If you take home more than $250,000 a year, are you middle class?

[hedgehog]

Note that I didn't ask if you are working, or ask if you are working hard. I just ask if you can be considered to be middle class at that level. If you need that money for private school for your kids, fine, but are you still middle class? If you need that money to pay your mortgage, fine, but are you still middle class? If your standard of living is substantially higher than most of the rest of the country, even if it is normal for your neighborhood, are you still middle class?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Since netting more than $250,000 a year would put you in the top 5% of

all income earners in the USA, no you are above the middle class.

[Lionessa]

96. It's not TAKE HOME PAY, fucking get it right, OP! It's net income, after annual 1040 deductions

My bad to the poster above, meant to reply to OP.

[LynnTTT]

105. I go nuts also

I keep reading posts from people like this: " my neighbor is a painter and he has two helpers. I know he only makes about $ 200,000 and he can't afford more taxes". Idiot; take out expenses and the guy probably makes about $ 60,000 and will not be affected.

[Lionessa]

106. Exactly. Most folks making $500K are only taxed on about $200K, people just don't get it.

By the time one's family group is making $250 gross wages, investments and IRAs and those useful tax write offs, they usually get kind tax wise right about then and use available loopholes. I don't understand how so many understand so little about taxes, but somehow the Administration needs to make this a firm talking point everywhere by all reps, imo.

[pnwmom]

2. In some locations, like Manhattan, if that income comes from two salaries,

I would say that could be upper middle class.

[Marrah_G]

5. If you choose to live in an expensive wealthy area you are not middle class

You might be on the bottom in that neighborhood, but that still doesn't make you middle class.

[pnwmom]

15. You don't think a firefighter and a teacher who live in Manhattan

would count as middle class?

An experienced firefighter with overtime can make a substantial salary in NY. If a teacher also added a second job over the summer, their earnings could approach that figure.

I think there's a difference between a couple who make a high income because they live in a high-cost area and both work hard; and a couple who get $250K a year from grandpa's trust fund.

[oldhippie]

16. So, is class determined by income, or what you do?

We've had this discussion many times. I don't think we will ever come to a consensus as to what constitutes "class", be it social, economic or cultural.

[pnwmom]

33. I think that's a good question. I think it's more than income; the source of the income

and other factors also matter.

[HiPointDem]

48. half the households in nyc make $50K or less. $250K ain't middle class even in nyc.

[Romulox]

20. It's not based on how sympathetic their profession are; it's based on how their income ranks. nt

[pnwmom]

35. I think it's based on more than just income, and that the cost of living

in the area matters, too. And that it matters whether a couple with that income earn it on two salaries, or only one salary, or on dividends and interest. (A single firefighter with lots of overtime you would probably consider middle class; does he move out of the middle class simply by marrying a school teacher?)

If they were to take their experience and move to some small town in Indiana, they'd be making lot less. But their relative position in their new community would be similar to in their old one.

[Romulox]

37. Your hypothetical couple is still making over *three* times the median family income for NYC, though

And twice that of Manhattan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Income

[pnwmom]

40. Twice the median of Manhattan would still put them in the broad middle range.

Just as twice the poverty level still leaves you poor.

[Romulox]

43. Nope. It puts them in the top 5%. Damn numbers! nt

[HiPointDem]

49. top 5%. not middle class.

[leveymg]

53. So, should the middle-class now walled off from Manhattan? San Francisco? San Jose?

By this criteria, the answer would be yes. $250,000 gross is not a lot of money, and would make you poor by the standards of Manhattan and many of its suburbs, along with other pricey places in the U.S., such as much of the Bay area and Silicon Valley.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. Sorry, top 5% of income is not middle class. To be in the middle of anything

you have to have comparable numbers ahead of you and behind you. Only 4 in front and 94 behind is nowhere near the middle.

[leveymg]

55. It's all relative to where you work. $250K would make you relatively poor in many areas of NYC, SF,

Silicon Valley, etc. where the highest-paying jobs are located.

[Romulox]

75. That's already been debunked several times over on this thread. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

101. That's not true. I have lived in all the areas you've mentioned and others even more expensive,

so you can save that BS for someone that will buy it. I never made $250 and lived like a King. What I didn't do was pretend that I was a multi-millionaire and shovel every dime of my substantial income into the pockets of the rentiers.

[PotatoChip]

112. Well, I'm sure you will agree that

a hypothetical 200k in Manhattan or San Francisco is far different in terms of standard of living then (say) some rural area of Kansas or North Dakota.

In the former 2, a single person w/that income would be doing well, to maybe even very well, while in the latter 2, someone earning 200k would probably be considered on the low end of "rich".

And why? Because among other things, in Manhattan or SF, the rent is too damn high!

[Starry Messenger]

109. Um, no.

I live in Silicon Valley. I make $25k. I *am* poor. $250k makes you quite a nice life here.

[pnwmom]

61. If they were two single people, they would be middle class. Does marrying make them upper class?

[Romulox]

76. Yes. It's statistics. That's *exactly* how it works. nt

[pnwmom]

80. Only if current income is the only factor involved in "class."

I think it involves more factors, including the source of the income. If someone comes from a wealthy family, and decides to "get by" on $50,000 in trust fund income (and no job), is that person really middle class? Is a teacher upper class because she's married to a firefighter in NYC -- even though, if they moved to Ohio, and had a bigger house and better schools, they'd be only middle class?

[Romulox]

83. The distribution of income is a mathematical question. The implications of that distribution

are what you are discussing. It's not the same thing.

[pnwmom]

87. "Middle class" doesn't necessarily mean "middle income." Only "middle income"

can be determined mathematically.

[Romulox]

90. I simply don't see any evidence for that. It seems like a self-serving theory put forward by the 5%

[pnwmom]

93. The evidence is in any dictionary or encyclopedia. The meaning of "middle class"

encompasses factors other than just income.

[Egalitarian Thug]

102. "Middle class" doesn't mean anything at all. It's a marketing term to convince you that

you're OK and it is alright to ignore the world that surrounds you.

[kestrel91316]

3. TAKE HOME?? That's $5000/week or thereabouts. NO,

that's NOT middle class. Even if you waste it all on private schools and housing so extravagant you can't afford to furnish it.

[Marrah_G]

4. BS 250k is not middle class

[BlueCaliDem]

59. You're exactly right! $250k is NOT "middle class".

It's considered upper-middle class and it's an excellent annual income even in the expensive state of California.

[B2G]

6. We are the 95%

Yay.

[Romulox]

7. The entire "1%" framing is an attempt to enhance the 2 through 10%'s power...

In other words, the merely extremely well off are supposed to speak for the poor and the destitute, by virtue of the fact that they are slightly less well off than the extremely, extremely well off. It's silly.

[Aerows]

19. +1

The partly well off still have to work their behinds off. The truly well off don't have to do shit to get a guaranteed paycheck due to their property holdings and portfolios.

That's where they should have their asses taxed to high heaven, then they might understand a thing or two about a "work ethic" since they might have to let go of a mansion, a yacht or three.

[Johonny]

38. +1

[coalition_unwilling]

85. I think the '1%' framing served an extremely valuable purpoose initially, in that it

got Americans to stop talking endlessly about American Idol and Dancing with the Stars and start thinking in terms of class.

Once people's attention is engaged, there's time aplenty for the observation that, while 1% control 40% of the wealth, 10% control 80% of the wealth. But first I think one must sow the seeds of class consciousness, which the 1% frame did.

[Romulox]

89. Great post. Something for me to think about. nt

[Fumesucker]

8. Upper class but by no means plutocracy...

The plutocrats wouldn't wipe their shoes on a mere $250K person..

ETA: OTOH I suspect the $250K person is far more likely to sympathize with the plutocracy than with the proletariat.

[Aerows]

21. Doubt it

They still work for a living, and merely hope to someday get out of the ratrace the Plutocracy forces everyone into.

[Fumesucker]

32. They wouldn't have to be a $250K person for long to get out if they really wanted to..

But that level of income comes with the implicit expectations, house, cars, club memberships, private schools, vacations, toys, trophy spouse.

You don't get the trophy spouse by being frugal and prudent.

[Johonny]

42. But a lot of the proletariat sympathize with the plutocracy

everyone in the system thinks they're going to be in the 1 %. It isn't just the 250 K people. There's a lot in the lower brackets too. That to me is the surreal part of the USA.

[Fumesucker]

54. Yeah, I know. Humans aren't rational animals but rather animals that rationalize..

I suspect you'll have a hard time finding a sample of the $250K class that doesn't sympathize with the plutocrats, we had someone here on DU claiming close to that but ironically enough it's one of the people I end up disagreeing most often with..

[Johonny]

66. I kind of really depends

The 250 K class sort of segregate themselves. There are the rich hippy liberal areas of town and the rich tea party areas of town. But my general experience is you are right. Once you make a lot of money and the pie in the sky is still too high, you get pissed at the people making less than you. Immigrants, blacks, etc... I hear it all the time.

[The Magistrate]

9. The Problem, Ma'am Is the Absurd Over-Inflation Of 'Middle Class' Here

The fact is, no one without un-encumbered property can properly be considered to reside anywhere but in the lower portion of the socio-economic order. If there is still a mortgage on your house, money owing on your automobile, on your furniture or other valuable possessions acquired on credit, none of these things are un-encumbered property. Only a vanishingly small proportion of those who call themselves 'middle class' in this country actually are, by sound reckoning.

[hedgehog]

10. Here is where we run into the confusion between the amount of money you have

and the amount you spend. I suspect a lot of people making $250,000 or more have a higher debt to income ration than people making less, but that doesn't make them middle class. That just makes them people who are overspending a very generous income.

If I can own a reasonable sized home free and clear, but choose instead to take out a mortgage on a mansion, the fact that I have a mortgage doesn't mean I am still middle class.

Now, as pointed out above, there is a wider range within the top 10% than within the bottom 90%. As such, the people in say the 90-95% bracket may feel closer to the people immediately below them than the people immediately above them, but closer to doesn't mean the same as.

[The Magistrate]

14. True, Ma'am

But the real ranking is that just about anything below the top ten percent actually counts as among the lower classes, and perhaps the next six or seven percent up ranks as a 'middle' between this and the hoi polloi. The pattern is what it always has been: a great many peasants, and a very few lording it over them with the assistance of a small number of professionals who, one way or another, grease the wheels of that few's rule and leisure.

[Romulox]

12. That's silly. My entire house's value wouldn't make the downpayment on many "encumbered properties".

"Equity" is key.

In addition, the fact that one leases their Mercedes or Lexus also does not put one in "the lower portion of the socio-economic order."

[SoCalDem]

17. Amen ! A major pet peeve of mine is when people say they "own" vs "rent"

you don't OWN, until you OWN..

Any mortgage is just RENT paid to a bank/mortgage company, until you make that last payment...and even then you still have to pay the taxes or you are o u t .

Add up all your hard assets
subtract what you owe....the remainder is what you are "worth"..


It's 4th grade math...

[Romulox]

22. Nope. It doesn't work that way. Look up "equity of redemption".

It's the difference between what you owe and what the property is worth that determines the net wealth it represents. But the bare fact of an encumberance doesn't speak to "worth". Ten percent owed on a $1,000,000.00 property means that the owners own (free and clear, mind you!) $900,000 worth of equity.

That's many times more than the value of my house, even if it were completely paid off.

"It's 4th grade math..."

They don't teach Secured Transactions in the fourth grade, apparently. So some more complex math will be required!

[Major Nikon]

111. Lots of the upper class carry mortgages on their homes.

If you have any debt at all, it makes sense to carry it on your primary residence. For one thing, interest rates on a secured mortgage is extremely low. For another thing, the interest you pay is tax deductable.

[SoCalDem]

11. It all depends on what the definition of "middle class" is these days

Go back to the era when the middle class was :created".

A middle class life usually meant that the wife could stay home with the kids, and the family could afford to buy a house and at least one car, and could afford to take a vacation every year..and they could afford to save for college. The income-earner usually had a pension they could count on.


From there on, there were divisions within middle class..

Upper

Big house
Buick/Oldsmobile/Pontiac
Private college
vacations abroad
kids go to live-away summer camps
live in help..housekeeper/nanny
nice savings account
a vacation home somewhere nice


middle middle

just-big-enough house
Ford/Chevy/Studebaker
public college (kids had to work summers)
vacations to national parks/family living elsewhere
occasional housekeeper/babysitter
savings only for emergencies or a needed household item
a shared vacation cottage (shared with other family members)
kids go to day camp

lower middle

house busting at seams..kids share rooms
old car/no car
public college..kids work and try for scholarships
vacations every few years..to whatever's close-by ( or to family)
no household help
kids babysit each other, or they go along
little or no savings things are bought used or are hand-me-downs
kids play at home in the summer..maybe Bible school camps (they were cheap/free)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To live that kind of life (you choose), it will always depend on where you are.

To have upper in San Francisco, Boston, New York, Chicago, etc, $250K might not do it

If you are in St Louis, or Wichita or Omaha, you could do it easily (except for the college part)

Throw in self-paid medical insurance to any of the choices and all bets are off..

"Back in the day", people could afford to get sick.,.,not now..

[hedgehog]

18. Shoot - by that definition I'm lower middle class -

but I'm an outlier because I had a mess of kids and stayed home until the youngest started kindergarten.

The irony is that my husband makes very good money - but we're behind the 8 ball because of the years I stayed home, then because of the years I was unemployed/underemployed involuntarily. It doesn't take much for anyone to slip behind really fast - a few months out of work, a traffic accident, illness, etc.

[SoCalDem]

34. Us too. We had a good start, but our first child had serious medical problems

and we spent the next 8 years moving all over the place (had to move when the company said move because we had to have the insurance), and every year we had to spend 6-8 weeks at a time (a few times a year) in Rochester Minnesota (Mayo Clinic)..

During the years when our friends were buying houses, we were paying hospital.doctor bulls and moving.. 7 houses, 6 states, 4 years.. whew!

I stayed home until the youngest of our 3 was in school all day, and then I "retired" when he was in high school ( didn't want to miss out on his sports years )
But since I started working for a paycheck when I was 13 (family business), I felt entitled

We are comfortable now, but it's because we have always spent way less than we made.

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. I think you've identified the real issue right here. Middle class has become meaningless except as

a marketing term, the American middle class was exterminated in the 80's & 90's.

Think about how much even that modest life in your examples costs today. Even in a cheap state you're talking about a single wage earner bringing home $65K - $75K, and doesn't include the money saving options that no longer exist, buying an old beater to get around in for less than a week's wages, for example, or being able to scrounge gas money from the sofa.

[progressivebydesign]

13. that's upper middle class. n/t

[Sekhmets Daughter]

88. quick question

I'm new to DU....what does n/t designate?

[fizzgig]

108. no text, meaning there's nothing in the body of the message

welcome to du

[Aerows]

23. If you carry a purse

or wear a suit that is the price of a decent car, you need to have the hell taxed out of you. You can own a home and contribute to society without needing to have either of those things.

[Proud Public Servant]

24. On a national level, no.

But locally, possibly.

Our household income level isn't quite at $250k, but it's close enough. If we still lived in, say, Pittsburgh, we'de be upper-middle class, in that we could live in the way that the upper-middle class does in that place: we could afford a house in a suburb like Aspinwall or Mt. Lebanon; we could send our kids to private school; we could eat out at teh cities best restaurants with some regularity; etc.

However, in Washington DC, we can not live the way the DC-area upper-middle-class does. We can't afford a house in an upper-middle enclave like Bethesda or Reston; we can't afford private schools; and with dinner in a good-not-great DC restaurant routinely costing $100/person, we certainly can't dine like the UMC very often. In DC, we live like the middle class.

Not that I'm complaining about my lot; neither my wife an I ever expected to have it this good. But I am aware that class status varies by location.

[HiPointDem]

51. median household income in dc = $58K. that's the middle. your household income is more than

4 times that.

nothing personal, but people who live in wealthy areas compare themselves against the super-wealthy and thus feel "middle-class".

[Proud Public Servant]

64. I'd quibble, but perhaps agree

First, a quibble: $58k/year is the city itself; median household income for metro DC is over $85k/year, and that seems to me to be teh more sensible metric. But at any rate I'm not sure I buy the "median income = middle class" argument; if that's the case, then a household living on a paltry $26k/year in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana would be "middle class." Moreover, it would mean that that $26k/yr household in St. Landry Parish and $100k/year household in Fairfax County, VA were somehow the same, because they were both "middle." That makes no sense to me.

That being said, I would consider my own upbringing to be middle class and certainly live better than that now (or at least higher off the hog), so perhaps you're right. But this does illustrate that we don't, collectively, have a decent definition of "middle class" in this country, which is why the term is so easily abused.

[HiPointDem]

67. if middle class isn't the middle of the income distribution, it's a pretty arbitrary (& thus meaning

less) descriptor.

[CBGLuthier]

25. May not be middle class but it is still WORKING CLASS and that makes them more like me

than the fucking 1% bastards who do nothing to make their money and have no worries about mortgage payments or tuition ever.

[Aerows]

27. Exactly

You still work. Their biggest decision is which Porsche to take to the 25K dinner and which Birkin bag matches the best with their shoes.

[Romulox]

28. That is not what "working class" means. Not historically, at least. nt

[Sekhmets Daughter]

86. Excellent point

The problem is that too few people realize just how correctly you've framed your opinion.

[AnOhioan]

26. one word answer...no

[FreeJoe]

29. I make about that

It varies significantly from year-to-year, but my AGI over the last five years has averaged between 250K and 300K. If asked, I would call myself "upper middle class".

[Aerows]

30. I think we should tax the hell out of luxury goods

Your car costs more than 40K? Tax you for 10% of its worth, yearly, as long as its worth is above 40K. Like to wear 5K suits? 10% tax - yearly. Like your 10K handbag? 10% tax - yearly.

Then the rich might actually be pulling their weight. And capital gains taxes. Up the hell out of those. Impose HFT taxes. Our nation would be flush with cash.

[Nye Bevan]

103. They tried something like that in the 90s.

It hurt the auto business and US boat-building business so much that they ended up abolishing it. By all means tax the rich, but hurting automobile workers is not the best way.

[Warpy]

31. That's about what you need to be solidly middle class

That means all your kids have their own rooms, you can afford household help (even if you don't have it), your cars are paid for and new enough not to give you headaches, you can take vacations and stay in hotels when you do, you can educate your children without forcing them to take on debt, and you can afford to invest for your own retirement.

It doesn't mean multiple trophy houses and that's where a lot of people who are pulling in that much run into serious trouble.

[Ikonoklast]

36. Taking home 250K is a far different matter than earning 250K.

[FreeJoe]

41. Not that far

I think I paid about $50,000 in income taxes on an income of $250,000. That's after taking deductions for things like 401K contributions, HSA contributions, standard deduction, personal exemptions, etc. Tack on $4,600 for SS and about $2,200 for Medicare. You're now looking at after tax income of $193,200. That's definitely less than $250,000, but I don't think I'd call if "far different". The reality is that taxes on the typical $250,000/year earner aren't really all that high.

[Ikonoklast]

46. I figured it at around earning 320K to take home 250K.

70K more in gross earnings is a pretty good chunk of change.

I know which end of that equation I'd rather be on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Alas, it is a situation I will never have to contend with.

Unless my, and my wife's, pensions are raised by about $100,000 each.

[boston bean]

44. Upper middle class, maybe. not sure. nt

[4th law of robotics]

45. A single person living in Lubbock on that: rich

a married couple with 5 kids living in Manhattan or San Francisco: doing pretty well.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. The may average for 3 BR Manhattan was over 5K.

That is the average not the median, so high end rentals skew the number, but 250K with 5 kids in Manhattan is not rich and not even doing pretty well. It is really expensive to live in NYC, SF or LA. The argument 'its their choice' is irrelevant.

[HopeHoops]

47. Depends on where you live, but in general the answer is "NO".

[taught_me_patience]

52. In Kansas, no. In and expensive city yes

Topeaka... rich
San Francisco... upper middle class
NYC... middle class.

[slackmaster]

56. It depends on how much you have to spend every year

If you bring home $250K, pay $50K in taxes, $10K in housing and have annual medical expenses of $190K, you are dead broke.

[liberal N proud]

57. I would like to make that much to find out.

But hey I am not going to complain about a $150K or $250K being called middle class. The point is $250K income people can afford to pay a little more in taxes and the 1% mother fuckers need to have it stuck to them because they are sticking it to the rest of us every change they get.

[Fresh_Start]

58. We think of ourselves as middle class

we don't take home $250K but earn that amount as a couple.

small 1800 sq ft home - 40+year old track house with 40 year old kitchen and bath
I'm driving 14 year old car: but my honey has a new car (not luxury)
Supporting my mom (paying her mortgage and taxes) she's on fixed income
helping 25 year old son and 35 yo daughter who have both been hit hard by the current economic situation
Last vacation I had was 5 years ago. Really no luxury spending
recovering from my husband being out of work for 2 years
saving for huge college expense for 16 year old rising senior

We realize we are fortunate and fully understand we need to pay more and we will pay more
but my employment is insecure so there is no comfortable

expensive community but below average house
bought this community so we didn't have to pay for private schooling since public education is generally poor in california

[hedgehog]

95. We don't earn near that much as a couple, but we

do earn a lot more than most people. But, like you we are partially supporting a retired parent and three children at college. And as you point out - being out of work really puts you behind the 8 ball.

In effect - your income is covering several different households.

[qazplm]

62. its tough because effectively we've traditionally identified three groups

poor/lower class, middle class, and upper class.

We sometimes try to split this into lower middle, upper middle, lower upper, and upper but its still really imprecise language.

Compound this with the skyrocketing gap between the very rich and everyone else.

So now, you look in one direction (towards the poor) and you go 250K is rich, not middle class, but then you look at the other direction (towards the very rich) and you go 250K is a pittance in comparison.

I think it's a fair cutoff point between the very rich and those who at least resemble or understand the problems of the rest of us. If Mitt Romney loses this election, and is jobless, he's sitting pretty. If a family loses the jobs that make up their 250K a year, they are in real trouble, real fast.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. yes. That is not even close to being rich.

We have this discussion here frequently, and there is so little understanding of just how wealthy, in both wealth and income, as both have to be measured, the 'rich' are, and what a huge gulf there is between them and us.




A little perspective on who is rich and who isnt.

[sinkingfeeling]

68. The top 5% doesn't make you the middle of anything. Unless it's

the middle of the top 10%.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. By that reasoning only 0 people are middle class.

[sinkingfeeling]

70. Uh? I would say the 'middle' is like 40-60%.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. OK, different statement than before.

Now you are discussing a range, but a range of what?

The problem is referenced above in my earlier post. It is the "L curve", and all the income (and wealth) is way over on the right hand side of the graph.

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!

This discussion over who is and who isnt is peasants fighting each other over the definition of peasants. None of us are lords.

[sinkingfeeling]

73. Percentiles. The middle class is defined most often as the 3rd. & 4th.

quartile (of income).

[Warren Stupidity]

74. I'll try again.

The wealth and income is all over, way over, on the right hand side of the graph. The middle of nothing is nothing, and that is what we are arguing about. The elites have captured all the wealth and all the income and we are trying to decide were the middle of the scrap heap they couldnt bother with is.

[ieoeja]

72. We used to call that "upper middle-class".

You are far from The Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous. But you are also far from average middle-class.

I make only a little over $100k and consider myself in the upper middle-class. When I reached the point where I stopped balancing my checkbook, I recognized that my life had altered dramatically.

[yellerpup]

77. You could make meth in a trailer

and rack up that kind of money but you'd still be trash. $250,000/year is upper income for sure.

[Blue_In_AK]

78. It depends on where you live.

$250,000 a year goes a lot further in Arkansas than it does in New York City.

[patrice]

79. I think a more relevant question is how dependent is your income on those incomes above you, compare

d to how dependent is your income on those incomes below you?

IOW, are you a trust fund baby? Or a worker?

Class is about more than just numbers, more than the quantity of dollars, in this case, but also about other specific properties of those dollars, their qualities.

Things like, how long you've been in that bracket; where exactly the income comes from; the virtual/derivative properties of the income compared to concrete properties such as the real value of actual work, or value-added traits . . . just brainstorming here, based on the fact that though the numbers may be the same, what those numbers represent is NOT identical to other instances of the same numbers. And some of THOSE differences DO have more direct effects upon the Middle Class.

[Enrique]

81. that's the 98.5% percentile

I don't see how that can be considered middle class. Unless we define middle class to mean "possibly decent honorable people" or "people we won't eat when the revolution comes". But by demographics, I would say the answer is no.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

82. Yep

It's the "Upper Middle Class" At least it was before republicans gutted the economy and the middle class. While it seems like a lot of money, they are paying just under 35% in Federal income tax, if they live in a state with a state income tax, they are paying the maximum for that, they are paying the maximum in payroll taxes as well. The only reason they are living better than a large swathe of the rest of the population is because somewhere between 47% and 52% are living at or just slightly above the poverty level. If you take just those incomes that are above the EITC standards, $250K is probably right about that upper middle designation.

[pnwmom]

84. MORE than $250K is a pretty open ended range. But no, it wouldn't be middle class. n/t

[MrSlayer]

91. Upper middle, yes.

You need 500k a year to get to lower upper.

[rug]

92. 16 times the minimum wage is not middle class.

[thelordofhell]

94. No

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. "Middle class" is a ridiculous concept. It's completely arbitrary and invented...

... to make people feel like they should have some affinity with the wealthy.

If we divide household incomes in three equal-sized groups, "low" "middle" and "high"
families earning up to about $31,000 annually are low income,
between $31,001 and $67,500 are middle income and
$67,501 and over are high income.

If we accept that $250,000 (the 98.5th percentile) is middle income, than we must accept that $2,200 (the 1.5th percentile) is as well.

And geography doesn't mean shit. Can't live on $250,000? Here's some luggage, move to fucking Idaho.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Here is the heart of the problem in the US

We "in the popular press" break this between the rich, the middle class and the poor.

Here is how others do it.

Billionaires (A category of their own, as in VERY WALTHY)
Millionaires, (Wealthy)
Lower wealthy, people who are well to do, but do not rich stratospheric levels.

UPPER middle class, and you could make the argument that the 250,000 income, not net worth, in certain sections of the country, read NYC and Los Angeles, do fall in Upper Middle Class, in lower cost of living areas, they are into the comfortably wealthy category. Suffice it to say that our pols are using high cost of lving areas.

Middle, middle class... 70-200K year income, and really depends on where you live, in some areas you are upper middle class.

Lower middle class 50-100K, again depending on area.

And the working classes, yup, breaks the same way.

The other problem you have, is that in the US people will self identify as middle class even when they are objectively poor, working class, or objectively wealthy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. I would count myself most fortunate if I made $250,000 per year. It is certainly upper middle class

border lining on lower upper class. If one lives in one of the major cities like New York or San Francisco or Boston it is not as much as if you live in Corry PA or where I currently live - but it would be a very comfortable income to live on. In such a population center it would still probably be in the upper middle class category. In most of America it would put one in the lower upper class category.

[steve2470]

100. kick for more discussion nt

[Tanuki]

104. If you're 95 years old, are you middle aged? eom

[drb]

107. Tell you what - let me try it for about 20 years, and I'll let you know.

nt

[white_wolf]

110. Threads like this are honestly why I prefer the Marxist definitions of class.

At least they are fairly concrete. Defining class by income is extremely subjective as the large number of threads on this topic shows. Of course, the Marxist view on class still isn't perfect, some wealthy lawyers or doctors might technically be working class, even if they make more than some small time business owners. Besides, everyone seems to think they are middle-class anymore, the term really loses meaning when the the 0.1% Mitt Romney uses it to describe himself.