What is middle-class, really! - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tabasco85331 · #31 04-21-2003, 01:10 AM

Poor in many countries means begging for food and sleeping on the sidewalk , (ever seen the poor in India ?) . You are considered poor here , and qualify for food stamps and Welfare in the U.S. even if you live in a nice place , have a nice car , large screen T.V. , DVD players , five kids , and don`t care about finding a job . Remember , the tax burdon is percentage based on your income the ``poor`` pay very little percentage wise compared to say like my wife and I that many Democrats consider ``rich``. Does 40% sound like a lot to have stolen from your paycheck after earning Masters degrees in our prospective professions and grooming our life for success everyday ? You bet your ass it is ! The poor in the U.S. would be considered rich in many countries . Our ``middle class`` would be considered ``obscenely rich``. So the term ``middle class`` is purly perspective to what country you live in , not a dollar amount . Lesson over . This one was free . Next one I`ll charge you all for !

mikemover · #32 04-21-2003, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
The Republicans screw you over unless your salaray is at a point where you don't need to pay payroll taxes. So in effect, the Republicans are screwing over the middle class. Well, actually, they're REALLY screwing over future generations. Everyone seems to get some kind of break (although they're disproportionate) which means the federal revenue is going to drop sharply even as gov't spending goes up. Doesn't make too much sense. Who cuts taxes sharply in a time of war and global insecurity? Even John McCain sees that.

Alex

WRONG again! If you had done your homework on this subject, you would have found out that, in the history of tax collection by the IRS, every time tax rates have been lowered, government revenues have eventually gone up. Every time tax rates have been raised, government revenues have eventually gone down. EVERY TIME. Lower taxes = more disposable income. More disposable income = more individual spending. More individual spending = increased government revenues. Works every time!

Mike

mikemover · #33 04-21-2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jeffwolinski
There is one question in regard to taxes that has always baffled me, and it does relate to the topic of middle class because they (myself included) pay the bulk of the taxes (of course dependant on how you define middle class).

Wrong. Those that the Democrats call "wealthy" pay the bulk of the taxes. By a LARGE margin! Just the top ONE PERCENT of income earners pay 36% of the tax burden!

A flat tax will not work either, because those who already don't even pay taxes will never be able to "keep up" in a flat tax system. A national retail sales tax WILL work. Which means it will probably never happen. Kind of like reducing government spending. Never happens. Democrats want more spending and more taxes. Republicans want more spending and less taxes. Neither will work.

Why is it that while individuals are expected use common sense and curb spending when they run low on cash, our government is allowed to continually increase spending, and when they run low on cash, they just pass legislation to arbitrarily take MORE money from individuals?!?! And 1/2 of our population seems to be OK with this!!! Government education at work once again.

Mike

tabasco85331 · #34 04-21-2003, 10:39 AM

Every time I hear Democrats say that large companies and corporations don`t pay their proportionate taxes I laugh . They do . Are they referring to the incentives they get to do business and help our economy grow ? Doing business in the U.S. is very expensive and to not encourage big business is a real mistake . Many businesses have moved to Mexico and Canada where they are wanted and encouraged , i.e. - GM and many Ford plants to name only a couple of the hundreds . So , no plant = no jobs generated , no money to support stores , restaurants and the many small busines that are dependant on people with jobs . Get it ? No trickle = no tickle down . Taxing large companies were it`s no longer profitable to stay here is biting our nose off ! Would you open a business that you knew wouldn`t make money for the stockholders ? They wouldn`t either !

STORMINORMAN · #35 04-21-2003, 10:44 AM

You say you've got a company with 35 years experience building & repairing roads? Sorry. We can't use you. As of last year we are reserving 85% of our contracts for minority-controlled companies.

What? You say women are not a minority any more just because they outnumber the men? Doesn't count. They're a minority when it comes to building roads!

p.s. Don't laugh: this is how business within the City of Portland is handled today!

tabasco85331 · #36 04-21-2003, 12:22 PM

Who ever called it ,``affirmative action``needs ``ejekashun``. Because it was neither affirmative or forward action ! It actually did , what it was supposedly designed to conquer . Every time the pendulum swings too far to the right , it also swings too far to the left in return . Equal rights for everyone is an impossible goal , everyone is discrimated against by someone . Ethnic , gender , sexual preferance , rich , poor , fat , thin , tall , short , old , young , the list is endless . How can you make a law against something that is inheirent in our basic nature ?

Robert Davis · #37 04-21-2003, 01:04 PM

How do you guys categorize the class system based on things other than money ? Example - what values do each "class" contribute to society ?
Robert Davis

rickg · #38 04-21-2003, 03:17 PM

Wow

I started this thread, and I'm lost now. I was just wondering where the general beak-off points of the various level of class are. And I still don't know

But hey, don't let me stop this. Keep at it. I'm learning some economics here. You guys are way above me in all this.(I guess that's where a college education would have helped me

)
Oh, and BTW, I was referring to class distinctions here in the US of A. Start throwing in other countries, and that's comparing a Benz to a Vega. It don't work.

#39 04-21-2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narwhal
QUOTE: and with all due respect to RS, I think that qualifies you to offer theoretical opinions and participate in the discussion.

Geez I never knew Michigan State was such a crappy school

As the owner of a successful small business myself I think I have a pretty good grip on things, what color is your Ferrari?

That Guy · #40 04-21-2003, 04:43 PM

I'm surprised by the numbers you guys peg middle class at! Combined the girlfriend and I make about $140K per year (I know bad form to just say it). Yet I feel as though I'm about as solidly in the middle class as they come. Of course, middle class in the DC area is probably a little higher than elsewhere. We worry about any purchase over $100!

Concerning Taxes:

Most of the arguments I've seen above are only partially informed and oversimplify the argument (not that any of them are wrong, just incomplete). It took a hundred or so years for the Economists to even get to where they are today on the topic and they still cannot agree.
There is a theory called the "crowding out" effect that states that fiscal (read government taxation) economic policy is ineffective without a complimentary monetary (read Federal Reserve) be enacted to support it. The supply side economics of Reagan (which seem to be very similar to GW's) have largely been regarded as non-optimal and served to create greater income disparity.
In all reality, fiscal economic policy can do very little to influence the recession boom cycle which is natural and will always happen.

Amen to the calls for less government excess and pork barrel spending but thanks to special interests that's something that will never happen.

Do I have an answer to what should be done? No, because I have not done the requisite quantitative analysis to determine how the proposed tax cuts will affect debt levels and the economy, and neither have any of you. If you wish to argue about something at least make it substantive. I haven't even seen much anecdotal evidence cited here much less anything truly informed.

Its great to have opinions, but opinions alone aren't going to change someone else's.

jeffwolinski · #41 04-21-2003, 05:21 PM

Mike, I definitely agree that those that the Dems call wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes, but of course it depends on how the categories are defined. I would think that a reasonable definition of the middle class pays the majority of taxes. We already know that the poor basically pay none (at least in regard to income tax, with the bonus EIT credit on top).

I am sure that there are varying figures on what income brackets pay what portion of the tax burden, but I think most of us agree that whoever the middle class is, they are getting the shaft!

DieselHead · #42 04-21-2003, 06:11 PM

Quote:

In all reality, fiscal economic policy can do very little to influence the recession boom cycle which is natural and will always happen.

True, there is only partial control that the federal government has over economic trends. The most responsible thing a government should do in times of growth and boom is to raise taxes and build up a surplus to deal with the bad times. Not raise taxes in a big way, but a percent or two would be a huge boost and would not disrupt the boom (ie, if incomes go up 6% above inflation, taking 1% of that is nothing). Bush's taxes would be right on if the government had built up a hefty hefty surplus during the 90s that he could spend on the cuts. They couldn't though, ala Newt Gingrich. We saved up a little, but not enough. Now, we're left with nothing to spend.

I think the idea with not taxing the poor is two-fold. First, you want them to retain as much as possible so that they can invest in their own future and a better off lower class means a better of economy and society. Also, the idea is that those who make so little that they do not qualify for most taxes will spend it all. True, they're not paying taxes, but everything they have goes in to consumption. Isn't that what RS and someone else said? Consumption equals government revenue. If you give a poor person a $10 rebate, they'll spend it all and circulate it in the economy. If you give a rich person a $10 rebate, it means nothing and stays inactive. Which is the better investment?

Narwhal,
It's Yale. Don't ever confuse us with those Princeton kids

It's very hard to argue with some conservatives (not all) who's opinions are formed completely around self interest. "Cut public education because I can afford private schooling." "Release regulations on poison controls because I'm a pest exterminator." "Forget the poor because I'm not and never will be." "Completely privatize health care because I have a stake in it." And I'm not saying that only conservatives are self-centric. Many liberals are too (although one might wonder why someone like Kerry would push for higher taxes on his own class bracket). Sometimes though, what's not directly good for them (immediate tax cuts) has bigger pay offs in the end. Healthy lower classes amount to less stress on the upper classes and on society in general. Ideas may be fine and dandy, and facts more important, but it's the synthesis of the facts through educated critical reasoning that produces the theories that move us forward. Facts are only useful in the hands of those with proper perspective and aspirations for civic improvement. It's amazing how many people there are who believe societal improvement is only that which betters their own lives.

Alex

DieselHead · #43 04-21-2003, 06:23 PM

With regards to what someone said about the top 1% of society having 36% of the tax burden, the more relevant figure would be what percentage of the total amount of wealth is. I think you'll find that the top 1% has way more than 36% of the wealth. Should it be proportional?

Alex

blackmercedes · #44 04-21-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by That Guy
In all reality, fiscal economic policy can do very little to influence the recession boom cycle which is natural and will always happen.

While I agree with much of the post, this particular point I do not. We will always have the business cycle, but we have made great gains in smoothing it out. HUGE gains!

When was the last time the US (as a nation) had 15% unemployment?

The welfare state compromise of post 1940 has done lots to provide not only social stabilization, but tremendous amounts of economic stabilization. By building a stronger and more stable middle class, we created consumers that could afford to buy durable goods as opposed to only subsistence goods. Cars, applicances, homes, and so on. The middle class are the strength of western culture. With a have/have-not society, we have people that buy only the requirements of life and those that buy goods (in small numbers) and save a great percentage of their income.

Why is that the US economy has not recovered despite tax cuts to the rich? Trickle down? Trickle down to bond salespeople maybe. Massive corporate tax cuts in Canada have NOT created a single job. In most parts of Canada, unemployment is still at or above 7.5%. Employment is driven by the need to produce, not by the level pf profits. Can you find me a CEO that thinks "hey, that tax cut gave us more capital to play with, let's hire some folks?" Not many do. They instead announce the higher profits in an effort to ramp the stock in the short term, making their own options worth lots more. Then they lay off folks, asking those remaining to work harder to avoid the axe.

The THEORY is that companies will reinvest the capital in increased capacity, and raise the number of employees. In turn, more employed folks pay more income tax, meaning a net income gain for government. For some reason in Canada, this is not working. Is it in the US?

Five years ago, Edmonton's unemployment rate was about 5%. Corporate taxes have been reduced from 12% to 3%. No drop in unemployment. No trickle down. In fact, lay-off announcements are starting to dominate the business section once again.

blackmercedes · #45 04-21-2003, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
With regards to what someone said about the top 1% of society having 36% of the tax burden, the more relevant figure would be what percentage of the total amount of wealth is. I think you'll find that the top 1% has way more than 36% of the wealth. Should it be proportional?

Alex

The three richest US citizens have a combined asset base worth more than the asset base of the poorest 60 nations on the planet, combined.