An interesting read regarding the middle class

[oboe]

We are in agreement that progressive taxation is currently in use.

We agree that spending on social programs like Welfare amounts to redistribution of wealth.

We agree that government have options besides (or in addition to) taxes to raise money for proper government expenditures like roads, bridges, law enforcement, regulating commerce, national defense, etc.

I didn't say it was up to me to tell corporations how much to pay their CEOs.   Neither did I say all employees were equal.

Laz,

I see what you are saying.  Yes, today's poor, if transported back in time would have some things the yesterday's middle class had.   And today's middle class would be yesterday's upper class.   Kind of a neat trick of time travel.

Laz, is the wastewater treatment facility you operate owned by a private company, or publicly held by a municipality, county, state or federal agency?

[Steve]

And today's middle class would be yesterday's upper class. Kind of a neat trick of time travel.

So you agree that the middle calss is better off than ever before.

[oboe]

No I adisagree with that statement.    That's like saying because we can all afford digital watches now, none of us has ever been better off.

Why don't you answer the question I put to you?

Do you believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty?

[Karnak]

What realy matters more is class mobility and that is something that studies have shown that we are losing.  We are now in the same position as the UK, from which we rebeled, in terms of class mobility and the Scandinavian countries now have better class mobility than we do.

[Gunslinger]

Oboe I'd like you to read this.  It explains alot of what I've been saying about the dems and how out of touch they really are:

Democrats Must Reconnect With Middle Class

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

By Martin Frost

For my entire political life -- which spans 26 years as a congressman and at least an additional 10 years before that as a campaign organizer -- I have always believed that my party, the Democratic Party, represented the middle class.

Unfortunately, the public doesn’t see it that way today.

A recent study prepared by a new Democratic think tank, Third Way, demonstrated this reality in chilling fashion. The study was titled “Unrequited Love: Middle Class Voters Reject Democrats at the Ballot Box,” and is worthy of very serious review by everyone in the country who considers himself or herself a Democrat.

The study is an analysis of exit poll data from the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut of 13,718 voters in the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. Middle class was defined as a family income between $30,000 and $75,000. Middle class voters, as defined in this study, accounted for 45 percent of total votes cast.

President Bush and House Republicans both carried middle class voters (a composite of white, black and Hispanics). The truly remarkable aspect of this study is that while John Kerry and House Democrats carried both black and Hispanic middle class voters, Democrats were absolutely swamped among the white middle class, thus tipping the aggregate middle class figures into the Republican column.

Let’s be very specific. Bush defeated Kerry by 22 points among middle class whites, and House Republicans running for Congress won middle class whites by 19 points. Democrats have always assumed that white middle class voters (many, but not all of whom, are union members) were an important constituency for the party.

To quote the study, “While Democrats may consider themselves the party of middle class, working America — middle class, working America thinks otherwise. White middle class voters, in particular, vote in such low numbers for national Democrats that it may be more accurate to believe that they feel that Democrats are hostile to, not champions of, their interests.”

This brings us to the obvious question: What must Democrats do to improve their standing among white middle class voters in order to start winning national elections again, both for the presidency and for Congress?

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the answer does not start with economic issues. It starts with national security. Many middle class voters supported Republicans in 2004 because they were not convinced that Democrats would keep them safe -- either at home or abroad.

There is great irony here because it was Democrats who first proposed a new Department of Homeland Security and it was Democrats who supported the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, while congressional Republicans tried to block their implementation. On this count, Democrats must do a better job of telling their story.

Democrats should also continue to stand up for our veterans while Republicans try to cut veterans' benefits. They should not be bashful about pointing out how poor planning on the part of the Bush administration has led to a high level of casualties in Iraq, and how this is significantly harming the readiness of our Army by making it more difficult for the military to recruit new soldiers and retain soldiers on active duty.

On the domestic front, Democrats should aggressively devise a strategy to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance, even if it does costs some money. We should be willing to tell our friends in the auto industry that they should make more fuel-efficient cars. More fuel-efficient cars will help save energy (making us less dependent on foreign oil) and will force the American auto industry to modernize in a way that it can better compete with foreign car makers and ultimately save American jobs.

Democrats should remind the middle class that we are the party who created Social Security and are the party who will make sure that it is available when they retire. And finally, Democrats should be willing to support middle class tax cuts that help people supplement their Social Security, not through private accounts that take funds away from the Social Security system but with increased IRAs and 401(k) plans.

The analysis done by Third Way should be a wake-up call for Democrats. If it isn’t, Democrats may stay in the wilderness for some time.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

[ASTAC]

Hmmm....

     "Common Dreams news center"

for the "progressive" community...another word for liberal aka too far left...and that story links to the New York times a paper known for it's politically charged yellow journalism.

Just remember what Obi-wan once said..

"Many of the truths we cling to, depend on your point of view"

I'm sure the far right would have a story somewhere that says exactly the opposite.

I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

just my .02

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by oboe
I think we'd have more success defining middle class in terms less specific than whether or not they can buy a gallon of milk or a refirgerator, one car or two, etc.

You could probably look at a distribution of income and define it statistically.    Or a statistician could anyway.    Probably has something to do with being one or two standard deviations on either side of the median annual income.

A rule of thumb I made up is this:

Lower class can barely afford the necessities.

Middle class can afford necessities and some luxuries, but has to pick and choose because they can't afford everything.    

Upper class could afford every luxury the middle class is dreaming of.

So Progressive taxation is communism, huh?

Yes, progressive taxation is communism/socialism. Any time the government "appropriates" something that does not belong to them, on a sliding scale, it is redistribution of wealth by force, a primary tenet of both communism and socialism.

By your definition, the middle class is HUGE. Plenty of people I would condsider quite wealthy still cannot afford every, or even a high percentage of, the luxuries they desire. Of course, it depends on how you define luxury.

By the way, if I was "harsh'' towards you in the other thread, it was not my intent. I'm rather short and abrupt by nature, and tend to be sort of "rough". I sometimes "overexplain" my positions, resulting in a wall of text. I try to avoid it, and often in doing so tend to be somewhat plain and pointed.

[XrightyX]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes, progressive taxation is communism/socialism. Any time the government "appropriates" something that does not belong to them, on a sliding scale, it is redistribution of wealth by force, a primary tenet of both communism and socialism.

Playing Devil's Advocate:

You could also argue that the people that benefit the most in a favorable economic environment provided by a government, could pay back a little bit more....

But, the reality, as I see it, is that many of the wealthy are also involved in politics, directly and indirectly.  In SC, it was called the "Good Old Boy System", but I suspect it reaches out far more than the deep South.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by oboe
No I adisagree with that statement.    That's like saying because we can all afford digital watches now, none of us has ever been better off.

Why don't you answer the question I put to you?

Do you believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty?

Please define more clearly the terms middle class and luxury, as your previous attempt was very vague.

There will always, in a capitalist, free market, democratic society, be a great disparity in ''wealth" and "poverty". It is unavoidable.

I think it was Ben Franklin who once said that it is better to help/coerce/push people out of poverty than it is to ease their suffering or make it more comfortable to remain there. That is NOT a direct quote, but rather a paraphrase.

I simply fail to see where it benefits the "impoverished" to continually increase the tax burden on the "wealthy" because the "wealthy" can afford it, to waste it on ridiculous attempts
at social engineering.

Even the blue collar middle class despises the excess taxes on increased income. Have you ever been on a blue collar job and heard people outright REFUSE to work overtime, for time and a half, double time, or even triple time wages? I have. Their reason?
This is EXACTLY what I hear 90% of the time: "I work extra hours and make more money, and then the IRS comes in and taxes it right back down to near straight time pay. Why give up MORE time for the same or LESS money?" THAT is why progressive taxation on income is TERRIBLY wrong. It discourages growth and productivity even in blue collar middle class employees. EXACTLY who the liberals and progressive taxation proponents claim to be the champions of.

Now, on to the issue of "lack of funding". I'll use education as an example, because that is one of your favorite causes. The truth is, we spend more on education per student now than we did when I was in school, and my kids get LESS education. The NEA and the tax and spend progressive liberals keep DEMANDING we throw more MONEY at the problem, and we keep getting LESS education for our money. These days they're concerned with "self esteem" rather than teaching the skills needed to perform in the real world. They're concerned with DIVERSITY and TOLERANCE rather than FACTS, TRUTH, and the knowledge of what kids need to survive and prosper. So long as they keep wasting the money they already have on that GARBAGE, we'll keep getting uneducated kids who don't have the skill set and the mental maturity and common sense to survive, thrive, and prosper in the real world. They don't need more money, they need to TEACH.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by XrightyX
Playing Devil's Advocate:

You could also argue that the people that benefit the most in a favorable economic environment provided by a government, could pay back a little bit more....

But, the reality, as I see it, is that many of the wealthy are also involved in politics, directly and indirectly.  In SC, it was called the "Good Old Boy System", but I suspect it reaches out far more than the deep South.

Even with a flat tax, they do pay more. Considerably more.

Take the most popular form of the flat tax idea, where we retain the same standard deductions for the individual and/or family, and then allow the deduction of ONLY other taxes paid (state income tax and property tax in most cases). Use the current
percentage most often quoted of about 12%.

Figure the difference in taxes paid  between an income of $30K for a family of 4, and $50K for the same family, $100K for the same family, $200K for the same family, and $500K for the same family. Even when you consider the higher income brackets get a
bigger deduction for other taxes paid, their tax burden increases dramaticly when compared to the $50K family, and especially the $30K family.

[Steve]

Why don't you answer the question I put to you?

What question.  sorry if I missed it or forgot it.

Oboe, you have contradticted yourself by disagreeing with me.  Look it over.

One way to gauge wealth is by home ownership.  Home ownership is at a record high % wise and numbers wise.  How to you explain this if we are becoming a land of have-nots?

[XrightyX]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Even with a flat tax, they do pay more. Considerably more.

Take the most popular form of the flat tax idea...

 

We don't have a flat tax...but I'm all for it, actually.

The biggest problem that I see with the poor/middle class is debt management.  And I don't blame the credit card companies for predatory practices.  It's human nature to want more, now.  Gets you into problems real quick like....

[Wotan]

We are in agreement that progressive taxation is currently in use.

Well great... However, that was never a question of discussion. The real point is that progressive taxation equals the redistribution of wealth. Taking from one and giving to another by force of law.

We agree that spending on social programs like Welfare amounts to redistribution of wealth.

Not really. Re-word it to say that all taxes raised and spent on social programs equates to the redistribution of wealth.

The redistribution of wealth is a key principle of both socialism and communism. Which takes us back to the first response I gave to your question:

For example, communism and socialism are distinctly different from each other, are they not? But I seem to be often labelled a commie or a socialist. How could I be both?

They are not 'distinctly different'.

We agree that government have options besides (or in addition to) taxes to raise money for proper government expenditures like roads, bridges, law enforcement, regulating commerce, national defense, etc.

Again this was never in question. However, the redistribution of wealth is and has always been a tool of the left.

I didn't say it was up to me to tell corporations how much to pay their CEOs. Neither did I say all employees were equal.

What you said was:

To me, social norms that favor equality might as easily be demonstrated by a corporation board that is very tight fisted with executive pay.

If you really believe that then you need some other force besides the free market to achieve that. CEO is a pretty exclusive labor pool. The best can, for the most part, set their own salary.

Shareholders demand a good return on their investment. Shareholders are a cross section of society, many of them 'middle class'.

If your whole point about corporate pay is nothing more then a hippie like 'I have a dream...' or 'I wish...' egalitarian expression then what's to discuss? I wish I had a billion dollars in the bank...

If your answer to that question is going to be some never ending circular argument there's no need to answer.

 The problem with modern liberals and leftists is that they spend more time trying to avoid being 'labeled' as such that they come off like wishy washy women.

If some one believes in the redistribution of wealth as primary role of the federal tax system then they are a socialist. If they believe in artificial restrictions on income they are a socialist.

If they spend time worrying about what the other guy has, and whether or not they feel he deserves it, they should get help. Envy can be a bad thing.

The rich guy doesn't stop the poor guy from making a living. We don't live in a caste system. People are only limited by their own effort. Government should not interfere with that.

[lazs2]

It matters not how much we tax the wealthy... our schools will just get worse and the NEA richer..  the longer the government runs anything the worse it gets... the less we get for the buck.

Our middle class lives like sultans compared to the middle class of 30 years or so ago.

lazs

[Sixpence]

I don't care who is what, just bring the prices of homes down a little bit. I'm thinking of taking a framing class at wentworth and building one.....seriously.