Who Thinks $400,000/Year is "Middle Class"?

Well as you eventually pointed out in a previous discussion the median household income is around $50,000. Median, being the middle. That would put middle class around the $50,000 mark. Let's just for arguments sake, since there's plenty of that here, say that poverty is $15,000. That would allow you to move $35,000 away from the middle income before you would not be middle class, and to further the point, the middle income would be roughly 4 times that of the poverty level. So, if a $35,000 deviation is permissible one way, we should permit it the other way but that only gives us an upper limit of $85k. Let's for no real reason other than to make a bigger number use 4 as a multiplier. Still only gives us an upper limit of 200k. Let us also consider that is 13 times what we expect someone to get by on. If you can't manage to meet your needs with 13 times as many resources as someone else in the same area can, perhaps your lack very vital skills and shouldn't be allowed to manage any resource pool. Also, I hear people complain about taxes all the time, but I have yet to meet someone who declined higher pay based on taxes. Actions words.

There is a percepton factor here where rich people are confused. Wants and needs are two very dfferent thngs. College a luxury and not necessary parents taken care of by a facilty nstead of family: luxury brand new boats: luxury brand new cars: luxury fancy 6 bedroom homes: luxury A yearly income of $5000.00 is poverty. Let me see those making $100,000.00 or more live like this. I am not even happy with congress right now. There are three things we need in lfe: Food, Shelter, clothing and love. Surely people making over $250.00 can manage those four things on that amount. Congress, it's a no brainer. Get your heads out of this sand and do what you were elected to do.

In the mind of a millionaire or multi- millionaire candidate and politicians, It is considered as 'middle class' for someone who make that amount of money annually, other than that, i seriously doubt anyone will regard $250,000 is anyway near middle class other than 'rich'. Well, the mindset of those elected officials in our nation's capital can be very different from the rest of the population of ordinary Americans, it is not even a secret our political elite is make up by very unique human being of men and women of special background and privilege family.

Here in India we too have income slabs on which direct tax is levied and no one looks at the out goings of individuals in that it is possible that those who earn more may spend more. It is difficult to keep a tab on such statistics and therefore one goes by how much one earns and not by how much one spends. We too have categories here which are based on one's income and not on how many mouths one has to feed!

Well, lets face the facts here. If someone grosses 150,000 dollars a year, they do not take that amount home. They have to pay taxes. Now, lets say that person is married with children owns a house and a car. How far do you think 150,000 will go? That is not considered rich by any stretch of the imagination. Now someone making like you said, 400,000 a year, well thats not rich either, but they are way better off then those making 150,000. As the years progressed, prices on everything went up what seems like 100 percent. Cars, homes, you name it. So a million dollars today is not worth nearly what it was like maybe 20 years ago. Salaries are not keeping up with society. And I am talking strictly financial here.

Haha I think maybe you worry too much.It is very common that the people in high income should share more tax,and this is their obligation for the society. So just think those taxes are your contribution to the society,so I think you will feel better than that.

I've seen a couple of responses saying something to the effect of "Well, a business making 250K a year has to pay some of that to employees and other business expenses." Businesses aren't taxed on every dollar that goes in the till. They're taxed on their profits, which is the amount of money they have left after they've paid employees and all other business expenses.

I think that it IS about perspective about how that money is earned, and what it took to achieve that. I have a friend that was laid off from her job in 2008 as VP at Bank of America. That was out of their North Carolina office. She was making about $75,000 at the time, and not really happy. She had transferred from the Chicago area; renting out her condo because she couldn't find a buyer for the price she wanted. Between that and her student loans, she actually wasn't making a lot of money to have fun with. Another friend was complaining that she needed to start working, and constantly saying to me, "Oh we're broke!" yet buying a new car for each of them and getting horseback riding lessons for their daughter. To me, being broke means not having a dime to your name! But they wouldn't give up cable, internet, or going to concerts every week! Remember all the hullaboo about raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour? That helped people that lived in states with a lower cost of living, but in places like New York, parts of California, and the like, it didn't really matter. I was working in New Jersey and at the time, our minimum wage was pretty close to that already; if I had been working full time, it would have amounted to a whopping $2 a week! The disparity between income levels is amazing! But it seems that there really isn't a middle class any more; before, I'd have thought if my boyfriend and I brought home $45 to $50,000 that we'd be considered middle class. Not any more. But I think that what happened was that there are a lot of people in Washington that forget that their constituency is a lot larger than before, and that we, as citizens, need to really start holding them accountable for being unable to complete a job!

Actually, yeah peope would. They might not be on here but there would be complaining at that income regardless. This polls just don't show it. Yeah, a guy making $30,000 a year is going to think that a guy making $250,000 a year is "rich." But that $250,000 guy might have five kids in college and taking care of aging parents both of whom have extensive medical conditions while trying to invest enough back into whatever business to keep it in the black. The guy making $0 dollars a year is going to think that the guy making $30,000 a year is rich. That $30,000 guy might have zero kids, be living rent free with his parents and spending most of his money on his video game collection. He probably has more in his bank account than the guy with $250,000. It really is all about perspective. You can't quantitatively label someone based on their income alone because you don't know what is in their bank accounts. "Rich" implies that you actually have money. In the above scenario, the guy with $30,000 should be taxed more because he has more money in his account than the $250,000 guy. The $30,000 guy is technically "richer" because he has more money left over at the end of the year. You fell into a classic perception trap typical of class warfare.

I agree with you on this one Annie...$400,000 a year is above middle class... I could support everyone that I care about on that much income and still be content...

One problem with income for the average person is that our spending habits tend to increase to use up our income. On another note, I did see online that the results of a poll of (I believe) a thousand extremely wealthy people found that 67% would be willing to pay higher taxes if they were used to balance the budget and pay down the deficit.

Those figures are indeed high. If you take that amounts there in the Philippines, you would really be living a luxurious life because your already a millionaire here having that money. But as we all know it, the higher your income, your expenses will also become higher.

In my opinion, people who are earning $400,000 are neither middle class nor upper class. For me rich people are the ones who are earning close to a million a year. Middle class earns around $60,000. People who are earning more than $150,000 are called upper middle class. In my country these are the Doctors, Lawyers etc. They can live in luxury but not in extremities.

I think anyone making over $100,000 is doing well. That is for an individual though. I wouldn't exactly call people making over $100,000 rich...maybe upper middle class. $250k combined is about the limit I would consider middle class. I do agree that asking someone that makes over $250k to pay a little extra in taxes won't hurt them, but everyone complains about any money taking away from them that they feel they earned.

I don't, and would love to make that for 1 year. It just shows that politicians have no idea what it really like for most of us.

I absolutely agree with you. If I made that kind of money I would have no problem paying extra taxes. Maybe heirs to large fortunes would help accelerate their parents deaths to save estate taxes.... .

That is upper middle class and also includes those who have businesses. So if a business man makes $400,000 part of that goes to his employees and if he has a lot, that does not leave him much. Also you have to be careful about envy. $250,000 a year or $400,000 is not rich and if that is considered wealthy, no one in America can make over that amount. Those people who make that amount did not get that by robbing or killing and they are not all robber barons. However there are some who do not pay taxes and who get money from you middle classers, and I am not including those who are on welfare through no fault of their own and the elderly and retired people and those who had medical issues and had to go on social security and medicaid. That is wrong. And that is also wrong that the upper classes have to support the drones I would rather ask them to support the decent poor and the elderly who worked hard, but ran into hard times.

hey Annie, it's me again, your friendly ol conservative right winger. I honestly believe our tax code should be changed to tax everyone on their consumption NOT production. Production in America should be encouraged, not discouraged and when you tax production you discourage increased production. The FairTax would do so much and go so much farther to solve our country's fiscal issues. When we get the horse back in front of the horse and tax what should be taxed, consumption, then we might get a grip on America's financial ills.

I don't think $400,000 is middle class. As a person whose never made over $25,000 a year, $400,000 rich to me. I had five kids, only one is in college and she's taking student loans to go, I had trouble keeping my kids in winter coats and shoes. What is 'out deaths'? Actually, my first thought after reading through this discussion is; a perfect example of class warfare in action. Seriously, all my life I've been low income, never had any bad feelings about those who were high income. I have family, close family with an income way over $400,000 a year. Never did I feel envy towards them. Mever did I question their right to have that much income. They worked for it, and I chose to raise kids instead. I think what all the whinning and complaining is about (at least from folks I KNOW) is that attitude of 'let them eat cake' we see in our leadership in Wshington D.C. I guess it is the amount of millionaires. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/as-americans-get-poorer-members-of-congress-get-richer/ [i]While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the 535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it. The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.[/i] http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-facts-that-will-blow-your-mind-federal-employees-and-members-of-congress-are-getting-rich-while-those-of-us-who-pay-their-salaries-suffer Members of Congress and employees of the government are supposed to work for us. We are the ones who pay their salaries. But today, they are the ones "living the dream" while most of the rest of us scramble just to survive from month to month.... 1 According to an article in the Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's net worth soared from $13.7 million in 2008 to $21.7 million in 2009. 2 In 2005, 7420 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year. In 2010, a whopping 82,034 federal workers are making $150,000 or more per year. That is more than a tenfold increase in just five years. 3 More than half of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires. 4 The total compensation that the U.S. government workforce is going to take in this year is approximately 447 billion dollars. 5 Today, all members of Congress earn at least $175,000. This is far, far more than the average American makes. 6 60 percent of the federal government workforce is represented by labor unions. 7 The median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was 2.38 million dollars. 8 In 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense had just nine civilians earning $170,000 or more. When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. Department of Defense had 214 civilians earning $170,000 or more. In June 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense had 994 civilians earning $170,000 or more. 9 Insider trading is perfectly legal for members of the U.S. Congress - and they refuse to pass a law that would change that. 10 According to a recent study conducted by the Heritage Foundation, federal workers earn 30 to 40 percent more money on average than their counterparts in the private sector. 11 When you factor in such things as retirement and health care benefits, the compensation gap between federal workers and private sector employees gets even larger. Just consider the following quote from the Heritage Foundation study mentioned above.... "Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee." 12 The personal wealth of members of the U.S. Congress collectively increased by more than 16 percent from 2008 to 2009. So can the U.S. government continue to afford to shell out nearly half a trillion dollars to federal employees every single year? Of course not. But then, Obama feels some deserve a RAISE. Just sayin.... 'at some point you've made enough money' is a quote that comes to mind. As well as the recent PAY RAISE given to some in D.C. on the back of a fiscal crisis.

In Bulgaria people who have so much money handful of my knowledge. I think we are a poor country. Our middle class is to have a par survive and go to let out what you need rich class are those who simply have everything. and poor people do not have anything here with us they just do not even what to eat and sleep in the streets. I think it has all that but we have our taxes almost identical. nice day!