"

[sandnsea]

27. They do that every time

The reason it works is because Dems like Hillary let them get away with it and never point out that 90% of the country don't make that kind of money.

[incapsulated]

29. No, it isn't because of Dems like anybody

Everyone is responsible for their own message and every single democrat attacks their opponents, including Obama.

If he made the cap just a little bit higher I wouldn't be concerned. It is too close to what middle class families make for comfort.

[sandnsea]

38. It happens every Presidential election

and it will keep happening until some Democrat somewhere changes the goddamn message. Middle class FAMILIES do not even make that kind of money. The median HOUSEHOLD income is less than $50,000. That is the message people have got to get through their heads.

And the social security cap is what it is. Next year it will be $102,000. Most people know they are never going to make that kind of money. They just don't know nobody else is either. That's the biggest fraud that's ever been played on the country, the idea that we're all "middle class" like the Brady's (architect) and Cosby's (doctor/lawyer). We aren't. There are a lot more Ralph Cramden's and Archie Bunker's, economically anyway.

[vireo]

57. Obama is open to "donut hole" approach

As is Edwards.

Obama reiterated that he would not raise the retirement age or cut benefits for what he called "the most successful social insurance program we have." But he said he would consider raising the cap on the Social Security tax - currently imposed on earnings up to $97,500 - or creating a so-called doughnut hole that would reinstate the tax once income hits a certain level, as Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards has proposed.

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, has suggested reimposing the Social Security tax on earnings above $200,000 so that upper-middle income earners - those making $97,500 to $200,000 a year - would not suffer an additional tax burden.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/28/obama_proposes_increasing_social_security_tax_on_wealthy/

This is probably the most politically feasible approach.

[Divine Discontent]

28. thank you n/t

[ellisonz]

20. Umm...their paychecks? Taxes?

[frazzled]

26. A family has to see a combined income of $97K + $97K ($194K) to see higher tax

Social security taxes are levied on individual salaries--they are PAYROLL taxes.

Do you really think $194,000 income is middle class? Statistics say otherwise.

[spooky3]

65. but a lot of people live in one-earner households

more than 40%

[Carolina]

49. Thank you

I am so glad someone is pointing out that the two-income family in large metropolitan area making 97K should not be taxed at the same rate as millionaires and billionaires! Especially nowadays when the two probably have educational debts up to their necks.

[Turn CO Blue]

78. Their own and their children's educational debts up to their necks

(sigh)

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Well then that 6% of the people should vote differently than the other 94%. n/t

[spooky3]

56. don't forget that more than 40% of households have only one

earner. It's not appropriate to presume that everyone has access to a second income.

Everyone in the world is not in a couple and many people who are in single earner households have dependents or have to help family in other households.

$95000 may be a lot in small communities if you have no other obligations. It is a middle class income in many other places and under many other circumstances.

And, the benefits paid out at capped at very low levels. So people who make relatively high amounts while working see very little of their contributions (and their employers' later), under current law.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Yes, but the two-income family would probably not be effected

by raising the cap.

I do agree that 97,000 in some areas is not wealthy and many people have reached that level after working decades and paying extra SS taxes that were placed in the Trust Fund.

Also I doubt that 97,000 is in the top 6 percent.

;shrug:

[Morereason]

97. I make less than that and I pay 6% on ALL my income. Why not them? I don't get the argument

So 97k is not "rich" in some communities. But neither is 30k, but the family making 30 pays 6%! This issue is so distorted. Obama was right.

[spooky3]

108. one argument is that you are going to get a much higher % of your

pay back when you retire than they will. No one will get much more than $25K because there is a cap on payouts as well as a cap on pay-ins.

Another argument is that NO increase in SS should be made because there is no funding crisis (see the other threads on this) and that the more solvent the fund is, the more that the Republicans cut income and other taxes on the wealthy. Instead of changing social security, the income tax and estate tax systems should change.

[sandnsea]

2. Only 6% of the country make that much

It is what it is. If you make that much, you're in the upper 6% of the country - and probably the upper 1% of the world.

If you don't know how rich you are at that income, you're not paying attention.

[struggle4progress]

88. The OP reminds me of Fred Heineman (R - Outer Space). Of his $180K congressional salary, he said:

That does not make me upper-middle class. In fact, that does not make me middle class. In my opinion, that makes me lower-middle class

When he said that in 1996, NC voters noticed -- and promptly threw him out of Congress

[ClarkUSA]

3. Statistically, it is - when only the top 6% earn that much.

I am presently living in a city where the median home price is around $100K and median income is less than $30K, so perspective is everything.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. and that is what Clinton said in response

in NY firefighters make that much and are middle class. She said she has the whole of the country in mind, not just the portion of the US where 97, 000 is upper class.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Statistically speaking, she is wrong. The top 6% is not middle class by any stretch.

Just ask those who are truly statistically middle-class. They pray for a $97K yearly paycheck.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. she is right tho, as you stated yourself.

Middle class status depends on cost of living. In NY, 97 is middle class.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Yes, where you live plays a big role in one's salary and also

one's cost of living.

[ClarkUSA]

18. No, I did not state that at all.

I was comparing objective analysis with subjective perspective. Literal fact vs. figurative opinion, if you will.

Using NY as a yardstick is hardly the experience of the average American householder. And I say that as a
born and bred New Yorker living out of state at the moment.

[gaspee]

75. 97k a year

is living pretty freaking high on the hog - my household of 4 makes about 45K a year and we have three cars (no payments, but upkeep) a 1300 a month mortgage, satellite tv, etc. No debt, either. Since we don't blow our money on crap we don't need (like eating out 5 times a week, trinkets from wally world, etc) we live a very comfortable life on our middle class 45K a year.

No, we don't drive 50,000 cars or have a mcmansion or buy all the latest gadgets.

Even in expensive new england, if you are not an unabashed consumer, 97K is wealthy, whether those making that kind of scratch care to admit it or not!

[n2doc]

83. bull n/t

[Ricki]

105. "Wealthy" would imply that you have wealth

Not just that you have $97k that flows in and out, but that you have a high net worth. In a big city making $97k, you won't have a high net worth unless Mama or Papa was rich. Mine were not.

[spooky3]

109. welcome to DU, Ricki!

[Ricki]

112. Thanks!

Happy to be here! I have been reading the boards for a while but finally started posting.

[Auntie Bush]

91. Where the hell is that?

Where can you find a median home (or any home) for #100k?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. So you think people who make LESS than $97000 should bear the burden?

They pay SSI on 100% of their income. As Obama said, Warren Buffet pays a fraction of his.

[slipslidingaway]

13. That is because there is also a cap on how much SS pays out,

the system was designed that way.

Turn the question around and ask if you think it is fair for someone who makes 120,000 and pays SS taxes on their income to receive the same amount when they retire as someone who paid taxes on 97,000? Remember cost of living and pay is not the same in all areas of the country.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Yes I do.

SS is an important safety net. We are going to have a massive number of retirees very soon and the money to pay their benefits has to come from somewhere.

[slipslidingaway]

36. OK, I see this as the very wealthy going after the people at the

next level of income, I doubt very much that the cap would be removed altogether.

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. the benefit structure in SS is strongly progressive

Someone who made $45,000 during their working life gets much more than half the benefits that the guy who made $97,000.

[slipslidingaway]

89. Thanks, I do not know all the details. That's not fair :) as the

pay out portion does not account for different costs of living throughout the U.S.

:evilgrin:

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. Then the tax should be variable too. n/t

[Morereason]

100. No. The benefits should be set at a level where poor widows don't suffer. And everyone in a just

society can swallow their selfishness and all pay the same.

[slipslidingaway]

119. You have to realize who robbed the system before finding

those persons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3734615&mesg_id=3734673

[Morereason]

99. I hate the jealousy involved in this program. The poor need full benefits to SURVIVE.

I hate it when people complain "I put in more and I am not getting more proportionally". Just selfish thinking. This is why some poor elderly widowed women have to live on $500 a month. It is a disgrace. We should all pay and we should all take care of our elders regardless what their station or past history. That is what caring societies do.

[Morereason]

98. Yes. Because SS really needs to be about taking care of those who need it.

[ruggerson]

7. I couldn't agree more

96K is middle class/upper middle class in NYC and suburbs and in Southern Ca and very middle class in San Fran and environs.

Consider this: you take home about 61K net after taxes. In NYC, where two bedrooms rent for rent for 3K a month and up, that leaves about 2k a month to pay the bills for your family. A family of four is hard pressed to get by on 2k a month. It's hardly "upper" class.

[Divine Discontent]

25. it depends on who is making it

if you've got a ton of children, then it's not so much, but if it's a 1 or two person living situation as most are in this country or 1 kid. I'm not sure how these figures play out regarding social security and how many people are in your family, but a hundred grand a year is w/o question the upper class in the United States - I know hundreds of people by name, and only a few of them make that much money, most make 8-20 an hour.

[feminazi]

30. thank you

I live in the San Jose area and make close to $90k gross. I am not poor, but I am definitely NOT rich.

I own a mobile home....now that's living high on the hog! We have 2 cars...one is a 92 Nissan and the other is a 98 Nissan. My son lives with me and makes not much more than minimum wage at a restaurant. I just paid about $3.50/gallon for my last tank of gas. I don't spend extravagantly. I don’t go shopping except for food. I don’t go out to dinner, movies or concerts.

I have family in other parts of the country so I know about the salary and cost of living discrepancies around the country. If I lived near my mom in Arkansas, my income would make a hell of a salary. But I don’t. I’m not complaining; I know a lot of other people have it worse than me.

I’m not opposed to raising the cap, but I think Senator Clinton is correct. There are people making $97k/year who are not rich, who are living middle class lives in expensive areas of the country. Hurting them, for the sake of a sound bite, does not make us progressive.

Life is rarely black and white. There are mostly gray areas and a lot of people seem to be ignoring that fact.

[goodgd_yall]

52. That's the trouble with formulas

There are vast differences in cost of living in this country. There should be some way to get around this I would think.

[Morereason]

102. It DOESN"T matter. The wrong issue is being FRAMED.

We should all pay the same so that it is solvent. If someone making 30k can deal with 6% removed from their income so can someone making 95k, whether they are "rich" or not doesn't matter. The program will not survive unless we all contribute. The alternative is to leave many elderly destitute, as many are no in the current structure.

What kind of a society are we anyway?

[frazzled]

16. When 94% of citizens earn less than that, it is upper ...

Remember, Social Security taxes are payroll taxes taken out of an individual's salary--not joint income. So, some current formulas (slap me if I'm wrong):

(1) A family earning $150,000 with two incomes, one earning $97,000 and the other earning $53,000, will each pay SS taxes on 100% of their incomes.

(2) A family earning $150,000 with one income will pay SS taxes on only the first $97,000 of their income--a far smaller proportion of what is supposedly the same income--approximately 2/3 of what the two-earner family pays.

(3) A two-earner family with income of $500,000 will pay SS taxes on only $194,000 of their income--less than half of it.


Think of raising the cap:

(1) The family with two incomes earning $150,000 will have no change (they will still pay on 100% of their income)

(2) The family with one income of $150,000 will have also to pay SS taxes on 100% of its income. My heart is not bleeding yet.

(3) A family will have to make more than $194,000 per year on two incomes to see any rise in their SS taxes.

[donheld]

17. It's upper class to me n/t

[JanusAscending]

24. Me too!

When I live on $1,200 a month !!

[Cobalt Violet]

111. Me three. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

21. around $50 an hour isn't upper class?

good heavens...

if that's not upper class - then I'm non-existent at 15K.

If you cannot realize, or live off 100 grand in this country, well, then you've got financial problems - that IS the top 6 or 7 percent of wages in this country and in the world, is it not? Upper class, not elite, upper class. I know PLENTY of upper class people making 100K a year or near it who drive 35-40K SUV's, who live in rather spacious 4 bedroom homes. I live in an apartment and caretake for a handicapped sibling on what I stated above.

I think Obama was right about this when he was talking to Mrs. Clinton.

[Marrah_G]

50. You could not live here on 15k

Not unless you either bunked in with family or lived in subsidized housing.

Cost of living is very different depending on where you live.

I am a single mother with an income of about 40,000. That would go far in many places, but here in Eastern Mass we barely make it month to month. In fact we would have been homeless after the split-up if my parents had not stepped in to help the kids and I.

97,000 here is not "upper class" It is middle class.

[Divine Discontent]

54. I understand where you're coming from.

I live on the beach in a condo, only because the real estate market is so bad that places are going empty b/c people will not pay the rates they ask to live in them. I am very fortunate. I live with one family member who gets less then I do. I can understand, if I was in NYC or something, I'd have to be living with 4 people to scrape by in an old house. Things are very rough on many people right now. Those who live in normal areas are hurting even making 25K on their own, and they need at least 10k for each additional family member, and if you're in big cities, double those figures. I agree.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Uh no it isn't.

And yes, at 15k you are poor. The current ridiculously low federal poverty level for a family of four is 20,650. The SCHIP program puts eligibility at 2x this level, or around 60,000/yr. which is far more realistic, and shows clearly that considering 100,000 'upper class' is an inflation distorted delusion.

"If you cannot realize, or live off 100 grand in this country, well, then you've got financial problems "

Gee that really depends on where you live. In many urban regions housing costs alone will eat a major portion of 100K - close to 1/3. Taxes will eat another third. That leaves about 1/3 of that for all other expenses. With automobile costs nearing $0.50/mile (IRS rate now 0.485/mile) and food costs through the roof, a family of four living on 100K in one of the major metropolitan regions is hardly an 'upper class' family.

But this is silly. The Upper Class generally derives lots of their income from sources other than salary.

"It should be noted that wage and salary growth has been unusually weak during this recovery, while the growth of corporate profits has been exceptionally strong. This contributes to growing income inequality, since high-income households own a highly disproportionate share of corporate assets and derive significant income from those assets. With stronger-than-normal growth in corporate profits having continued into the first part of 2006, it may well be the case that the increase in income inequality that Piketty and Saez have documented through 2004 has continued since that time and that the nation’s already-large disparities in income are growing yet wider."
http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

As usual the vastly wealthy elites, who I can assure you are not salarymen, are delighted to have the peasantry fighting amongst themselves over who is 'upper class'. None of us working folks are upper class, we are peasants.

[kineneb]

94. living on $14K

expect to "live" on less in the future. Once a member of the working class, now amoungst the poor. Only bright side is our housing cost is around $340/mo because we sold a house in the SF Bay Area to move here.

$44K (circa 2002) was lower-middle class in the Bay Area.

[calteacherguy]

23. In most of the country it is. It's the upper 6%. nt

[Captain_Nemo]

31. I thought he probably lost a lot of support on that one.

[calteacherguy]

34. Huh???? Please explain that reasoning. nt

[Captain_Nemo]

96. Calteacherguy....people in California (a blue state) who live in San Francisco or Los Angeles can

make 97,500 and not be able to afford a house. In Manhattan it is worse. Why would these blue state people like it when Obama says that people in who make 97,500 are in the top 6% and should be taxed.
One can live in Manhattan and make that and might not be too happy about his statements. That's all. I think the demographics of the country are very different. 97,500 in Oklahoma is pretty rich. But, not in Manhattan or New Jersey or Virginia or DC. And, these are the democratic voters.

[w4rma]

32. I finally get to defend Hillary on something. Obama is wrong on this issue. Hillary is right. (nt)

[w4rma]

41. Note that I am refering to the where does the middle class start issue, not the SS cap issue, which

Obama is right on.

[Morereason]

103. No, Obama was right. If someone making 30k pays 6% why should not all pay it?

The whole concept needs to be changed. As it is now there are many elderly living in poverty. A just society provides all their senior with a dignified safety net. Our trouble is we have been sold on an unjust and inadequate system based on personal greed instead of common compassion and decency.

If a couple making 30k pays that tax so can someone making 100k. If the person making 100k is inconvenienced imagine how the person making 30k deals with it??????

[OHdem10]

33. Obama is correct. Salaries have dropped so much

in this country that it falls in upper 6% of incomes,

the Median Income is 38,000 unless it has dropped again

[loyalsister]

115. We can expect another shift

Baby boomers are reaching retirement age and will begin to leave the work force soon. When that happens income levels shift.
We will also be including the income levels of more veterans.

Both populations will require SS benefits, as well.

Our poverty level; not working poor level, not peasant level. Homelessness and very real severe poverty level very well may rise significantly.

Obama knows exactly what he's talking about. Despite his lack of upper crust political experience, he has his hands on deck when it comes to evaluating some of these things.

[killbotfactory]

35. Are you kidding?

If you can't live on that much you are doing something horribly wrong.

[bvar22]

86. Man, do you know how much cocaine and concert tickets cost these days?

You just can't get by on $97,500.
:rofl:

[dkf]

37. Who cares if its upper class or not...they need to pay SS taxes like the rest of us.

Forget the caps I say

[Morereason]

104. YES!!! You get it!!

[MADem]

39. 19 percent of American HOUSEHOLDS made more than 100K in 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.<3> The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036.<4> In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,<5>

[w4rma]

40. 19.01% = middle class (nt)

[Bongo Prophet]

43. Payroll taxes are based on individual and not combined incomes, right?

Did you read the above posts before going to wikiworld?

You are smart enough to BOLDLY cut and paste something about HOUSEHOLD income, which is not the issue.
Unless you are making a point that eludes me, which is entirely possible. ;)

PLease let me know if I am missing your point, or how this relates to INDIVIDUAL payroll taxes.
Thanks.

[MADem]

44. Uh, that's why the word HOUSEHOLDS is in all caps in the subject line

I was making the goddamned point that you snarkily, sarcasticlly are accusing me of missing, and providing a link to further info.

So yes, you are missing my point.

[Bongo Prophet]

45. Okay, thank you for clearing that up. No need for hostility.

I guess I am slow. I mean goddamned slow.
Apologies for being to snarky, I did go to the link and tried to figure out what connection that had to the Social security/what is middle class discussion.

So, by pointing out that 19% of HOUSEHOLD income are 100k is the point that middle class is about half of what is being debated?
And therefore discussing 97.5k for a single income as middle class is way off the mark? I would agree with you on that! The term middle class has always been a bit vague to me anyway, so I am not even arguing any point, just trying to understand.
While acknowledging that different areas have different costs of living, a single income of 90k seems a pretty high number, and I would be MUCH more concerned about the working poor, getting health insurance, schooling, etc than the (in my opinion) FALSE CRISIS of social security.

Please don't get mad MADem, if that is wrong. Maybe you were making a different point, and I am just not seeing it, or you were just adding an extra bit of info to give perspective to the issue.

I am not a candidate advocate warrior, so no hidden agenda here. I understand there is much testiness in this primary season, and should have tread more carefully. We need serious anger management here (me included- CNN pissed me off royally in how they managed this "debate aka gameshow)- I used the smiley to indicate I could very well be wrong, and was sincere in that. I am often wrong, especially about math and money. Tha's maybe why - I am just a (goddamned) poor artist - middle class would be a step or two up for me. :)

If you can clarify, confirm or correct my impression, please do if you have the time.
I meant no harm, and will try to tone down my snarkometer.
Peace, MADem! :hi:

[MADem]

60. I don't have a candidate either.

My only goal was to inject a fact into the discussion.

These things are true:

97K isn't the 'median' income for individuals, it's about twice the median income for America as a whole.

It's much more expensive to live in NY, CA, AK, than it is to live in SC, , AR, or TX, on average. "Middle class" income in NYC is stinking rich (richest person in town) in Keysville, GA.

Trying to use 'absolute' numbers to decide what is "middle class" and what is "upper class" is counterproductive. You have to cut your cloth according to your measure. Your measure varies depending upon where you live.

In stumbling around the web, I found a discussion about poverty in America, here: http://www.thetaoofmakingmoney.com/2007/08/01/455.html I am not familiar with the site, I certainly do not endorse the cited (Heritage Foundation) report, but I found the discussion of the report and the surrounding issues that followed the blog post interesting. When it comes to poverty, where you stand depends on where you sit...or live.

Picking apart statements made during debates, when time is limited and there are way too many candidates on the stage to have a substantive discussion, is counterproductive as well. The idea behind these early contests is more to guage qualities that range from innate intelligence, to litheness in adapting and responding to unexpected questions, to reasoning ability, to flat-out grasp of the subject matter/general knowlege, to to energy, connecting with an audience, and that mysterious "likeability" quality/TVQ (do you like the look of the person? Do they look "Presidential?").

I agree that everyone should calm down.

[Bongo Prophet]

70. Cool, many good points. And I agree with every one

Thanks for the response.

Yes, poverty and wealth are so relative to "where one sits" and to a large degree of expectations and culture. It is something that can be discussed, but arguing about it is crazy. As you say, counter-productive.

In terms of econimic priorities (triage) we need to focus on the "safety net" because it is quite tattered.
But like so much of life, it is intertwined with every other issue. Arguing over minutia will ensure our demise.

Much respect, MADem.
:hi:

[many a good man]

72. Top 20% is Upper Class

Bottom 20% = Lower class

Middle 20% = Middle Class

Top 20% = Upper Class

The quintiles in between are lower middle and upper middle.

[silverojo]

42. Because it IS

If you get that much money in a year, don't come crying to me about financial problems. Just move out of that freakin' McMansion and sell your Hummer, and you'll be just fine.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. The 6%ers are upper middle class

Wealth distribution is so skewed that the top 1% makes the top 6% look like peasants.

To me, the top-line for the middle class is whether it is a hardship to send your kids to college. If you can do that without thinking about it, you're rich.

[Armstead]

47. Um, it is simply applying teh progressive tax structure that...

has been the basis of the tax system for decades.

obama isn't talking about taking away all of their money. Just making the rate structure somewhat more equitable to keep a popular program viable.

[mod mom]

48. He stated it's the top 6%.

[LanternWaste]

51. $97k isn't upper class?

$97k isn't upper class?

I gotta be honest here-- if I was making $97k/year, I'd feel like the richest guy in the world.

[goodgd_yall]

53. I would too and I DO live in an area with a high cost of living

I don't care about buying a house; I'm happy to rent. SO $97,000 would go far with me!

[Marrah_G]

55. It depends on where you live

I would be considered middle class (40000)in much of the country, but here I am the working poor.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

68. It is upper middle class

The true Upper Class don't pay payroll taxes at all because they don't work.

[Joe Fields]

61. It IS upper class.

Just because someone in that income bracket cannot comfortably afford a McMansion, doesn't mean that they can't live very comfortably on almost a hundred grand a year.

[FreeState]

62. No its not.

My partner and I make about that much together. Guess what we struggle every month.

It totally depends on where you live. California is not the same as Iowa. New York City is not the same as Wyoming. To try and divide the haves and the have nots by income is impossible with out taking into account the cost of living for the City and state the people live in. Try living in NYC on 97K. Is it doable? Sure - but its not easy and to tax them more would hurt families in that situation.

Just because 97K seems like a lot to you its not. We live in America which is quickly becoming like mexico where its the top 1% that have it all and everyone else is screwed.

----


American Heritage Dictionary
upper class
n. The highest socioeconomic class in a society.

[SteppingRazor]

74. It is for a single earner, though. n/t

[FreeState]

84. Obama was replying to a Married woman who asked a question not a single woman N/T

[Joe Fields]

85. Oh Jeeze, PLEASE....

Don't even begin to try and poormouth on 97K a year.

[Egnever]

63. From where I sit he is right

[TheWraith]

64. For a single person, it is.

Don't confuse single salaries at $100k and up with a household income, which is often the result of 2 or more jobs.

[LSK]

66. wow, 65 posts and nobody brings up Edwards approach to the problem

Where he leaves a donut hole and suggests folks start paying FICA after they make $200k.

And $97K is probably poor in Manhattan NY, but rich as fuck in Manhattan, KS.

[ThomCat]

67. That absolutely IS upper class.

The median income in the nation is still under $30,000. Even here in NYC, the median income isn't much higher than that. $97,000 is definitely upper class.

Unless you've got expensive medical conditions, if you can't live comfortably on $97k you just aren't trying.

(and if you do have an expensive medical condition, then even two or three times that income won't be nearly enough) :(

[nashville_brook]

69. that was perhaps my favorite thing he said last night.

[Bucky]

71. With all due respect, if someone making $97k told me they were middle class...

I'd have a hell of a time not rolling my eyes. It's not upper class, to be sure, but it ain't struggling to pay the bills either.

[Ricki]

106. Then Roll Em'

Cause I am telling you that I make that much and money is still challenging living in LA.

[TexasBushwhacker]

73. My guess is he is using census numbers, and he is right

The lower limit for households (regardless of the number of earners) for the top 20% is $97K. That's from the 2006 Census. There are 23.2 Million households in each quintile.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new05_000.htm

Lower Class - $0 to $20,032

Lower Middle Class - $20033 to $37770

Middle Class - $37771 to $59999

Upper Middle Class - $60000 to $97029

Upper Class (Top 20%) - $97030 and over

Top 5% - $174000 and up

The thing that's funny to me is that I know plenty of people that make over $97K here in Texas, where the cost of living is quite low, who consider themselves just middle class.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

95. Ummm... did you happen to add your own labels to the census data?

It doesn't look to me that the US census bureau identifies "upper middle class" or any other class.

I ask because I don't think any sociologist or economist on Earth would agree with using quintiles as limits of important class categories like "middle class" or "upper class." Those are sociological terms, not pie slices of income. And they cannot be divined backward from income data.

If I am misreading your link, then I sincerely apologize in advance.

(If I'm not, you're busted) :)

[driver8]

77. I live in Los Angeles, also.

I can tell you right now that 97K in this city is not "upper class"...not even close!!

[starroute]

79. No one's suggested raising taxes on someone making $97K

$97,000 is the current cutoff point, so someone making exactly that amount would not be affected at all. Someone making $100,000 a year would pay an additional $230. Someone making $110,000 would pay an additional $1000.

So none of this discussion about how hard it can be to make ends meet on $97,000 a year is really relevant. The real question should be whether somebody earning $110,000 a year could afford another $1000. Or if someone making $120,000 could afford another $1750. Is anybody here going to argue that they couldn't?

Compare that further to the person trying to live on a total income of $23,000, who is currently paying $1750 in Social Security. Do you really think it's easier for them to see that amount taken out of their already-insufficient paycheck than it would be for the person making $120,000 to have their current income after taxes reduced by that much?

[diane in sf]

80. $97k is in the lower realms of upper middle-class

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

81. I'd love to have that kind of income

don't know what you're on about

[AtomicKitten]

82. In today's economy, Obama is correct.

[illinoisprogressive]

87. ricki, they sure are not middle class!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

90. $97K is upper income, percentile-wise, but distinctly "middle class"

This DU mini class war is based on people using the same terms to mean many different things. The term "middle class" does not mean median income.

"Middle" refers to being between the working class and the rich, not a numerical median. The middle class is way above average. By definition, the middle class extends all the way up to the boundaries of the truly-rich capitalist class, which is a lofty level.

I took a shot at picking through this linguistic issue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3727834&mesg_id=3727834

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

93. ***** USEFUL LINK (Wikipedia: The American Middle Class) *****

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#_note-Marriages.2C_Families_.26_Intimate_Relationships

[spooky3]

107. You're right, this is very informative. Thanks!

[slipslidingaway]

110. Thanks! n/t

[JDPriestly]

101. It all depends on where you are.

That is one of the strange problems in America today. A dollar does not go as far in LA as it does in Tupelo, Mississipi. I'm in LA. Maybe I should retire to Tupelo? Any DUers in Tupelo who could tell me what it is like there?

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. Absolutely. It is incumbent on those who live in Tupelo to subsidize those living in New York. n/t

[ozone_man]

113. Why have a cap at all?

The cap seems to affect the top 6% of wage earners. But that cap also represents a large potential contribution to shore up Social Security. Who cares whether it is the middle or upper middle class? The rich care and see it as a tax instead of as a contributory plan. Well, that's just tough. It's time to raise taxes on the rich. So it seems Hillary Clinton is in bed with the corporate class. She opposes this plan.

I could go for Obama's plan or Edwards' plan, depending on whether his plan raises enough to shore up SS. But Obama's plan seems best. It just eliminates the cap.

While Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year, Edwards would only impose it on those making more than $200,000 per year. Income between $97,000 and $200,000 would continue to be exempt from Social Security taxes under the Edwards proposal.

"I do think we need to have a bubble above $97,000, probably up to about $200,000 so we don't raise taxes on middle-class families," Edwards said at Thursday's AARP forum. "But, above the $200,000, these millionaires on Wall Street ought to be paying their Social Security taxes."

The scope of the Obama proposal was not lost on a leading anti-tax group.

"With their proposals to raise Social Security taxes, it appears that John Edwards and Barack Obama are engaged in competition to see who can wreak more havoc on the economy," said Club for Growth spokeswoman Nachama Soloveichik. "Obama comes out the winner with his proposal to raise Social Security taxes on more Americans than Edwards proposed in his plan. But make no mistake: While Obama's plan is worse, both plans would significantly increase America's tax burden; devastate the economy, and turn Social Security into a full-fledged welfare program."

For her part, Clinton opposes both the Obama idea of imposing new taxes on those making $97,000 per year and the Edwards proposal to tax those making $200,000 per year.

http://www.concordcoalition.net/news/article-storage/2007/abcnews-0922.htm


Obama and Edwards need to talk about this stuff, because it's real not diamonds vs. pearls that CNN would have us talk about. I can't believe the Democrats allowed CNN to moderate this debate.

[JVS]

114. I do too. People making that much are doing fine

[JBear]

116. Household income

From what I saw recently, I think that falls in the top 20% of household incomes...not exactly "rich" but top 20% is still not THAT bad! Imagine what it is like for those below that!

:bounce:

[ozone_man]

118. The $97,000 is personal income cap for SS.

Not family income. Personal income is what SS taxes are based on. Federal and state income taxes take care of issues of family income (joint filing) with the graduated income tax.