Taxes: A Question for Kerry Supporters

[ddollevoet]

During the second debate, Kerry was asked to look into the camera and say that he will not raise taxes on households making less than $200K per year.

Ten minutes later he was talking about repealling the Bush tax cut which was implemented to help the middle class.

Quite simply, as a middle class american, won't I pay more taxes under Kerry than under Bush?

[GWB]

Yes. Kerry means more taxes for the middle class.

The word for the Day:

LIBERAL

[MelchyBeau]

He was talking about repealing the tax cut for those making over 200k. The middle class will not be affected by it.

Melch

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
He was talking about repealing the tax cut for those making over 200k. The middle class will not be affected by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no households in the middle class making over 200K? Where are the boundaries btw between rich, middle class and poor households?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Where are the boundaries btw between rich, middle class and poor households?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. Without agreed upon boundaries, the right will always say that Kerry will tax the middle class - the left will always say that Bush's tax play affected the wealthy disproportionately.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no households in the middle class making over 200K? Where are the boundaries btw between rich, middle class and poor households?

[/ QUOTE ]

The boundaries are subjective. But since in 2001 (last year I can quickly find data), the 95th percentile for households fell around 150K, it would be pretty difficult to argue that 200K was middle class.

Of course, lots of people - like my parents for instance - make that much and still think of themselves as middle or upper middle class. But that's just because they have trouble accepting the fact that they are in the upper class.

[MMMMMM]

I really think 200K is upper-middle class, not upper class, and I certainly don't make anywhere near that much. Even if I did I would still not be living in a mansion, still have to do a lot of working and planning for retirement, still not be able to take plenty of expensive vacations, etc...and hey, I'm single!

A family with 2-3 kids making 200K can cover expenses, have decent medical insurance, and put away some money to help towards the kids' college costs, and live in a fairly nice neighborhood, but they aren't anywhere near being rich (rich is a measure of net worth).

Calling 200K "upper-class" seems inappropriate to me--"upper-middle", OK. If you earn 200K you are still a working stiff, and you will be a working stiff for many years, although you get nicer amenities than most.

It is certainly most disingenuous of politicians to call 200K income families "rich". Calling them "upper-class" is more excusable although I don't really agree with it. To be rich takes a lot more net worth than what a 200K income can accumulate except in the very long-term.

[sam h]

I know what you're saying MMMMMMM and I agree in part. But it basically just comes down to whether you want to analyze it as a question of what lifestyle you can have at X income or to look at it as a question of how your income compares to others.

If upper-class means you can live very well and don't have to worry about money, then 200K is not upper class.

But if upper-class is more of a comparative measure, then I think that if you make more than 97% of other households, you're probably in the upper class.

Personally, I tend to believe in the latter, since the concept of class stratification is sort of meaningless unless it is based on comparative, rather than absolute, criteria.

[Daliman]

Well, this one i'm not sure about, but I don't think it's "family" that makes over 200k, it's individual. If so, and that # goes to 400k, we're DEFINITELY talking upper class.

My wife and I will make ~200k this year, and I consider us upper middle class.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The boundaries are subjective. But since in 2001 (last year I can quickly find data), the 95th percentile for households fell around 150K, it would be pretty difficult to argue that 200K was middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong Sam you have to look at net worth, a household making 200K a year could be in debt enough that a increase in their taxes could have a substantial effect on their lifestyle at the margins, the change in income effects them a lot. It's bullsh*t IMO to state categorically that anyone making over a certain amount of money is upper class instead of middle class. I'm sure people are going to state that well that's their problem if someone incurs enough debt that $200K a year makes things kind of tight, fair enough. Then it's fine if I say screw the poor bastards that are too lazy to make a better life for themselves when they could. It's also fair as well if those that are paying more in taxes support candidates who will lower their tax bill and provide tax incentives that they can take advantage of. BTW wealthy individuals can afford accountants and lawyers to find every loophole possible to pay as little as possible in taxes. The bottom line for me is that Kerry is promoting class warfare.

Anyway I'm on the record as opposing any tax increase to anyone unless the government honchos that want to raise my taxes tell me the income distrubtion they say seek after taxes are paid. Until that time which I know will be a long time coming, I say cut spending if you don't have enough money coming in.