[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]

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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[UCGal]

dharma girl wrote:
Do any of you think we’ll get to the point where electric cars are a viable alternative?

I do. I know smaller EV’s are already out (See the Zap Xebra for the low end, and the tesla for the high end.) Toyota is working on a plug in prius – it will still have the combustion engine, but will go up to 60 miles on a charge and have photocells on the roof – so it can charge in the parking lot. (Great for SoCal in my opinion.)

In Europe the THINK EVs are being used by cities for the municipal vehicles. (I wish it wasn’t a privately held company, I’d buy stock!)

I think it’s a matter of time.

Hydrogen cell cars are available by lease in the LA area. There’s a radius to the fueling stations – so you pretty much have to live in Long Beach or the Valley. If they catch on, they might be made more widely available.

Seriously, if I was retired we would get a Xebra as our second car – since most of our errands are within 10 miles via surface streets. But that goes to the other thread about what “rich” is. I’m still a wage slave and we need two freeway legal cars.

[UCGal]

dharma girl wrote:
Do any of you think we’ll get to the point where electric cars are a viable alternative?

I do. I know smaller EV’s are already out (See the Zap Xebra for the low end, and the tesla for the high end.) Toyota is working on a plug in prius – it will still have the combustion engine, but will go up to 60 miles on a charge and have photocells on the roof – so it can charge in the parking lot. (Great for SoCal in my opinion.)

In Europe the THINK EVs are being used by cities for the municipal vehicles. (I wish it wasn’t a privately held company, I’d buy stock!)

I think it’s a matter of time.

Hydrogen cell cars are available by lease in the LA area. There’s a radius to the fueling stations – so you pretty much have to live in Long Beach or the Valley. If they catch on, they might be made more widely available.

Seriously, if I was retired we would get a Xebra as our second car – since most of our errands are within 10 miles via surface streets. But that goes to the other thread about what “rich” is. I’m still a wage slave and we need two freeway legal cars.

[UCGal]

dharma girl wrote:
Do any of you think we’ll get to the point where electric cars are a viable alternative?

I do. I know smaller EV’s are already out (See the Zap Xebra for the low end, and the tesla for the high end.) Toyota is working on a plug in prius – it will still have the combustion engine, but will go up to 60 miles on a charge and have photocells on the roof – so it can charge in the parking lot. (Great for SoCal in my opinion.)

In Europe the THINK EVs are being used by cities for the municipal vehicles. (I wish it wasn’t a privately held company, I’d buy stock!)

I think it’s a matter of time.

Hydrogen cell cars are available by lease in the LA area. There’s a radius to the fueling stations – so you pretty much have to live in Long Beach or the Valley. If they catch on, they might be made more widely available.

Seriously, if I was retired we would get a Xebra as our second car – since most of our errands are within 10 miles via surface streets. But that goes to the other thread about what “rich” is. I’m still a wage slave and we need two freeway legal cars.

[UCGal]

dharma girl wrote:
Do any of you think we’ll get to the point where electric cars are a viable alternative?

I do. I know smaller EV’s are already out (See the Zap Xebra for the low end, and the tesla for the high end.) Toyota is working on a plug in prius – it will still have the combustion engine, but will go up to 60 miles on a charge and have photocells on the roof – so it can charge in the parking lot. (Great for SoCal in my opinion.)

In Europe the THINK EVs are being used by cities for the municipal vehicles. (I wish it wasn’t a privately held company, I’d buy stock!)

I think it’s a matter of time.

Hydrogen cell cars are available by lease in the LA area. There’s a radius to the fueling stations – so you pretty much have to live in Long Beach or the Valley. If they catch on, they might be made more widely available.

Seriously, if I was retired we would get a Xebra as our second car – since most of our errands are within 10 miles via surface streets. But that goes to the other thread about what “rich” is. I’m still a wage slave and we need two freeway legal cars.

[UCGal]

dharma girl wrote:
Do any of you think we’ll get to the point where electric cars are a viable alternative?

I do. I know smaller EV’s are already out (See the Zap Xebra for the low end, and the tesla for the high end.) Toyota is working on a plug in prius – it will still have the combustion engine, but will go up to 60 miles on a charge and have photocells on the roof – so it can charge in the parking lot. (Great for SoCal in my opinion.)

In Europe the THINK EVs are being used by cities for the municipal vehicles. (I wish it wasn’t a privately held company, I’d buy stock!)

I think it’s a matter of time.

Hydrogen cell cars are available by lease in the LA area. There’s a radius to the fueling stations – so you pretty much have to live in Long Beach or the Valley. If they catch on, they might be made more widely available.

Seriously, if I was retired we would get a Xebra as our second car – since most of our errands are within 10 miles via surface streets. But that goes to the other thread about what “rich” is. I’m still a wage slave and we need two freeway legal cars.

[UCGal]

I’m seeing several “smart” cars on the road here in LA, saw a car hauler yesterday loaded with them. They look oddly small compared to cars we typically see on the road, but in Europe they seem normal as most cars are smaller there. If I wasn’t a freeway commuter I’d buy one. Not sure I trust them against a semi truck or larger SUV in a freeway collision, but NHTSA says they do well in crash tests.

Wish they had 4-seat version here in the US.

Trojan4life

The smart cars here in the US are not that great on gas – they replaced the Mercedes diesel engine that is standard in Europe with a Daimler Chrysler gas engine. The gas mileage reflects that change. I’ve driven the European version. I was excited when they anounced they’d be bringing them to the US – but with the mileage like 33 city, 40 hwy, I’m not impressed. (Compared to over 50mpg for the European version.)

I’m glad I brought a hybrid a few years ago. I’m holding out for the EV or plug in hybrid.

[UCGal]

I’m seeing several “smart” cars on the road here in LA, saw a car hauler yesterday loaded with them. They look oddly small compared to cars we typically see on the road, but in Europe they seem normal as most cars are smaller there. If I wasn’t a freeway commuter I’d buy one. Not sure I trust them against a semi truck or larger SUV in a freeway collision, but NHTSA says they do well in crash tests.

Wish they had 4-seat version here in the US.

Trojan4life

The smart cars here in the US are not that great on gas – they replaced the Mercedes diesel engine that is standard in Europe with a Daimler Chrysler gas engine. The gas mileage reflects that change. I’ve driven the European version. I was excited when they anounced they’d be bringing them to the US – but with the mileage like 33 city, 40 hwy, I’m not impressed. (Compared to over 50mpg for the European version.)

I’m glad I brought a hybrid a few years ago. I’m holding out for the EV or plug in hybrid.

[Author]

Posts