Letter to Feinstein

[UCGal]

Agreeing with a few others here. If you make a household income of $250K – statistically, even in expensive CA, you are wealthy. You aren’t just middle class, you are upper-upper-middle, or wealthy.

People make choices about how to spend that money. Having 2 car payments, vs buying older cars with no loans. Living in more expensive areas. These are choices. You make them and pay the price for them.

My husband and I have a combined income of about $150k – which lets us make our mortgage, keep the kids in daycare/after school programs. And we save. We don’t have car payments. My husbands car is 14 years old! We buy the kids clothes at target rather than Gymboree. We don’t have granite counter tops and designer furniture. But we have a comfortable life. We are not wanting. We consider ourselves VERY fortunate. When we save for the kids college and for retirement, we know it means we won’t have the nicest vacation. We don’t have lawn services or a housecleaning service… we do it ourselves. But we are FAR better off than non-professionals and don’t try to kid ourselves that we aren’t upper middle class. It’s a joke to think that someone making $250K is “middle class”. Middle class by definition is the middle of the income spectrum. It’s people like a police officer married to a teacher. Or an insurance agent married to a middle manager. It’s not folks with a combined income of $250K plus.

Another point – people are talking about 28% and 35% tax brackets as if that rate applies to their entire income- that’s a little misleading. We are ALL in the 10% bracket for the first $8k, then 15% bracket for the next 24K, and 25% bracket for the next 46K, etc… You don’t pay 33% on the ENTIRE income… only the income above $165k. (Above assumes filing single, filing jointly is similar except higher limits.)

[an]

UCGal, so 2 police officers/nurses/teachers/fire fighters who want to do better for themselves by working overtime are no longer middle class. How is hurting those who actually have a drive to do better a fair thing? I don’t think anyone will disagree that $250k is not middle class and that they’re very well off. But these people I just listed above are far from rich, just very hard working people. Do you advocate they shouldn’t try and work so hard?

[an]

UCGal, so 2 police officers/nurses/teachers/fire fighters who want to do better for themselves by working overtime are no longer middle class. How is hurting those who actually have a drive to do better a fair thing? I don’t think anyone will disagree that $250k is not middle class and that they’re very well off. But these people I just listed above are far from rich, just very hard working people. Do you advocate they shouldn’t try and work so hard?

[an]

UCGal, so 2 police officers/nurses/teachers/fire fighters who want to do better for themselves by working overtime are no longer middle class. How is hurting those who actually have a drive to do better a fair thing? I don’t think anyone will disagree that $250k is not middle class and that they’re very well off. But these people I just listed above are far from rich, just very hard working people. Do you advocate they shouldn’t try and work so hard?

[an]

UCGal, so 2 police officers/nurses/teachers/fire fighters who want to do better for themselves by working overtime are no longer middle class. How is hurting those who actually have a drive to do better a fair thing? I don’t think anyone will disagree that $250k is not middle class and that they’re very well off. But these people I just listed above are far from rich, just very hard working people. Do you advocate they shouldn’t try and work so hard?

[an]

UCGal, so 2 police officers/nurses/teachers/fire fighters who want to do better for themselves by working overtime are no longer middle class. How is hurting those who actually have a drive to do better a fair thing? I don’t think anyone will disagree that $250k is not middle class and that they’re very well off. But these people I just listed above are far from rich, just very hard working people. Do you advocate they shouldn’t try and work so hard?

[UCGal]

Asianautica –

I’m saying that historically the middle class was made up of middle income earners. Like Cops/nurses/teachers/firefighters. I’m not trying to deny anyone the incentive or drive to work harder and earn more. I’m not sure why you suggest that.

It comes down to numbers. Median household income for CA for 2005/2006 was $54,385.
(source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html)

So by definition, middle class is the “middle” – or some range around that median income. Not the top 10% of earners.

You said that no-one says $250k is middle class. The OP of this thread claimed just that.

Waiting for bottom said:
$250K in the Bay area or San Diego is middle class. It is not the same as making $250K in Kansas. Feinstein has a responsibility to her constituency to back us up on this.

My point is – people have choices. You can live somewhere else and live a grander lifestyle on a smaller income – but perhaps be further from family, the beach, the good weather. Or you can live in San Diego, perhaps for job reasons, family, etc… but it is a choice. And your income won’t go as far.

Here in CA, by any cold analysis of income medians, averages, etc, $250k is NOT middle class. I agree it’s not “uber-rich” – but why not be proud of the fact that it IS upper class.

Another post mentioned earlier generations who had large families in smaller houses. My husband was one of six kids and lived in a row house in Philly – about 1200 sf. They were middle class by every definition – their combined income was about median for their area.

I’m not sure when those of us who are fortunate enough to be doing significantly better than middle class stopped appreciating it. I’m really grateful that my degree in engineering, my husband’s degree in architecture, and frugal lifestyle let us live a very comfortable life. But I don’t call myself middle class. And neither would the IRS.

[UCGal]

Asianautica –

I’m saying that historically the middle class was made up of middle income earners. Like Cops/nurses/teachers/firefighters. I’m not trying to deny anyone the incentive or drive to work harder and earn more. I’m not sure why you suggest that.

It comes down to numbers. Median household income for CA for 2005/2006 was $54,385.
(source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html)

So by definition, middle class is the “middle” – or some range around that median income. Not the top 10% of earners.

You said that no-one says $250k is middle class. The OP of this thread claimed just that.

Waiting for bottom said:
$250K in the Bay area or San Diego is middle class. It is not the same as making $250K in Kansas. Feinstein has a responsibility to her constituency to back us up on this.

My point is – people have choices. You can live somewhere else and live a grander lifestyle on a smaller income – but perhaps be further from family, the beach, the good weather. Or you can live in San Diego, perhaps for job reasons, family, etc… but it is a choice. And your income won’t go as far.

Here in CA, by any cold analysis of income medians, averages, etc, $250k is NOT middle class. I agree it’s not “uber-rich” – but why not be proud of the fact that it IS upper class.

Another post mentioned earlier generations who had large families in smaller houses. My husband was one of six kids and lived in a row house in Philly – about 1200 sf. They were middle class by every definition – their combined income was about median for their area.

I’m not sure when those of us who are fortunate enough to be doing significantly better than middle class stopped appreciating it. I’m really grateful that my degree in engineering, my husband’s degree in architecture, and frugal lifestyle let us live a very comfortable life. But I don’t call myself middle class. And neither would the IRS.

[UCGal]

Asianautica –

I’m saying that historically the middle class was made up of middle income earners. Like Cops/nurses/teachers/firefighters. I’m not trying to deny anyone the incentive or drive to work harder and earn more. I’m not sure why you suggest that.

It comes down to numbers. Median household income for CA for 2005/2006 was $54,385.
(source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html)

So by definition, middle class is the “middle” – or some range around that median income. Not the top 10% of earners.

You said that no-one says $250k is middle class. The OP of this thread claimed just that.

Waiting for bottom said:
$250K in the Bay area or San Diego is middle class. It is not the same as making $250K in Kansas. Feinstein has a responsibility to her constituency to back us up on this.

My point is – people have choices. You can live somewhere else and live a grander lifestyle on a smaller income – but perhaps be further from family, the beach, the good weather. Or you can live in San Diego, perhaps for job reasons, family, etc… but it is a choice. And your income won’t go as far.

Here in CA, by any cold analysis of income medians, averages, etc, $250k is NOT middle class. I agree it’s not “uber-rich” – but why not be proud of the fact that it IS upper class.

Another post mentioned earlier generations who had large families in smaller houses. My husband was one of six kids and lived in a row house in Philly – about 1200 sf. They were middle class by every definition – their combined income was about median for their area.

I’m not sure when those of us who are fortunate enough to be doing significantly better than middle class stopped appreciating it. I’m really grateful that my degree in engineering, my husband’s degree in architecture, and frugal lifestyle let us live a very comfortable life. But I don’t call myself middle class. And neither would the IRS.

[UCGal]

Asianautica –

I’m saying that historically the middle class was made up of middle income earners. Like Cops/nurses/teachers/firefighters. I’m not trying to deny anyone the incentive or drive to work harder and earn more. I’m not sure why you suggest that.

It comes down to numbers. Median household income for CA for 2005/2006 was $54,385.
(source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html)

So by definition, middle class is the “middle” – or some range around that median income. Not the top 10% of earners.

You said that no-one says $250k is middle class. The OP of this thread claimed just that.

Waiting for bottom said:
$250K in the Bay area or San Diego is middle class. It is not the same as making $250K in Kansas. Feinstein has a responsibility to her constituency to back us up on this.

My point is – people have choices. You can live somewhere else and live a grander lifestyle on a smaller income – but perhaps be further from family, the beach, the good weather. Or you can live in San Diego, perhaps for job reasons, family, etc… but it is a choice. And your income won’t go as far.

Here in CA, by any cold analysis of income medians, averages, etc, $250k is NOT middle class. I agree it’s not “uber-rich” – but why not be proud of the fact that it IS upper class.

Another post mentioned earlier generations who had large families in smaller houses. My husband was one of six kids and lived in a row house in Philly – about 1200 sf. They were middle class by every definition – their combined income was about median for their area.

I’m not sure when those of us who are fortunate enough to be doing significantly better than middle class stopped appreciating it. I’m really grateful that my degree in engineering, my husband’s degree in architecture, and frugal lifestyle let us live a very comfortable life. But I don’t call myself middle class. And neither would the IRS.

[UCGal]

Asianautica –

I’m saying that historically the middle class was made up of middle income earners. Like Cops/nurses/teachers/firefighters. I’m not trying to deny anyone the incentive or drive to work harder and earn more. I’m not sure why you suggest that.

It comes down to numbers. Median household income for CA for 2005/2006 was $54,385.
(source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html)

So by definition, middle class is the “middle” – or some range around that median income. Not the top 10% of earners.

You said that no-one says $250k is middle class. The OP of this thread claimed just that.

Waiting for bottom said:
$250K in the Bay area or San Diego is middle class. It is not the same as making $250K in Kansas. Feinstein has a responsibility to her constituency to back us up on this.

My point is – people have choices. You can live somewhere else and live a grander lifestyle on a smaller income – but perhaps be further from family, the beach, the good weather. Or you can live in San Diego, perhaps for job reasons, family, etc… but it is a choice. And your income won’t go as far.

Here in CA, by any cold analysis of income medians, averages, etc, $250k is NOT middle class. I agree it’s not “uber-rich” – but why not be proud of the fact that it IS upper class.

Another post mentioned earlier generations who had large families in smaller houses. My husband was one of six kids and lived in a row house in Philly – about 1200 sf. They were middle class by every definition – their combined income was about median for their area.

I’m not sure when those of us who are fortunate enough to be doing significantly better than middle class stopped appreciating it. I’m really grateful that my degree in engineering, my husband’s degree in architecture, and frugal lifestyle let us live a very comfortable life. But I don’t call myself middle class. And neither would the IRS.

[Akula1992]

Speaking of taxes, this little article always makes me smile. The end of it is a pretty fair metaphor for what has been happening in France for the past several years where onerous taxes are being levied on the richest folks and they are deciding to leave France and take their money(and the taxes they would have paid) with them. Enjoy.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Akula1992]

Speaking of taxes, this little article always makes me smile. The end of it is a pretty fair metaphor for what has been happening in France for the past several years where onerous taxes are being levied on the richest folks and they are deciding to leave France and take their money(and the taxes they would have paid) with them. Enjoy.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Akula1992]

Speaking of taxes, this little article always makes me smile. The end of it is a pretty fair metaphor for what has been happening in France for the past several years where onerous taxes are being levied on the richest folks and they are deciding to leave France and take their money(and the taxes they would have paid) with them. Enjoy.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Akula1992]

Speaking of taxes, this little article always makes me smile. The end of it is a pretty fair metaphor for what has been happening in France for the past several years where onerous taxes are being levied on the richest folks and they are deciding to leave France and take their money(and the taxes they would have paid) with them. Enjoy.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Author]

Posts