Hillary Clinton's Strange Definition of "Middle Class"

[LiberalArkie]

Hillary Clinton's campaign has spent much of the past week trumpeting her pledge to protect the middle class from tax increases. Clinton has "proposed a bold, aggressive agenda," campaign press secretary Brian Fallon said in a statement this week, "but when it comes to paying for it, she will make sure the wealthiest Americans finally start paying their fair share, not force the middle class to pay even more than they already do."

The former senator and secretary of state hasn't been shy about using that pledge to bludgeon her Democratic opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Gov. Martin O'Malley, as too eager to take money away from the middle class. "If you are truly concerned about raising incomes for middle-class families, the last thing you should do is cut their take-home pay right off the bat by raising their taxes," Fallon said. "Yet Bernie Sanders has called for a roughly 9 percent tax hike on middle-class families just to cover his health care plan, and simple math dictates he'll need to tax workers even more to pay for the rest of his at least $18-20 trillion agenda." Twitter accounts affiliated with Clinton's campaign have eschewed subtlety to attack Sanders and O'Malley on this point.

There's a problem with Clinton's line of attack: She is promising to exempt a lot of indisputably rich people from paying more in taxes. Clinton pledged last week that, should she become president, she wouldn't allow taxes to be raised on households earning less than $250,000 per year—by any measure a very high ceiling for the middle class.

The middle class is one of those nebulous terms with no clear-cut definition. But a glance at the distribution of income across the country makes it hard to argue that anyone earning close to $250,000 a year could be considered part of the "middle" of the income range.

Snip

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/hillary-clinton-middle-class

[rhett o rick]

1. When you are in the 1% and looking down, things get distorted. She can't even see the poor.

She thinks that those earning less than $250,000 a year must be peasants. She has no concept of how the working class lives.

[nashville_brook]

3. thats the problem with focusing on the "middle class" to the exclusion of "working families"

they're playing this game where we're supposed to BELIEVE in the aspirational message. well guess what — many, if not most, young people have given up on those aspirations. many senior have. many, like me who are nearly retirement with health issues know we're going to live in poverty. so, this whole "middle class" message is complete BS, and it's really grating.

[Pharaoh]

23. ^^ this ^^

[daleanime]

31. +1

[Marty McGraw]

64. Out of Touch

and Completely okay with it as long as it keeps her & hers in comfort & Bliss pinning the rest in out in the muck.

[tk2kewl]

80. Hedges is right with you

A destitute working class knows the feel-your-pain language of the liberal class and the Democratic Party is a lie. And it knows the “compassionate conservatism” epitomized by the Bush dynasty and the Republican establishment is a lie.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_age_of_the_demagogues_20151129

[AllTooEasy]

61. Just told my wife that we are "Rich"!!!

Our combined income is $268,000. (She actually makes a little more than me)

...but we both still have to drag ourselves out of bed to work in non-managerial, engineering(software and environmental) positions.

...and paying for 2 private school educations still depletes our savings(these kids better get ALL A's!!!).

...and retirement is still a dream.

Being rich ain't what it used to be.

The fact that $250K household income ranks in the top %3 truly pinpoints the income inequality dilemma. We surely live comfortable lives, but "Rich" lives far surpass Comfortable.

This article's problem is that is bases economic class on inccome ranking, not economic power. $250k is around the point where each additional %0.1 in the income rankings corelates to an exponential rise in income. All the economic power is in the top %1 percent. These folks are just 2 percentage points higher than us, but their incomes are 100-10,000 times higher. That's Upper Class Income!

[pangaia]

71. Please explain.

"Our combined income is $268,000. (She actually makes a little more than me)

...but we both still have to drag ourselves out of bed to work in non-managerial, engineering(software and environmental) positions.

...and paying for 2 private school educations still depletes our savings(these kids better get ALL A's!!!).

...and retirement is still a dream.

Being rich ain't what it used to be. "

I really am not sure if you are serious, about yourself, or speaking tongue in cheek. Please tell me.

[Plucketeer]

75. Aw geez....

Could I get you to swap places with me and my wife? We'd LOVE to know what it's like to endure your level of financial hardship!

[Rebkeh]

79. I'm sputtering here

Savings?

Private schools? Plural too.

You can't be serious.

The nuanced difference between income ranking and economic power is not very meaningful in terms of the vast majority. You may not be a fat cat, but it's still out of touch.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Are you saying $250,000 and below does not define middle class?

[HerbChestnut]

4. That seems to be the gist of the article, yeah.

$250,000 per year is a ton of money. I can't even fathom having that much income. Once you get a household income of 100-150k then you're starting to push the limits of what can be considered 'middle class' especially when you consider that the median household income in the U.S. is around 52k.

[Art_from_Ark]

74. $250,000 a year in Arkansas would put you in the top 1%

[Crystalite]

6. Seriously? In 2011, 95.8% of household incomes were BELOW $200,000.

[SheilaT]

47. Ummm, the top 49.8% is all of those from under $15,00 to $49,999?

I'm feeling a bit confused here. And the top 95.7% is from the poverty level to $199,999? I'm still confused.

[Crystalite]

48. By "top" they mean most populated income brackets.

Not the top income levels.

In other words, there are more households in the top rows of income levels than in each income level below it.

[SheilaT]

50. Looking at the table, that should actually be the bottom

49.8%. It's as if the person setting up the brackets does not understand the simple difference between top and bottom. I honestly don't think that the portion that includes ONLY the bottom brackets can possibly be defined as top.

Your mileage might vary.

[jeff47]

9. Most people would consider drawing the line above 97% to be a wee bit above "middle". (nt)

[CoffeeCat]

33. This is tactical on Hillary's part to bash Bernie...

Hillary is laying out an economic plan that includes NOT raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000.

If you listen to the talking points, Hillary's economic plan is an attempt to draw fictitious lines in the Democratic sands. On one side is Hillary--who won't raise your taxes. On the other, is Bernie Sanders who is going to raise taxes, even on the middle class.

Hillary is positioning Sanders as the candidate who will raise your taxes.

There's only one reason for the $250k cap--to appeal to the broadest audience possible with this messaging.

(Never mind that the payroll tax increases for Bernie's healthcare plan--would end up decreasing overall healthcare costs for households, causing a net windfall of hundreds of dollars per household. Hillary just wants to position Bernie as the man who will be taxing your hard earned money, and Hillary as the one who won't do that.)

Tactical bullshit designed to target nearly everyone. That's all this is.

[BeanMusical]

66. +1 Totally agree.

[hill2016]

73. what can I say

she's smart and takes no prisoners

[Plucketeer]

77. You nailed it!

The "paybacks" from that 9% are gonna be BIG. Oh - but she's not gonna promote that factor. Not a liar? I agree. She's a (D) Deceiver - just like the Shanghai artist she'd be replacing.

[Doctor_J]

10. are you saying $250,000 DOES?

Is there anything in the world that Hillary says that strikes you as nutty/offensive?

[Scootaloo]

55. No, of course not

The question is, did Clinton supporters oppose Clinton's idea.. .when they were Mitt Romney's ideas?

[hifiguy]

59. Nope. They just cataloged them

for future use and reference.

[aidbo]

34. Would you consider 200 lbs and below to be middle weight in boxing?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. Are you barely scraping by on $300,000 a year too?

[tazkcmo]

45. Not surprising.

That you think 250k a year is middle class is not surprising. You're the same poster that is against single payer healthcare because some mysterious lazy person that doesn't want to work, ever, may get healthcare and so seniors, the disabled and children can go to hell.

[bvar22]

62. Here, this guy will define "Middle CLass" for you.

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary has learned NOTHING since 2008.
In fact, she has raised the floor of whom SHE considers "Middle Class" , and will work to protect these friends of hers in the Top5%.

[BeanMusical]

69. +1

[BeanMusical]

68. ...

[bvar22]

81. Only 3% of Americans make $250K or better,

and NO! The top 3% is NOT the "Middle Class".
That is Hillary's Base.

LIft-the-CAP on FICA deductions.

[tk2kewl]

5. She shoots for the top when defining the middle class that don't get a tax increase

But when considering the working class and minimum wage she aims low

[peacebird]

65. ^^^this^^^

[The Blue Traveller]

7. Kicked and highly recommended read.

Thank you, LiberalArkie

[JaneyVee]

8. It's $200k for a single person $250k for married.

[jeff47]

11. Oooo....That makes SUCH a difference.

95% of households make less than $200k. 97% of households make less than $250k.

That is including both married and single households.

[JaneyVee]

12. And?

[jeff47]

13. Moving the line from top 3% to top 5% doesn't exactly make it actually middle class. (nt)

[JaneyVee]

16. Bernie only ever talks about the 1%.

And $200k is upper middle class in many cities, like the one I live in.

[jeff47]

18. And that still doesn't mean drawing the line above 95% is middle class.

But hey, when you don't have a logical answer, time to launch an attack, right?

And $200k is upper middle class in many cities, like the one I live in.

O rly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Income

Median household income in New York City is $48k. You wanna upgrade to the "expensive" part of town? It's $65k in Manhattan.

So no, $200k is not "upper middle class". Even in very expensive cities.

[Live and Learn]

21. It seems some here don't want to pay their fair share along with the billionaires. nt

[JaneyVee]

27. I live here:

http://www.zillow.com/blog/166000-a-year-is-middle-class-only-in-manhattan-110556/

[jeff47]

32. Where the median income is $48-65K, depending on the borough.

Middle class is not measured by "I want _____, and it costs _____". It's measured based on people's actual income.

Otherwise, you are arguing that something like 60-80% of your fellow city dwellers are in abject poverty....and that you shouldn't be asked to pay <$5 to help them.

[bread_and_roses]

60. Notice there's no answer to this ....

.... because it's indisputable. But some talking points depend on deliberate obtuseness or outright denial of reality.

[hill2016]

67. I live here too.

[LiberalArkie]

19. The CEO where I used to work said he wasn't rich only upper middle class, he brought in 7million

a year + stock options.

[Crystalite]

43. Those salaries are SQUARELY in the top 10% for households.

Have you no Google?

[JDPriestly]

44. For most of the country, that's a no-go. Hillary has made a fool of herself with this one.

She made the same mistake in 2008 -- defining middle class with an income way above what most consider middle class and what most outside of the states of New York and California, maybe some Texans, even professionals, could never earn. It's another complete disconnect with reality on the part of Hillary. Ugggh.

[jalan48]

14. The Clinton's are members of the .1%. She makes $250,000 per speech.

That's a big part of her problem with the "middle class" thing.

[WillyT]

15. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[jonno99]

17. K&R

[zentrum]

20. The thing is

…..250,000 in 1975 dollars would have been about 50K.

To buy what FDR defined in his economic bill of rights—college for two kids, a house, car, health, vacation and retirement with dignity—it is close to this amount, especially in urban settings.

The point is that most in the middle class can no longer afford college, a house, health, vacation and retirement. Most aren't making anywhere near 250K. But it is in fact the amount that would buy what the middle class had in '55, '65, even '85.

250K ain't what it used to be given what the oligarchy has done to the country. Go Bernie!

[mopinko]

25. this is true.

spent a lot of time in that range while i was married. have a big house and a small rental property. a decent amount in a 401k. few debts.
but hardly rich.

it is only the 95% because there is no middle class anymore.

[daleanime]

35. Have to agree with that, there is no middle class any more.....

instead we have the second generation to do worst then their parents.

This needs to be changed.

[Volaris]

40. I you raise a good point, and it begs an associated question for me

What governmental as well as Market mechanisms exist that would act to DEFLATE the Dollar, so that over a period of time, say 30 years, we would be back to 1975 levels of inflation and currency value (where you functionally would have less money, but most certainly would be able to buy more with what you had )?

I don't think this has ever been asked since I've been here.
I'm wondering if Congress could impose an inflation tax. One percent per year for 20 years. It doesn't go to pay anything, Treasury just collects it and then sticks it in the shredder, for the sole purpose of removing it from the economy, so that what's left in circulation is worth just a little bit more. Is this possible, and if so what would be the result for the immediate (and then longer-term) national economy?

Anybody have any ideas?

[zentrum]

82. Not economically savvy

…enough to quite understand all the ramifications of doing what you're saying.

But I wonder if a deflated dollar hurts us in world markets, in comparison to the Yen etc etc. (?) Also, since everything is now based on gigantic debt that is just moved around the globe through various derivatives, growing bigger and bigger all the time, I think a deflated dollar might destabilize the whole house of cards rather catastrophically.

The main idea I'm thinking about is the one Thomas Piketty made in his big block buster book Capital in the Twenty First Century. It's supposed to be data and research based, not ideological. His main point is that centralized money (like our Fed) is destroying the goals of Capitalism because its creating too much income disparity. Not sure I understand this —but the correction for it, in his opinion, is to de-centralize money, because centralized money serves only multi-nationals and big banks. He wants us to go to a system of local money. So Europe would go off the Euro, for instance, and go back to its local country monies. And maybe even smaller than that.

But it seems a little late for all of it, to me.

[passiveporcupine]

41. median income in 1975 was 10,257

adjusted to 45,788 today

in 2012, median income was 48.87 (I may have the last two digits wrong...lost my link)

I do think 250K is a tad over middle class today. I think anything over 100K is definitely upper middle class.

Upper-middle-class workers typically have post-graduate degrees and work at high-level, white-collar positions. Household income for these workers is often above $100,000

Judging by this chart, if upper middle class is the top 15% of income earners, $200K and up is the top 5% of income earners...meaning above upper middle class.

I cannot verify the accuracy of this web site.
http://www.mybudget360.com/plundering-the-middle-class-35-percent-of-american-households-live-on-35000-or-less/

[zentrum]

83. Nice data. Thanks.

My point was only that to have the middle class "life" today you would have to make a bundle in absolute terms. The mortgage alone in various areas for a middle class house is near 1Million. Insane. College for two kids can be 80K a year and up. That's a 250K lifestyle.

So though today the majority of earners can no longer send their kids to college, save anything, take a vacation, retire when it's time to, or cover their real health costs---I think in '75 you could have a middle class life if you made the amount you cite.

I'm not an economist. At all. We may be saying the same thing in different ways.

So, yes, 250K is what a middle class family would need to be middle class in 2015--- that is, to live the 1975 middle class life.

Not clear to me at all that HRC really understands the gap between what the middle class needs to earn vs. what it's actually earning. Hence the 250K reference she makes—which for most families sounds like a fortune.

[passiveporcupine]

84. I don't think you need to make 250K to have a middle class life today

that may depend on where you live.

My sis certainly does not make anywhere near that, but she has a nice home and is "helping" her son with college. They both have health insurance (privately purchased, as she is self employed) but it's not a gold plan, that's for sure.

In 1970's, my parents made a lot more than 10K, and were considered middle class, and still they did not help any of us go to college. We were on our own. And the only ones who had any kind of health insurance were those of us who got it with our jobs. I think the definition of middle class may have changed too, unless you are looking just as median wages for the population.

[6chars]

54. I was wondering why I don't feel rich

Housing, college, health, parents, and it starts to add up. I feel like I am earning a decent amount but live like a grad student and don't see my bank account going up. What does 250k feel like?

[Truprogressive85]

22. The rich will always look out for their friends!

200k or 250k is top 5% in major cities in America

Healthcare for all - nope, free public higher education-nope: why ? Gotta make sure those "middle class" members making 250k can send their children to Swiss boarding schools or so they can afford those members fee at gold course

[ForgoTheConsequence]

24. No wonder Hillary thinks 12 dollars an hour is enough to live on.

There is so much disconnect between the wealthy in the Democratic party and the people making 20 to 30 grand a year it's ridiculous.

[darkangel218]

26. K&R.

[AgingAmerican]

28. So his healthcare plan will cost about 9% of a families income?

That in itself is a 'tax cut'

[jtuck004]

29. "...the wealthiest Americans finally start paying their fair share" < Change policies so

it's invested in the country, not paid to them in the first place.

Twice as hard to get it back if you give the enemy most of your ammunition before the battle starts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. There's a diff between assets and income.

You can have lots of assets and little income, little assets and lots of income, little assets and little income (a whole lot of people) or lots of assets and lots of income (not me and not a lot of other people).

[Thespian2]

36. If you become interested only in wealth and power,

you will have no concern for how you obtained the wealth and power...and certainly no concern at all for most of the workers and poor people of America...


You will be a 1%er...like all your wealthy buddies...

[JHB]

37. My question: Why focus in $250K? Why limit the discussion there?

Currently we have two income tax brackets (out of 7) that kick in at levels above $250K. No bracket kicks in at levels above $500K.

For comparison, in 1955 there were 24 brackets. Adjusting for inflation, 16 affected incomes above $250K. That's two-thirds of them. 11 of those affected incomes above $500K (i.e., 40% of the brackets). The top marginal rate affected taxable income over the equivalent of $3.4 million.

Note that this isn't talking about the rates, that's a separate issue. This is about how all progressivity in the income tax structure was eliminated for very high incomes under Reagan, and has never been restored. Not even close.

[SoapBox]

38. She's out of touch with the vast majority of Americans.

She has spent her life rubbing elbows with the top few percent...those with money and power.

We'll get a few lame, "oh I'm so for you"...and then freak'n zip.

I have zero trust in her making or introducing true change for America.

[840high]

46. ...^ that

[NotHardly]

42. Does the word RANGE mean anything to you ... could you do research or does screetching serve?

http://twocents.lifehacker.com/the-salary-required-to-be-middle-class-in-every-state-1695393156 The Salary Required to Be “Middle Class" in Every State

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

Many people aren't sure which income class that they specifically fall under. Although the vast majority will fall under the middle income class, many studies and scholars actually break up the middle class into three different categories, and some even say there are four. To make things even more complicated, earlier this month the Census Bureau stated that the median American household income is now at its lowest point since 1996, falling 1.5% from 2010 to $50,054. So, where do you and your household fit in? This article will attempt to explain what constitutes each income class, and what the government is doing to address the declining U.S median.

The Median
The median income amount is the amount that divides the U.S. incomes in half, with the median income being $50,054. Approximately half of Americans will fall below this household income amount, and the other half will fall above. Although this may help you learn which half you and your family fall under, figuring out which specific class your household exactly falls under isn't so simple.

The Income Classes
The Upper Class
At the top of the income classes is the upper class, also known as the 1% or as the 5% because this class makes up about 1-to-5% of the entire American population. However, some sources state that as much as 15% of the American population could fall into the upper class. These households make approximately $150,000+ a year (the 5%), or over $250,000 a year (the 1%), and can be divided into two different categories: those with old money or those with new money. Households with old money are those that have had wealth in their family for at least two generations (sometimes many more), and haven't had to necessarily work for an income. On the other hand, households with new money consist of households who have had wealth in their family for only one or two generations, and instead of inheriting their riches they worked hard to earn their wealth.

The Middle Classes
Next come the middle classes, which make up the vast majority of the American population, and at the top of the middle class is the upper middle class, also known as the top of the class. Members of this class tend to be well educated, hold post-secondary degrees and have high-paying, white-collar positions. This class is male-dominated, and has an income of $100,000 or more annually. That's enough to stay at the top one-third of U.S. incomes.

In the middle of the middle classes is the lower middle class. This class usually has households with people who have a college education, but these people don't have the degrees necessary to advance into higher-earning positions. This class contains lower-level, white-collar workers who generally earn between $32,500 and $60,000.
--------------

And finally, for those still reading rather than ranting....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class (not my favorite site but I figure anyone can get there and read a bit...

[Live and Learn]

52. Who are you yelling at, the author? I doubt she/he reads DU. nt

[jfern]

49. $250k is barely anything

After all, you can earn that much a speech and still be "dead broke".

[Live and Learn]

51. Touche!

[BlueCheese]

53. It's the same pledge Obama made.

It's also one Clinton made in 2008, if I remember correctly.

I happen to disagree with making such blanket pronouncements myself, because you never know what will happen. However, to criticize Clinton is to implicitly criticize Obama as well.

[cascadiance]

56. She's looking for a rationale to stand against removing the cap on payroll taxes...

So that the real wealthy can still get taxed at a LOWER rate than the rest of us REAL middle class people who pay HIGHER rates when we make $118k and less! Her contributors are paying her to make this sort of logic happen to avoid paying their fair share!

[malthaussen]

57. I don't want the rich to pay their "fair share."

I want them to pay an unfair share. Of all the cliches surrounding wealth and taxes, this one may drive me the most crazy. They control an unfair share of the wealth, they should jolly well pay an unfair share of the taxes.

-- Mal

[hifiguy]

58. She serves her owners.

And absolutely no-fuckin-body else.

[Major Hogwash]

63. It all adds up to cutting taxes while increasing the Defense Budget at the same time, ask Dubya Bush

Because that was the same plan in 2001, and it did not work out so well.

[BeanMusical]

70. Kick and R

[Gore1FL]

72. Maybe she is really saying is that we are all living in poverty and just think we are middle class

There is certainly some truth to that.

[Walk away]

76. So Bernie Sanders would raise taxes on anyone making over $50,000 a year....

$70,000 a year? What?
You're a Bernie supporter. Tell us who you and Bernie think should be considered Middle Class and who is too wealthy for you.
Tell us, here in the North East suburbs, who you BS supporters consider too rich and not paying into the system enough. We want to know. How much more of a percentage of their earned income does Bernie want them to kick in??????
If he had the guts to "explain" that while he was "explaining" Socialism I might feel a little less contempt for him and his campaign.

[RandySF]

78. She represented an East Coast state for 8 years

Try living on either coast and your perspective will change, too..