Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Declaration of War begins on the Middle Class starting Today!


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

No, I said in my other post I'm in the range with OP listed in his original post.  But also my best friend of 25 years does.  He's no where near wealth, not even close.  But he does live a nice upper middle class life.  Nice suburban neighborhood, new-ish cars but nothing fancy, yearly vacation with the family to somewhere nice, ect ect.  

This is kind of my point about marginal rates vs cap gains earlier.  People like your friend are going to end up being the ones to pay the bill in income tax.  We all will on the corporate side through higher prices.  But he will get hit in both ways.  Meanwhile, the cap gains part vanishes into thin air.  And yet another surprise, surprise moment, it won't raise near the revenue it originally projects.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

“Fair share” is a pretty subjective term. 

It is, and I've always wanted to know what that max number should be even under a progressive system.  I've never heard a politician answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

No. 
I live in Orange County, work in LA County. If you’re making 400,000 a year you’re not “closer to middle class”. No ####### way. 

Tim what does 800k buy you for a house in OC?  What does 800k buy you in 90% of middle America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

This is kind of my point about marginal rates vs cap gains earlier.  People like your friend are going to end up being the ones to pay the bill in income tax.  We all will on the corporate side through higher prices.  But he will get hit in both ways.  Meanwhile, the cap gains part vanishes into thin air.  And yet another surprise, surprise moment, it won't raise near the revenue it originally projects.

Yep. And I get absolutely crushed at my income level too.  Hit with all the taxes but none of the benefits the wealthy are able to use.  

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

Tim what does 800k buy you for a house in OC?  What does 800k buy you in 90% of middle America?

Almost nobody spends 800k cash on a house. They put 5% down, sometimes 3% (I heard 1% the other day.) 

The median income in Los Angeles County is $62k. $400k? What are you thinking? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting aside the - interesting - $400k is middle class argument, what is in the infrastructure bill? Has anyone read it? Will it benefit the middle class? I assume so but I admit I don't know what's in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it was really a tax increase on the middle class, don't we desperately need infrastructure improvements? I thought that was something we all agreed on. Assuming we do need it, how do those who object to this "middle class" tax increase suggest paying for it?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Almost nobody spends 800k cash on a house. They put 5% down, sometimes 3% (I heard 1% the other day.) 

The median income in Los Angeles County is $62k. $400k? What are you thinking? 

Tim come on, what kind of house is an 800k house in the OC?  You know that's what I meant.  Do you really think I meant 800k cash?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Tim come on, what kind of house is an 800k house in the OC?  You know that's what I meant.  Do you really think I meant 800k cash?

If your point is that you can get a much bigger and better house in middle America for 800K you will get no argument. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I live in one of those city's right now, make in the range of the OP's original post, my best friend of 25 years makes just over 400k in the same city.  I know first hand right now how far those incomes go.  I also grew up on welfare in dirt poor neighborhoods so I have perspective.  I nor my friend are anywhere near wealthy and live squarely in the upper middle class life.  Don't know what else to tell you.

Fair enough, can't argue with your personal experience. The data just doesn't seem to back it up and based off personal experience, I just have a hard time believing someone isn't living very comfortably or at least have the ability to if they're being financially-smart on a salary of $400k/year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mene said:

So, we are just completely ignoring all statistical data that makes it clear that 400k is definitively NOT middle class, but above it, by anywhere from a fair bit to laughably above, based on location?

We are ignoring the fact that as was pointed out, it would amount to 2.6% increase in income OVER 400k.

We are ignoring the fact that MoP just implied that clerks selling swedish fish are receiving "stock options, 401k Candy Funds, free Pharmaceuticals, company car, gas card, gift card, credit card, eye and dental, physicals, health days"?

 

We are just gonna run this on emotion and outrage, while disregarding facts... correct?  Just want to understand the parameters of this discussion.

Ok, fine, but how about all the Swedish fish you can eat during your shift? That has to be like an extra $5 an hour at least....tax free!

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mene said:

So, we are just completely ignoring all statistical data that makes it clear that 400k is definitively NOT middle class, but above it, by anywhere from a fair bit to laughably above, based on location?

We are ignoring the fact that as was pointed out, it would amount to 2.6% increase in income OVER 400k.

We are ignoring the fact that MoP just implied that clerks selling swedish fish are receiving "stock options, 401k Candy Funds, free Pharmaceuticals, company car, gas card, gift card, credit card, eye and dental, physicals, health days"?

 

We are just gonna run this on emotion and outrage, while disregarding facts... correct?  Just want to understand the parameters of this discussion.

I'm wondering why the people who think $400k is anywhere close to middle class have ignored this post.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Yep. And I get absolutely crushed at my income level too.  Hit with all the taxes but none of the benefits the wealthy are able to use.  

That's kind of what happened to me.  I made enough in 2019 to not get any stimulus, yet my business lost money in 2020.  I won't qualify on the tax credit side for 2020 income being down because I had some passive income and cashed out some of my deceased parents IRA's to clear the tax while my rates were lower than normal.  I was betting on a tax increase when Biden won the election so I hustled that through at the end of 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, the moops said:

If your point is that you can get a much bigger and better house in middle America for 800K you will get no argument. 

It’s part of my overall point. 400k goes far far further some places vs others. Thus changing your lifestyle classification in one place vs another

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

And you won’t. 

I know.  Because if it's 50%, and they want a new program they don't want to be on record stating what your fair share is so they can move it up to 60%.  If it were 60%, the next program might make it need to be 70%.  That's why it's repugnant to hear politicians talk about people paying their "fair share" because they are unwilling to define what that is.  It allows them to make an endless boogeyman out of someone who is already paying their tax bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I just have a hard time believing someone isn't living very comfortably or at least have the ability to if they're being financially-smart on a salary of $400k/year.

If by "very comfortable" you mean sitting in your backyard in sunny So-Cal in your 2200sq foot home built in the 90's, in a solid safe public school district, driving a 50k car, and able to save for retirement and kids college while also saving for the yearly trip to Maui. But you still have to keep an eye on your bills, are scrambling if your roof leaks and find out it's a 10/15k repair and will have to work into your mid 60's to retire.  Then yes.  And for many many that is, it was literally the dream for my parents.  But if by "very comfortable" you mean a 5k sq foot house in a private gated community with new cars at will, plenty invested now to not worry about bills or an issue popping up, kids in private schools and retirement or spendy vacation is not a worry.  Then no.  

The first group is upper middle class. The second is wealthy.  400k is the big cities is likely group 1, in parts of middle America could be 2. 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

If by "very comfortable" you mean sitting in your backyard in sunny So-Cal in your 2200sq foot home built in the 90's, in a solid safe public school district, driving a 50k car, and able to save for retirement and kids college and the saving for the yearly trip to Maui. But you still have to keep an eye on your bills, are scrambling if your roof leaks and find out it's a 10/15k repair and will have to work into your mid 60's to retire.  Then yes.  And for many many that is, it was literally the dream for my parents.  But if by "very comfortable" you mean a 5k sq foot house in a private gated community with new cars at will, plenty invested now to not worry about bills or an issue popping up, kids in private schools and retirement or spendy vacation is not a worry.  Then no.  

The first group is upper middle class. The second is wealthy.  400k is the big cities is likely group 1, in parts of middle America could be 2. 

I completely agree and view 'very comfortable' much more like your first option, so that might be where we differ if you view it more like the latter.

And agreed, there is a MASSIVE difference between that upper middle class and that 0.1% wealthy group. They should be in completely different brackets, IMO.

Edited by Bucsfan5493
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

It’s part of my overall point. 400k goes far far further some places vs others. Thus changing your lifestyle classification in one place vs another

Nobody disagrees with this overall point. In the middle of Iowa you are living the life on a 400K income. But you also are in the middle of Iowa and not on the beach in So Cal or in the middle of the bustle of NYC. Being wealthy (earning 400K) gets you different things in life. Some may choose the extra space and larger house in middle America. But with that comes less amenities and attractions. Others may choose to be near the big city and restaurants and international airports but you are going to sacrifice space.

But the numbers show that even in LA or SF or wherever, you are clearly in the top 10 percent of earners and by any measure I can think of that is not middle class. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I completely agree and view 'very comfortable' much more like your first option, so that might be where we differ if you view it more like the latter.

And agreed, there is a MASSIVE difference between that upper middle class and that 0.1% wealthy group. They should be in completely different tax brackets, IMO.

Sounds like it.  And as I said I love my life and am extremely proud of what I've earned.  It's just not "very comfortable" because I know is just a short run of bad luck and I'm wiped out.  Very comfortable to me is not having that worry that if you lose your job you can't pay your bills.

Edited by dkp993
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dkp993 said:

Sounds like it.  An as I said I love my life and am extremely proud of what I've earned.  It's just not "very comfortable" because I know is just a short run of bad luck and I'm wiped out.  Very comfortable to me is not having that worry that if you lose you job you can't pay your bills.

I think most people agree with you that 150-250K is upper middle class. These tax proposals don't target that income range though so it is odd we are focussing on that instead of the 400K bracket. Which in my view is a drastic difference. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the moops said:

Nobody disagrees with this overall point. In the middle of Iowa you are living the life on a 400K income. But you also are in the middle of Iowa and not on the beach in So Cal or in the middle of the bustle of NYC. Being wealthy (earning 400K) gets you different things in life. Some may choose the extra space and larger house in middle America. But with that comes less amenities and attractions. Others may choose to be near the big city and restaurants and international airports but you are going to sacrifice space.

But the numbers show that even in LA or SF or wherever, you are clearly in the top 10 percent of earners and by any measure I can think of that is not middle class. 

Very true, but you also making an assumption you have that choice.  Many don't.  I can't make what I do in Iowa doing what I do.

And again, I didn't say it was middle class.  I said in the big cities it was closer to middle class then wealthy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, the moops said:

I think most people agree with you that 150-250K is upper middle class. These tax proposals don't target that income range though so it is odd we are focussing on that instead of the 400K bracket. Which in my view is a drastic difference. 

But it begs the question, why is it kicking in at $400K for a wage earner and $1MM for someone with cap gain income?  I guess it's kind of rhetorical, we all know the answer.  But because as you say the vast majority of Americans are below that $400K threshold, they won't ask that question.  They just know it's someone else's taxes going up.  They don't stop to realize that it won't raise the revenue they are told or that the wealthiest earners are getting the better treatment.  I don't begrudge anyone who falls in that range, whether that is upper middle class or even lower upper class, whatever we want to call them, for calling that into question.

Edited by Shula-holic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the moops said:

I think most people agree with you that 150-250K is upper middle class. These tax proposals don't target that income range though so it is odd we are focussing on that instead of the 400K bracket. Which in my view is a drastic difference. 

Goofy thread.  I love it.  A family making 100k is middle class.  400k is the top of the upper middle class.  Upper middle class likely starts around 250k. 

Not sure why some of you live where making 400k is a struggle.  You know you are allowed to move, right?   

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

Even if it was really a tax increase on the middle class, don't we desperately need infrastructure improvements? I thought that was something we all agreed on. Assuming we do need it, how do those who object to this "middle class" tax increase suggest paying for it?

Why should the middle class (or any American taxpayer) pay for 86 million to put up illegal immigrants in a hotel?

Billions (trillions?) on endless wars in the Middle East?

Etc

why isn’t all this taxpayer money being spent on our infrastructure?

Edited by Cowboysfan8
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

Putting aside the - interesting - $400k is middle class argument, what is in the infrastructure bill? Has anyone read it? Will it benefit the middle class? I assume so but I admit I don't know what's in it.

The "infrastructure" bill like the "COVID" bill is much more than the title suggests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

Biden’s a f’ing liar.  White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently clarified the hike would apply to families earning $400,000 per year — meaning two adults who make $200,000, a seeming contradiction of Biden’s own recent statement that “if you make less than $400,000, you won’t see one single penny in additional federal tax.”

I knew this guy would do a bait and switch.

Ummm really?  Pretty sure he was referring to a household income there.  Calling that a lie is a stretch.

That isnt liberal word gymnastics...its common sense.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Any clerk selling Swedish Fish makes $40K or $20 an hour these days. All these retail grocery stores, drug stores, they're paying thru the roof right now to find help. 

$100k combined income, one person selling Swedish Fish and the other selling Kia Motors let's say. Middle class family in Urban America? Good chance to become homeowners? Can you not buy a home and still be Middle Class in 2021? 

Pretty hard in my area as Chicagoans are buying up everything, many are for airbnb's.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$3-4 trillion in two upcoming economic proposals.

The Yellen/Powell printing press still on fire from the $1.9 trillion Covid package.

Tax hikes on both corporations and individuals.

And Democrats wonder why they get called the party of "tax and spend"...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I'm wondering why the people who think $400k is anywhere close to middle class have ignored this post.

It is upper-middle in SOCal. SF, and NYC for sure depending on your marital status and dependants.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Putting aside everything else, I don’t think you should be using this sort of slang. It’s pretty offensive. 

So you're saying there's something wrong with my man crush on Mr. T?

:kicksrock:

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

It is upper-middle in SOCal. SF, and NYC for sure depending on your marital status and dependants.  

Okay, but upper-middle class is completely different than middle class... I've already shared this link which shows how off base these claims are, even when factoring in for the major, expensive cities.

Edited by Bucsfan5493
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

Is this the middle class you refer to:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently clarified the hike would apply to families earning $400,000 per year

3 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

That's $25k a month, That's $12,000 or less after taxes in some States

Isn’t $400,000 annually $33,333 per month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dkp993 said:

It’s part of my overall point. 400k goes far far further some places vs others. Thus changing your lifestyle classification in one place vs another

I definitely wouldn't be opposed to some kind of cost of living adjustment when determining tax brackets.  Unfortunately I'm sure it would be abused and I'm not sure how it could really be implemented well.

Regardless my brother makes less than $400k and lives in the bay area and while he's not some rich dude driving lambos and living in mansions, I certainly wouldn't describe his lifestyle as anywhere near middle class.

It's all kind of a moot point anyway as $400k isn't really the number that matters here.  If you make $400k this tax increase would affect your tax bill by $0.  If you make $420k it would affect your tax bill by $500.

In reality you have to be making a lot more than $400k before a 2.6% increase on your earnings over $400k amounts to any really meaningful money to people making that amount, and at no point could it add up to enough to actually affect your lifestyle since the only way to increase the gross tax amount is to be increase total income.

 

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

Is this the middle class you refer to:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently clarified the hike would apply to families earning $400,000 per year

3 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

That's $25k a month, That's $12,000 or less after taxes in some States and a family with 2-3 kids

Isn’t $400,000 annually $33,333 per month?  That’s over 30% more than $25,000 per month. Also, and this is an honest question, are there really states where a paycheck of that amount would have 52% taken out of every paycheck just for state and federal taxes?

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

$3-4 trillion in two upcoming economic proposals.

The Yellen/Powell printing press still on fire from the $1.9 trillion Covid package.

Tax hikes on both corporations and individuals.

And Democrats wonder why they get called the party of "tax and spend"...

More responsible than cut taxes and still spend?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Isn’t $400,000 annually $33,333 per month?  That’s over 30% more than $25,000 per month. Also, and this is an honest question, are there really states where a paycheck of that amount would have 52% taken out of every paycheck for state and federal taxes?

Some of these high expense cities have city taxes as well so I wouldn't be surprised if there were some where the top tax bracket got up that high with federal, city, and state combined.

Of course, that's extremely different than saying someone is paying 52% tax on their total income at $400k since tax rates are marginal.  But every time tax rate discussion comes up there is a large contingent of people that either don't understand what a marginal tax bracket is (scary), or choose to intentionally be misleading by applying the top tax bracket to all income.

Simply put no, there is nowhere in the country where someone making $400k takes home only $144k or less in cash after taxes as MoP ridiculously alleged.

ETA: The highest city/state combined income tax is in Gould, AR and is 11.5% (graduated, as all of the high state income tax states are).  So income in the highest bracket amounts to a total of 48.5%.  Someone making $400k would have a top rate of 46.5% total.

Again though that is only on the income within the top bracket.  Total take home earnings for someone that made $400k in America's most heavily taxed city would be $248,500, or $20,700 per month.  A full 37% more than MoP alleged (and he even said "or less").

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Isn’t $400,000 annually $33,333 per month?  That’s over 30% more than $25,000 per month. Also, and this is an honest question, are there really states where a paycheck of that amount would have 52% taken out of every paycheck just for state and federal taxes?

Please don't encourage any math from MOP

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be a dumb question, but instead of raising taxes couldn't they just repeal the tax break that the previous administration gave to the rich?

I'm too rich to be a democrat and too poor to be a republican.  I'm at that sweet spot where they both raise my taxes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Why should the middle class (or any American taxpayer) pay for 86 million to put up illegal immigrants in a hotel?

Billions (trillions?) on endless wars in the Middle East?

Etc

why isn’t all this taxpayer money being spent on our infrastructure?

In both of the examples you offered, the answer is because the alternative would cost us more. I happen to agree with that argument; you may not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

This may be a dumb question, but instead of raising taxes couldn't they just repeal the tax break that the previous administration gave to the rich?

I'm too rich to be a democrat and too poor to be a republican.  I'm at that sweet spot where they both raise my taxes.

From a political standpoint this is exactly what they should do. For all I know it is what they’re going to do; the article in the OP is from the NY Post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Both 2020 Covid spending packages were bi-partisan. The $6 trillion in new spending is all Democrats.

Your logic is bizarre, at best.

This can go both ways though right? Dems in minority worked with Reps package. Yet Reps won't return the favor and work with Dems. It's not as simple as looking at vote totals

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the moops said:

This can go both ways though right? Dems in minority worked with Reps package. Yet Reps won't return the favor and work with Dems. It's not as simple as looking at vote totals

And if it was a Dems-only package it would have been larger. Guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...