Relative wealth... Being middle class

[LucyStoner]

Lest we forget, the free and reduced lunch families truly outnumber the techies and affluent who can afford SFH in the most expensive areas of the city.

[Ohdanigirl]

 

America is a bit more stratified. Upper class, Upper Middle Class (where the OP probably belongs), .

I am curious howyou came to this guess. Was it just a guess or Was there more to it? I promise I am not being snarky, but curious to know what factored into that guess.

 

Danielle

[SKL]

I dunno, I honestly don't know one single American who is starving.  I mean, I know there are people who live under the overpasses, but I don't think anyone would consider them "middle class."  Several of the comments here seem to imply that the average American can't get enough to eat.

 

I think we continue to have vastly different ideas of "want" and "need."  And this affects how people spend their money, which affects whether they can afford what I would consider a "need," and whether they need to go into oppressive levels of debt, and whether they ever get to the point where they are a few bucks in the black instead of the red.

 

Don't get me wrong, I see this in my own family of origin.  Sibling A feels s/he "needs" or "deserves" xyz which Sibling B has denied herself for a decade or more.  Sibling A despises Sibling B for being so frugal.  And then when sibling B decides to use her saved money for a travel trip, Sibling A starts in with "oh, it must be nice."  Followed shortly by, "say, can you lend me some money?"  It is a fact that two people can start out with the same exact amount of everything, and end up with vastly different cash flow down the line.

 

So not to go all religious on people, but there is something to be said about the parable of the ten talents.  Why do we begrudge financially successful people what they have?  Why (on this board anyway) is it so taboo to admit that some people just waste their gifts, their time, their money, and it's not anyone else's fault?

 

And after a decade of one person exploiting his gifts and the other person wasting them, who usually ends up helping the most people?  Who pays the most taxes, who gives the most to charity, who creates the most jobs?  Why do we despise people who generally do do their share if not more?

[Tsuga]

When I talk about Seattle, I am talking about Seattle city limits. Obviously I am separating the suburbs from that, otherwise I could not say I had left Seattle.

 

1/2 of households with families living in Seattle are living on less than $52k a year.

 

 

Yes, but most of those are single people.

 

There ARE families here living on very little, but if you look at the stats of where people with children are living, there are neighborhoods with hardly any children in them, and numbers are falling.

 

And as for the people who are living in cramped conditions (multi-family in a single-family dwelling, for example), well, that is true.

 

However, my point was to say--COL is a phenomenon that drives out poor people. It cannot be minimized by saying, "Yeah but poor people live there too so I don't believe that your salary couldn't get you more if you really wanted it." The rapidly decreasing number of poor people living in this city are living in rapidly deteriorating conditions.

 

Note I am talking about poor, not middle-class. I do think Seattle still has something of a middle class, but if you look at what happened in San Francisco, I think we are going to have to work really, really hard to avoid what happened there.

 

And that will involve keeping the COL lower and not somehow making it possible for the poor to live in a high COL area. Like you said, intentionally keeping prices down by intentionally opening up spots for middle-class and poor people.

 

 

 

Yes, people live in Everett and Auburn but that doesn't mean they are especially poor either- many middle class people live in those areas.

 

Certainly and I am sorry if I presented it like Everett and Auburn are ghettos. What I was trying to say was that in high COL areas, you do not have large numbers of poor people getting by on $25k annually while someone making 10x that much lives down the street or even within walking distance. Instead if you are making so little, you increasingly cannot afford to live near work and move further out to places like Everett and Auburn and I chose those places because that's where my colleagues were able to build houses.

 

And let it be said that there are outliers to every trend and exceptions to every rule. I am not saying it's literally impossible. I simply think the whole "well there are poor people in high COL areas" is not fair--very few poor people live in the truly high COL areas because they can't afford housing except through public programs. COL segregation is real, and for a few industries, there really are only a few tech hubs. My job is with social services and the public sector. I could work in Mississippi. My partner's job can be had in all of four cities in the US. We live in the cheapest one.

 

We are struggling not to move out of the neighborhood he grew up in--again, this is on a solid middle-class salary--to a much lower COL area. Many people where we live moved here from higher COL areas (i.e. California and New York).

[Catwoman]

Here's NY's Rules:

Local governments and school districts in New York State can opt to grant a reduction on the amount of property taxes paid by qualifying senior citizens. This is accomplished by reducing the taxable assessment the senior's home by as much as 50%.

To qualify, seniors generally must be 65 years of age or older and meet certain income limitations and other requirements. For the 50% exemption, the law allows each county, city, town, village, or school district to set the maximum income limit at any figure between $3,000 and $29,000.

Localities have the further option of giving exemptions of less than 50% to seniors whose incomes are more than $29,000. Under this option, called the "sliding-scale option," such owner can have a yearly income as high as $37,399.99 and get a 5% exemption in places that are using the maximum limit.

 

Enhanced STAR

• provides an increased benefit for the primary residences of senior citizens (age 65 and older) with qualifying incomes
• exempts the first $65,300 of the full value of a home from school taxes as of 2015-16 school tax bills (up from $64,200 in 2014-15)

STAR exemptions apply only to school district taxes. They don't apply to property taxes for other purposes, such as county, town or city (except in cities where city property taxes fund schools - Buffalo, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers).

Thanks, Dot! :)

[SKL]

I looked at realtor.com for 20,000 homes in your metropolis. They don't look very livable to me, without quite a lot of work, and that's without even knowing about plumbing/electrical.

 

They may be fixer-uppers, but they are as big as / bigger than some of the $1M houses in some other cities.

 

Some people place more value on space and low cost vs. modern and pretty.

 

It doesn't cost much to fix up a modest house, especially if you can live in it while you fix it up.  I know several people who have done / are doing this.

[Catwoman]

They may be fixer-uppers, but they are as big as / bigger than some of the $1M houses in some other cities.

 

It doesn't cost much to fix up a modest house, especially if you can live in it while you fix it up. I know several people who have done / are doing this.

What's the catch? Are the neighborhoods super-scary, or are the property taxes ridiculously high?

 

(I'm not being snarky -- I am really wondering! :))

[SKL]

What's the catch? Are the neighborhoods super-scary, or are the property taxes ridiculously high?

 

(I'm not being snarky -- I am really wondering! :))

 

They are not the best neighborhoods, but they are liveable (and on the upswing).  The government is pouring a lot of money into developing the economy in these areas.  Would I go out of my way for a chance to live there, no, but many working people do in fact live there.

[Laura Corin]

 

If you're a Downton Abbey fan or anglophile in general, they have three classes depicted on the show that are representative of their three socio-economic classes- the aristocracy and super rich (think the Granthams), the middle class (think Matthew Crawley and his mother before Matthew was heir) and the lower/working class (everyone downstairs).

 

We are much different. The UK middle class most likely had servants (think the Schlegel sisters of Howard's End) and either had enough money from inheritance or work not to have to do domestic duties. And their servants were most likely live-in. Our middle class wouldn't have servants at all and most likely wouldn't even have help occasionally. Dh and I are in the 4th quintile and we can't afford someone to clean our house even twice a month.

 

 

To bring you up to date: this quiz is not bad.  Note that 'visiting stately homes' means going as a paying visitor, not a guest.  

 

FWIW, middle class British people no longer have full-time servants: as in the US, they might have a cleaner who comes in for a few hours, but many do not.

 

Class in Britain is only partly to do with money: I will be middle class all my life whatever my income.  Many millionaires state proudly that they are working class.  You move class, in general, by education or by being the second generation after money was lost/gained.

[Catwoman]

They are not the best neighborhoods, but they are liveable (and on the upswing). The government is pouring a lot of money into developing the economy in these areas. Would I go out of my way for a chance to live there, no, but many working people do in fact live there.

It sounds like an excellent opportunity for people who are willing to do some work in order to have their own homes. Obviously, I'm sure some of the homes require expensive repairs that could be cost-prohibitive like needing a new roof, furnace, plumbing or electrical systems, but there are probably many others that need mostly cosmetic stuff like cleaning, painting, and refinishing things like floors and cabinets -- things that the average person could learn how to do.

[SKL]

It sounds like an excellent opportunity for people who are willing to do some work in order to have their own homes. Obviously, I'm sure some of the homes require expensive repairs that could be cost-prohibitive like needing a new roof, furnace, plumbing or electrical systems, but there are probably many others that need mostly cosmetic stuff like cleaning, painting, and refinishing things like floors and cabinets -- things that the average person could learn how to do.

 

Right.  There are also programs to defray the cost of this sort of work.

 

But my real point was, it is not necessarily true that the only way to have access to "culture" is to live in a million-dollar home.

 

I think people who feel forced to locate in HCOL areas are more likely doing it because those are the easiest places for them to exploit their niche skills.  Nothing wrong with that.  I feel for them.  I certainly do not envy them.

 

[elegantlion]

The problem is 50,000 a year of college. Is that what you meant? 50,000 a year for college? That is insanity and I wouldn't be encouraging my child to,go that route.

 

Because other than that you are doing ok financially. So why sink the boat for college?

 

$50,000 is on the high end of normal to me. My school, a regional state school, cost around $19,000 to attend (incuding room and board and tuition and fees). MU costs about $25k / year, then take a look at the fees. If you go into engineering or health care those PER CREDIT HOUR fees increase dramatically. My school has those too, not quite that high though. 

 

Washington University's published cost per year is $60k. 

 

I kind of lose my breath thinking about school actually being advertised as that much per year (true cost of attendance is another topic altogether), but yes, if my school, the second cheapest in the state, is $19k/ year, I don't see $50k as totally ridiculous either. 

[3in9th]

I am curious howyou came to this guess. Was it just a guess or Was there more to it? I promise I am not being snarky, but curious to know what factored into that guess.

 

Danielle

 

1- her family's income

2- her family's $2 million home

3- her own admission, "how else could we afford the $50,000 tuition costs?"

 

I know of no Middle Middle class family who could possibly afford $50,000 a year in tuition. Most probably couldn't outright pay even a tenth of that. So while her family might not appear wealthy because of the HCOL, she's still Upper Middle Class because of what her family can pay toward her college education.

 

[3in9th]

Why do we begrudge financially successful people what they have?  Why (on this board anyway) is it so taboo to admit that some people just waste their gifts, their time, their money, and it's not anyone else's fault?

 

And after a decade of one person exploiting his gifts and the other person wasting them, who usually ends up helping the most people?  Who pays the most taxes, who gives the most to charity, who creates the most jobs?  Why do we despise people who generally do do their share if not more?

 

The wealthiest individuals have been paying an increasingly less and less in taxes. That tax burden then gets shifted to everyone below through cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes and property taxes and sales taxes and a myriad of other taxes that did not even exist when the equivalent of today's billionaires were paying a much larger percentage of income tax.

 

I have a multimillionaire friend. He employs no one. He's a rich guy making other rich folks even richer. He's not smarter or harder working or more gifted than most college professors. If he were paying a higher percentage of his wealth in income tax (instead of the 15% he pays in investment income), if he didn't have five homes and even more cars, I would begrudge him much less.

 

If we didn't have "working poor" or "wage slaves" or people who didn't have basic health care or who could buy fresh produce instead of junk food because they could afford to, I'd shut up. But we have the greatest wealth disparity in America since the 1920s. We all know how well that turned out.

 

Believe me, it won't hurt the uber-rich to be taxed more. Maybe they won't buy that sixth home or get their sons Rolexes and their daughters Chanel jackets, but they won't be hurting. I think if they say it will mean less jobs (for those uber-rich who actually employ more than personal servant types), I call BS.

 

[Scarlett]

$50,000 is on the high end of normal to me. My school, a regional state school, cost around $19,000 to attend (incuding room and board and tuition and fees). MU costs about $25k / year, then take a look at the fees. If you go into engineering or health care those PER CREDIT HOUR fees increase dramatically. My school has those too, not quite that high though.

 

Washington University's published cost per year is $60k.

 

I kind of lose my breath thinking about school actually being advertised as that much per year (true cost of attendance is another topic altogether), but yes, if my school, the second cheapest in the state, is $19k/ year, I don't see $50k as totally ridiculous either.

But it is. I am not saying they aren't charging that....I am saying it is insane. And to go in debt for that kind of education seems even more insane.

[3in9th]

To bring you up to date: this quiz is not bad.  Note that 'visiting stately homes' means going as a paid visitor, not a guest.  

 

FWIW, middle class British people no longer have full-time servants: as in the US, they might have a cleaner who comes in for a few hours, but many do not.

 

Class in Britain is only partly to do with money: I will be middle class all my life whatever my income.  Many millionaires state proudly that they are working class.  You move class, in general, by education or by being the second generation after money was lost/gained.

 

Definitely agree with this. British class systems have gotten more fluid and American more rigid. I'm currently reading a book about the UK servant class. The old UK Middle Class is probably more akin to the "Established Middle Class" of the quiz.

[JeanM]

I agree completely that this just doesn't make sense in terms of three classes. I think that how I grew up and was taught in college most certainly acknowledged more than one social class.

 

There was poor (dependent on benefits), working and artistic class aka lower middle class, middle-class (corresponding to middle management and the merchant class), upper-middle class (including the creative class with connections, upper-middle management), and finally the elite.

 

My grandfather grew up at a time when poor meant minority/unhireable, disabled. Orphans, widows, invalids, the traditional poor classes.

 

If you were working, you were working class. You could eat. You could take a stay-cation. You didn't get any form of handout. But now the workers cannot necessarily afford to buy their own food in many areas. They qualify for benefits. This is the outrage one sees on the streets. Nobody whines about poor people suffering. But when being in the 30th%ile intellectually means you are too poor to feed a family then people start freaking out and rightly so. The idea that a working entitles you to be paid for that work... revolutionary (literally).

 

Also, on these boards, you see a lot of confusion. Some people are so keen to encourage others to aim high, that they forget that "meeting need" only applies to the poor. Not to the workers or middle classes. So there are a lot of people who talk about their EFC for private school, because they thought that private school was accessible to people from all classes.

 

The reality is that this myth has helped private schools rake in a ton of $$$ for applications but most people simply cannot afford their EFC for those schools. I'm always floored, since we actually are middle class though I identify as working class as those are my roots, I had to scramble to get this far--when people claim on the one hand they are scraping for soup and on the other hand their child has applied to several lib arts private schools. In my world, you apply to an elite school if you're a national merit semi-finalist and have one amazing characteristic AND your family can meet EFC for a state school no problem.

 

That's not us at this point. My kids will be working their butts off to get great deals at our local colleges or MAYBE one of the Jesuit schools which have very liberal aid (thank you, Catholics).

 

Why Americans do not see this as a problem between themselves and their employers who are getting richer and richer, but instead talk about "elites" and "class" and "the government" I will never know. Take it all out of the equation and you need to find a way to get paid a living wage for your life's work.

 

I'm not an expert, but I'm starting to research this stuff since my oldest will be applying to colleges in a few years. My understanding is that the "EFC" is the same - there isn't a private school vs state school EFC. If you qualify for financial aid, as far as I know there isn't necessarily a reason to prefer a state school. In fact, it seems that many well-endowed private schools will meet your need grants rather than loans. So there are definitely reasons to shoot for private schools. It's not just to give application money to private schools.

 

My family is definitely middle class. I've run net price calculators at several schools, and we qualify for need based aid at all of them.

 

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm hoping to avoid debt for my dc.

[LisaKinVA]

 

My family is definitely middle class. I've run net price calculators at several schools, and we qualify for need based aid at all of them.

 

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm hoping to avoid debt for my dc.

It varies. I know FAFSA's calculator was laughable.

[Ohdanigirl]

1- her family's income

2- her family's $2 million home

3- her own admission, "how else could we afford the $50,000 tuition costs?"

 

I know of no Middle Middle class family who could possibly afford $50,000 a year in tuition. Most probably couldn't outright pay even a tenth of that. So while her family might not appear wealthy because of the HCOL, she's still Upper Middle Class because of what her family can pay toward her college education.

 

Aaah. I thought you were referring to me. This ^^^ makes sense. Thanks.

[SKL]

The wealthiest individuals have been paying an increasingly less and less in taxes. That tax burden then gets shifted to everyone below through cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes and property taxes and sales taxes and a myriad of other taxes that did not even exist when the equivalent of today's billionaires were paying a much larger percentage of income tax.

 

I have a multimillionaire friend. He employs no one. He's a rich guy making other rich folks even richer. He's not smarter or harder working or more gifted than most college professors. If he were paying a higher percentage of his wealth in income tax (instead of the 15% he pays in investment income), if he didn't have five homes and even more cars, I would begrudge him much less.

 

If we didn't have "working poor" or "wage slaves" or people who didn't have basic health care or who could buy fresh produce instead of junk food because they could afford to, I'd shut up. But we have the greatest wealth disparity in America since the 1920s. We all know how well that turned out.

 

Believe me, it won't hurt the uber-rich to be taxed more. Maybe they won't buy that sixth home or get their sons Rolexes and their daughters Chanel jackets, but they won't be hurting. I think if they say it will mean less jobs (for those uber-rich who actually employ more than personal servant types), I call BS.

 

 

The reason for the 15% tax rate on investment income is because investing the cash in businesses creates / sustains jobs.  Jobs are good.  Usually the money saved from tax goes back into more investments and makes it possible to create or sustain more jobs.  Also innovations that improve quality of life.

 

It's no wonder most of the world hates Americans if having more stuff is a reason to be hated.  And that includes everyone on this board.  We are all terrible people because we have things most people in the world don't have.

 

Also.  A fair % of those evil rich people are actually more socialist leaning than the average American.  They didn't design our economy.  Why blame them for the fact that some other people are in low-wage jobs and have gaps in certain benefits/entitlements?

[Amira]

I'm thinking I should use the terms low income, middle income, and high income instead. Class is about a lot more than income and it's not helpful to use the word when the focus is on income and house size.

 

Also, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth. It's a major relief to me that we are not at the poverty line anymore, have plumbing in the kitchen, and can afford to eat chicken more than once a month. It's fine with me if people are wealthy. They can choose what they do with their money. I just don't have much sympathy for someone who's having a financially hard time living at $150,000 anywhere on this planet.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I dunno, I honestly don't know one single American who is starving.

 

I don't either.  My guess is the bigger problem isn't starvation, but that some people only have access to low quality food.

[3in9th]

The reason for the 15% tax rate on investment income is because investing the cash in businesses creates / sustains jobs.  Jobs are good.  Usually the money saved from tax goes back into more investments and makes it possible to create or sustain more jobs.  Also innovations that improve quality of life.

 

I'd like to see articles on this, but not ones from PAC-funded think tanks. I saw one article on this thread from Heritage.org and my eyes immediately glazed over.

 

ETA: Alright, saw that you were the one who posted that article. Is that (or some similar conservative think tank) where you got the information on the 15% tax rate?

[SKL]

The problem is 50,000 a year of college. Is that what you meant? 50,000 a year for college? That is insanity and I wouldn't be encouraging my child to,go that route.

 

Because other than that you are doing ok financially. So why sink the boat for college?

 

I tend to agree with this.  Why are so many parents willing to believe their child is so special that it's worth making that big of a debt just to get him a bachelor's degree?

 

My brother almost got sucked into this (he wanted to borrow $17K for his daughter's first year, and that was with her getting a big scholarship.  Not $50K, but who knows how it would all add up in the end.)  He might have done it if he'd had better credit.  He asked me to co-sign and I said no.

 

Why?  I am a pretty smart cookie, but I was more than content to attend the closest state university so I could commute and save money.  I did borrow for my undergrad, but it was an amount one could be fairly sure of paying off post-graduation.

 

My brother wasn't the only person I've heard say, "how am I going to tell her?  She's going to be so disappointed.  Isn't there any way to make this happen?"  Well why would she have built up such hopes in the first place when her parents had no means to pay?  Do today's parents and teens believe every American is entitled to a $200K undergraduate education?  Why?

[SparklyUnicorn]

The metropolis I live in has tons of culture, numerous universities, a couple of the most respected hospital systems in the world, all the major sports teams, etc.  And you can buy a house for less than $20K within walking distance of all that.

 

 

I don't live in a metropolis, but this sounds somewhat like the city I live in.  Can't get anything fixable for $20k (but one could buy land for less than that and build something new).  But for not too much more than that yes.  We bought a fixer upper.  Mostly cosmetic fixes except the roof, but even that only cost us $11k and and considering what we paid for the house that's not a big deal.  Taxes are quite high, but since so many houses are low priced it balances out (plus water and trash are included in the taxes...water is unmetered too). But a lot of people poo on living here.

 

Although I'm iffy on the schools.  They have a lot to offer especially at the high school, but they've got a lot of issues and I can understand the turn off. 

[SKL]

I don't either.  My guess is the bigger problem isn't starvation, but that some people only have access to low quality food.

 

Funny thing, most of the people who can afford great quality food eat low quality food.

 

Remember Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl" and the line about her "white bread world"?  Now it's fancy to eat brown bread - but let's be honest - most people don't.

 

I dunno, I think people have just latched onto this whole food crisis thing, which is laughable from a global standpoint as well as from a historical standpoint.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I am quite sure they exist. Perhaps not the "literally dying from lack of food" kind, but definitely the "regular food insecurity frequently leading to hunger" kind. 

 

Could be.  Probably tends to happen more to children who have parents that have so many issues they have difficulty seeking help (that is easily available where I am).  Although where I live is somewhat different.  They have tons of stuff here because it's densely populated and it's easy to reach lots of people and have lots of services.  In more rural areas, that is probably much harder and there is probably much less available. 

[SKL]

I'd like to see articles on this, but not ones from PAC-funded think tanks. I saw one article on this thread from Heritage.org and my eyes immediately glazed over.

 

ETA: Alright, saw that you were the one who posted that article. Is that (or some similar conservative think tank) where you got the information on the 15% tax rate?

 

I've been a tax professional since 1995.  It was the logic behind the passage of that tax rate by both houses of Congress.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Funny thing, most of the people who can afford great quality food eat low quality food.

 

Remember Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl" and the line about her "white bread world"?  Now it's fancy to eat brown bread - but let's be honest - most people don't.

 

I dunno, I think people have just latched onto this whole food crisis thing, which is laughable from a global standpoint as well as from a historical standpoint.

 

White bread world....huh always wondered what that line really said.  LOL

 

I thought it was something like white wed world...which makes no sense. 

[SKL]

I don't live in a metropolis, but this sounds somewhat like the city I live in.  Can't get anything fixable for $20k (but one could buy land for less than that and build something new).  But for not too much more than that yes.  We bought a fixer upper.  Mostly cosmetic fixes except the roof, but even that only cost us $11k and and considering what we paid for the house that's not a big deal.  Taxes are quite high, but since so many houses are low priced it balances out (plus water and trash are included in the taxes...water is unmetered too). But a lot of people poo on living here.

 

Although I'm iffy on the schools.  They have a lot to offer especially at the high school, but they've got a lot of issues and I can understand the turn off. 

 

We have the same issue with the schools.  But the public schools aren't wow in any metropolis, HCOL or not.

 

[regentrude]

I dunno, I think people have just latched onto this whole food crisis thing, which is laughable from a global standpoint as well as from a historical standpoint.

 

The bolded is insulting to the more than 40 million Americans who face food insecurity.

 

Some of those are fellow board members.

[3in9th]

I've been a tax professional since 1995.  It was the logic behind the passage of that tax rate by both houses of Congress.

 

Might be the "logic" (when it comes to Congress, I have to use that term loosely), but I'd like to see the evidence that it has done what it says it intended. Most especially now, since most investments are going into BRIC and then the Next 11.

[Matryoshka]

I've been a tax professional since 1995.  It was the logic behind the passage of that tax rate by both houses of Congress.

 

Yes, and result is now the top 0.1% of families control the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90%.  Doesn't matter what the theory was, that's not how it's turned out.  Those wealthy are either not creating jobs at all (like the PP's friend), or expect current workers to do more and more with no raises.  Most job creation recently has been low-paying service jobs. Even the people earning 90-99% have seen their share of the pie fall in this time, but not as much as those earning 90% and under.  The logic is incredibly flawed.  It has not in any way turned out the way they said it would.

 

The theory has been put to the test, and has been disproved soundly.  The billionaires are not creating living-wage jobs now that their wealth has increased incredibly - nope, everyone else's wealth has fallen.  What's that called? - oh, redistribution of wealth.

 

ETA: Then there's this data.  Real results, not what could or should happen, but what did happen.  We've been experimenting around for decades now - methinks it's time to take a look at the results of various policies, not just what we wish the results would be.

[JeanM]

It varies. I know FAFSA's calculator was laughable.

 

Oh, I'm sure it varies depending on your circumstances. I was trying to make the point that it isn't necessarily true that  "meeting need only applies to the poor. Not to the workers or middle classes."

 

And sometimes it can be more affordable to go to a private school than a state school. There are many, many factors involved. I do know some middle class families whose kids are grown who can't retire because they're still paying for their kids' colleges. I'm not saying the system is perfect by any means.

[kitten18]

White bread world....huh always wondered what that line really said. LOL

 

I thought it was something like white wed world...which makes no sense.

That made me LOL. I am so bad at hearing/understanding song lyrics.

[Tsuga]

I dunno, I honestly don't know one single American who is starving.  I mean, I know there are people who live under the overpasses, but I don't think anyone would consider them "middle class."  Several of the comments here seem to imply that the average American can't get enough to eat.

 

 

I am commenting that they can't BUY enough to eat working 38.75 hours per week. They have to "beg" the government for the rest through SNAP and whatnot.

 

There is enough free food floating around that starvation is not the issue for most.

 

That said there is the question of malnutrition among the very poor because they have access to calories but not whole foods, but that is a whole other discussion.

[Catwoman]

I cant comment on your area, just mine. The senior exemption here is 50%. It is by age, not by income. That means we have families in trailers or doubled up in starter homes while seniors are in McMansions. With zero industry to speak of, and ag exemptions, that means taxes are very high for those who dont have exemptions....families generally get tired of living doubled up in starter homes and move down to NC. Do I begrudge the seniors? Funny question considering they have voted to starve the children's schools, families are relying on govt assistance for food and housing and medical, yet the seniors believe their per person household income that allows two homes isnt enough. Begrudge is not the word.

Wow.

 

You're painting senior citizens with a pretty broad brush.

 

I think your impressions are less than accurate and are highly biased, as well. There is no possible way for you to know that those are the people who are voting to "starve" the schools or that they believe that their "per person household income that allows two homes isn't enough."

 

Most of those seniors whom you resent so much have worked all their lives to save enough money to live a good life. Why is that a problem for you if some of them are able to afford a nice house or a second home? One day, many years from now, you and your dh may be able to do the same. Right now, apparently you aren't in their financial position, but you haven't been working for the past 50 years, either.

 

I don't understand the tremendous bitterness and resentment.

[Tsuga]

I looked at realtor.com for 20,000 homes in your metropolis. They don't look very livable to me, without quite a lot of work, and that's without even knowing about plumbing/electrical.

 

$200,000 or $20,000? You can't buy a land plot here for $20,000...

[Χά�ων]

I'm thinking I should use the terms low income, middle income, and high income instead. Class is about a lot more than income and it's not helpful to use the word when the focus is on income and house size.

 

Also, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth. It's a major relief to me that we are not at the poverty line anymore, have plumbing in the kitchen, and can afford to eat chicken more than once a month. It's fine with me if people are wealthy. They can choose what they do with their money. I just don't have much sympathy for someone who's having a financially hard time living at $150,000 anywhere on this planet.

This. I had a friend who was freaking out over money. We live in a lcol area where families making 1/3 of that are doing well. If you cannot figure out how to live on 3 times the median income level, you are doing something wrong.

 

It drives me nuts. Lack of money management skills does not equal lack of income. Do not deny your financial privilege because you cannot figure out how to manage the money.

 

Do not bitch and moan and groan about how you make so much but cannot manage to someone making a fraction of that who is somehow managing. Those of us managing on so much less will probably look at you and tell you where to go, and it will not be pleasant.

 

I wish I "only made" 150k. I would happily continue to live where I am and use the extra money to pay for medical care. A $20,000 medical expense does not seem as daunting when one still has 6 figures in income left afterwards. Imagine that. I could take my son to see the best in his specialty AND still eat. I might even be able to afford a hotel with a pool while we are there!

 

150k is a lot of money. Many people manage on much less. Those of us managing on a fraction of it have no sympathy for those who cannot.

[LucyStoner]

As far as income quintiles, I have seen an article (I think it was discussed here before) showing that the lower 2 quintiles enjoy such a boost from entitlements, their all-in disposable income is greater than that of the next one or two quintiles up. Or at least not as different as it sounds when you just talk about income quintiles. I will see if I can find and link it so I can be more accurate than that.

 

ETA: This is not the article I had seen before, and it does not show the exact same result, but it gives the logic behind the other article I saw. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/09/income-inequality

 

I gotta run so I can't keep searching.

Perhaps that math works out for some depending on where in the quintile they fall and what services are available where they live. For us, there is a marked difference between being well into the fourth quintile and being in the second quintile. There certainly are not any benefits we are recieving that replace a quarter of the income decrease we took to accommodate our son's needs.

 

Social security is the largest cash program that people in those (or any) income quintile recieve. Averaging that massive benefit, along with cash unemployment benefits for the recently unemployed, out to non-retirees and employed people is usually how I've seen it made to look that way.

 

Many people in the second income quintile make too much money for a lot of social services programs, depending on what is available where they live. It is generally too much for food stamps for instance, depending on family size.

[LucyStoner]

Wow.

 

You're painting senior citizens with a pretty broad brush.

 

 

I agree.

 

Also the median income for senior citizens is roughly $35K and even less for senior citizens who are women or minorities. Most seniors do not have anything approaching a lavish lifestyle. Someone drawing a small pension, plus social security living in a section 8 building or a run down house they can't afford to repair is more common than someone whose SS check is fun money and who has 2 homes. The healthcare costs are also staggering.

[goldberry]

 

 

My brother wasn't the only person I've heard say, "how am I going to tell her?  She's going to be so disappointed.  Isn't there any way to make this happen?"  Well why would she have built up such hopes in the first place when her parents had no means to pay?  Do today's parents and teens believe every American is entitled to a $200K undergraduate education?  Why?

 

:iagree:  :iagree: 

 

We are very clear with DD about what we can afford to help her with, and how expenses compare between different choices.  A friend of hers started talking up a certain college in the area, and she started saying, "oh, maybe I'll go there with my friend".  I had her look up tuition, including room and board (this place is too far away to live at home).  She was pretty shocked! ;)  And yes, she is only in 10th grade this year, but we have been upfront about costs vs benefits from the time she was old enough to talk about higher education.

[Catwoman]

:iagree: :iagree:

 

We are very clear with DD about what we can afford to help her with, and how expenses compare between different choices. A friend of hers started talking up a certain college in the area, and she started saying, "oh, maybe I'll go there with my friend". I had her look up tuition, including room and board (this place is too far away to live at home). She was pretty shocked! ;) And yes, she is only in 10th grade this year, but we have been upfront about costs vs benefits from the time she was old enough to talk about higher education.

I think you are doing the right thing by being open about the finances, so your dd will know what to expect when the time comes to apply to different colleges. I think it is the best way to avoid both misunderstandings and disappointment.

[Frances]

Yes, and result is now the top 0.1% of families control the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90%. Doesn't matter what the theory was, that's not how it's turned out. Those wealthy are either not creating jobs at all (like the PP's friend), or expect current workers to do more and more with no raises. Most job creation recently has been low-paying service jobs. Even the people earning 90-99% have seen their share of the pie fall in this time, but not as much as those earning 90% and under. The logic is incredibly flawed. It has not in any way turned out the way they said it would.

 

The theory has been put to the test, and has been disproved soundly. The billionaires are not creating living-wage jobs now that their wealth has increased incredibly - nope, everyone else's wealth has fallen. What's that called? - oh, redistribution of wealth.

 

ETA: Then there's this data. Real results, not what could or should happen, but what did happen. We've been experimenting around for decades now - methinks it's time to take a look at the results of various policies, not just what we wish the results would be.

And we also have some excellent real-time examples of what happens when states drastically cut taxes in order to "stimulate the economy and encourage growth". Kansas is the poster child, but many other states are also in serious budget trouble. And unfortunately, often we do actually know what the results of particular policies will be based on both historical evidence and unbiased research, but this is ignored either because it doesn't match some theoretical idea of how things should be or because the bad policy for the majority serves the best interest of a politically powerful minority.

[SKL]

Yes, and result is now the top 0.1% of families control the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90%.  Doesn't matter what the theory was, that's not how it's turned out.  Those wealthy are either not creating jobs at all (like the PP's friend), or expect current workers to do more and more with no raises.  Most job creation recently has been low-paying service jobs. Even the people earning 90-99% have seen their share of the pie fall in this time, but not as much as those earning 90% and under.  The logic is incredibly flawed.  It has not in any way turned out the way they said it would.

 

The theory has been put to the test, and has been disproved soundly.  The billionaires are not creating living-wage jobs now that their wealth has increased incredibly - nope, everyone else's wealth has fallen.  What's that called? - oh, redistribution of wealth.

 

ETA: Then there's this data.  Real results, not what could or should happen, but what did happen.  We've been experimenting around for decades now - methinks it's time to take a look at the results of various policies, not just what we wish the results would be.

 

The purpose was never to make everyone equal in wealth or control of capital.  The purpose was to create jobs and productivity in the USA.

 

Whether it works or not (there are always so many factors at play it will always be a matter of debate), it doesn't make sense to blame it on the guy who applies the law to help people lawfully manage their tax rate.  Most people aren't trying to pay more tax than they are required to.  Do you?  It isn't immoral to follow the tax laws passed by Congress.

 

No matter how rich we get as a nation, someone's always going to be in the top 1% and someone's always going to be in the bottom 1%.  I fail to see the point of protesting this inescapable reality.  IMO the goal should be to make sure everyone has access to what they *need.*   Whether they feel happy with how their goodies compare to everyone else's should not be the point of economic policy IMO.  I think that is actually a really unhealthy way of looking at things.  Everyone knows money doesn't buy happiness, so why the focus on who has the most?

[Cammie]

 

And after a decade of one person exploiting his gifts and the other person wasting them, who usually ends up helping the most people?  Who pays the most taxes, who gives the most to charity, who creates the most jobs?  Why do we despise people who generally do do their share if not more?

 

This myth of the "hardworking" rich and the "lazy" poor is one thing that needs to go away.

[Cammie]

:iagree:  :iagree:

 

We are very clear with DD about what we can afford to help her with, and how expenses compare between different choices.  A friend of hers started talking up a certain college in the area, and she started saying, "oh, maybe I'll go there with my friend".  I had her look up tuition, including room and board (this place is too far away to live at home).  She was pretty shocked! ;)  And yes, she is only in 10th grade this year, but we have been upfront about costs vs benefits from the time she was old enough to talk about higher education.

 

We too have this conversation ALL THE TIME.  Yes, DD has her sights on the type of schools that have NO merit aid.  And yes, we probably won't qualify for any federal aid.  And my DH comes from a culture that eschews loans and debt.  And he comes from a culture where it is the parents' responsibility to pay for education.  So we have started VERY early talking about the reality of the situation, and the need to keep in mind the cost of all the options.

[Frances]

The purpose was never to make everyone equal in wealth or control of capital. The purpose was to create jobs and productivity in the USA.

 

Whether it works or not (there are always so many factors at play it will always be a matter of debate), it doesn't make sense to blame it on the guy who applies the law to help people lawfully manage their tax rate. Most people aren't trying to pay more tax than they are required to. Do you? It isn't immoral to follow the tax laws passed by Congress.

 

No matter how rich we get as a nation, someone's always going to be in the top 1% and someone's always going to be in the bottom 1%. I fail to see the point of protesting this inescapable reality. IMO the goal should be to make sure everyone has access to what they *need.* Whether they feel happy with how their goodies compare to everyone else's should not be the point of economic policy IMO. I think that is actually a really unhealthy way of looking at things. Everyone knows money doesn't buy happiness, so why the focus on who has the most?

While it's true that someone is always going to be in the 1%, the proportion of wealth in this country held by the 1% relative to everyone else has increased drastically in the last few decades. And that wealth buys political power and influence which affects all of us.

[Catwoman]

This myth of the "hardworking" rich and the "lazy" poor is one thing that needs to go away.

I don't think anyone has said that.

[Cammie]

The problem is 50,000 a year of college. Is that what you meant? 50,000 a year for college? That is insanity and I wouldn't be encouraging my child to,go that route.

 

Because other than that you are doing ok financially. So why sink the boat for college?

 

Yup, $50,000 per year for college is the estimated cost of attending some of the nation's best universities.

 

It is insanity.  I agree 100%.

 

It is a good question - why sink the boat for college.  I don't think we would.  However, if DD got admission to a school like that, it would be a difficult decision to make.  We are encouraging her to look at a much broader range of options and we are still years away from the decision. 

 

I went to college (consistently one of the most expensive in the US), grad school and law school pretty much on federal loans.  I'll be paying it off for 30 years but I got a great education.  My parents had to contribute nothing (dad is a church pastor so not a high income profession!)  I am ok with loans for DD, but it appears she won't qualify for the federal loan programs.