What's Middle Class? (Atlanta: renter, health insurance, home)

[Scraper Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by lastminutemom

How about this idea-- middle class isn't about income but it is about values.

Middle class values might include pride in home ownership or in some parts of the country, rentals, valuing education, respecting other people's space, etc

The reason that some push for mixed income housing developments is so that lower income people can be exposed and inculturated (is that a word?) in middle class values. There is a small (and not particularly growing) number of school systems that use income level to assign students to schools, again to make sure that poor children are surrounded by less poor children and poor children from "middle class" homes.

I want to live in a community where parents value education and neighbors keep their lawns mowed.

If too many of these "low income" students are forced/bussed/assigned to "middle income" schools, the school will ultimately fail, the result of chaos in the classroom, too many apathetic students, and lowered expectations.

In fact, I see little to believe that such works. Only when one or two "low-income" students are mixed in with "middle income" students can it be modestly improved for "low-income" students.

[lastminutemom]

Originally Posted by Scraper Enthusiast

If too many of these "low income" students are forced/bussed/assigned to "middle income" schools, the school will ultimately fail, the result of chaos in the classroom, too many apathetic students, and lowered expectations.

In fact, I see little to believe that such works. Only when one or two "low-income" students are mixed in with "middle income" students can it be modestly improved for "low-income" students.

Actually, the model I speak of controls the percentage of low income students and it works -- though not as greatly as people had hoped. What is clear is that the presence of the low income students doesn't negatively impact the scores of the other students. However, the poor students still go home to homes that are generally language poor and that lack the values that show that education matters.

[Merin]

Originally Posted by laji01

I like this definition. If you are as busy and work like a mule, you may get $300K so what's the point? You did not have the pleasure to hangout with your family and do not enjoy your life? Do you lead a life like middle-class, I think a teacher may well into it as he/she has time to go to concert, enjoy music but workholic get nothing but money ?

The point is, what's the point to define middle class? If you are not short of money and enjoy your life, you are living a happy life, let others talk about if he/she is middle-class!

I agree with you and am all about enjoying life. My Husbands salary is a big chunk of our 200k combined. When he was only making around 100k, I specifically told him that income level was fine, and if making more money meant never being home...I wasn't interested. Thank goodness his job has reasonable hours and pays pretty well.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

I don't think when the powers that be come up with income numbers and how it relates to the income class system, they base it on how large a family is - they base it simply on "household".

In other words, if your household income (regardless of how many work, or how many kids you have) is over $200,000, then you are not technically considered "middle income". No one forces anyone to have 3 kids, or 4 or 5 or more ...or none for that matter. The income class system is based on per-household income.

Understood, but many class warfare types like to use numbers like 200K and paint a picture of someone who is "rich" and doesn't "need" their money, thereby being able to pay higher taxes.

My point is simply that income is relative to your circumstances, and someone who makes 200K may be stretched to the limit, and not able to "afford" the higher tax burden due to supporting their own family. People make false assumptions of what it means to be "rich" and just assume that a higher income means that you can "afford" to pay for other people's families. If I choose to have 12 kids, then that would be my choice, provided I can pay for them. People that have 12 kids and also expect me (and everyone else) to pay for their kids are the problem.

And before people start bringing up the current financial market situation....I would not use taxpayer funds to bail out private business, and would throw the CEOs in prison. I make around $200K, and I can tell you that I am very far from rich. To the homeless person, the guy making $30K living in an apartment is "rich".

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by lastminutemom

How about this idea-- middle class isn't about income but it is about values.

Middle class values might include pride in home ownership or in some parts of the country, rentals, valuing education, respecting other people's space, etc

Without context, I'd completely agree with the above. However the Original Post on this thread was:

Originally Posted by equinox63

What do consider middle-class regarding income, lifestyle, etc.? What are the parameters to be middle class in Atlanta? Not upper-middle, not lower-middle, but middle-middle.

So the original question was specifically about income and lifestyle. I'd say lifestyle options are very much restricted by income, towards the lower end of the income scale, so this was a very income-oriented question, and the earlier responses on this thread were framed accordingly.

If you want to talk about middle-class values, I'd say the key concept is deferred gratification. It's hard for the poor (whether here or in third-world countries) to have this value, because they don't see themselves as having much control over their lives.

[Merin]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Understood, but many class warfare types like to use numbers like 200K and paint a picture of someone who is "rich" and doesn't "need" their money, thereby being able to pay higher taxes.

My point is simply that income is relative to your circumstances, and someone who makes 200K may be stretched to the limit, and not able to "afford" the higher tax burden due to supporting their own family. People make false assumptions of what it means to be "rich" and just assume that a higher income means that you can "afford" to pay for other people's families. If I choose to have 12 kids, then that would be my choice, provided I can pay for them. People that have 12 kids and also expect me (and everyone else) to pay for their kids are the problem.

May I ask a few questions to gain your perspective? How can I a person making 200k, be stretched to the limit in the Atlanta area? I am asking because many Atlanta burbs have a relatively Low Cost of Living . Additionally, when you speak of "paying for other peoples families" what are you referring to?

Originally Posted by neil0311

And before people start bringing up the current financial market situation....I would not use taxpayer funds to bail out private business, and would throw the CEOs in prison. I make around $200K, and I can tell you that I am very far from rich. To the homeless person, the guy making $30K living in an apartment is "rich".

I don't want to bail them out either, but I believe we realyl had no choice. The effect on the worldwide market would have been pretty bad. Nevertheless I think the CEO's should be in jail regardless.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Merin

May I ask a few questions to gain your perspective? How can I a person making 200k, be stretched to the limit in the Atlanta area? I am asking because many Atlanta burbs have a relatively Low Cost of Living . Additionally, when you speak of "paying for other peoples families" what are you referring to?

I'm not stretched to the limit, but I'm not swimming in dough either. If you have children, you know what I mean. If you don't, then I can see why you question. The cost of living in Atlanta is slightly cheaper for only some things. The purchase price of a house in Atlanta is lower than most areas, but that only accounts for a small portion of expenses. Feeding, clothing, transportation, and providing for the day to day expenses for a family of five takes money. When the tax burden is between 35% - 50% of your gross income, as it is in my case (federal/state income tax, county property, FICA/Medicare, sales tax), the amount you have left over to pay for those necessities and also enjoy your life and save for your and your children's future becomes less and less.

What I mean by paying for other's families is that we pay taxes used to support the choices of people who have children they can't afford or make choices they can't afford (buying expensive houses and taking bad mortgages for instance). While this may not be a huge number of people in the scheme of things, there are plenty who fall into this category. Welfare programs and misguided tax programs like the "earned income tax credit", along with the so-called "progressive" income tax, allow for these folks to pay no tax or a lower percentage of their income while I pay a higher percentage to subsidize their choices. All this is done under the theory that I am swimming in cash and don't "need" the money because I'm "rich".

So while as Greg says we may have technical definitions of what is lower, middle, or upper class, the problem is that these are incorrect perceptions when looked at in context. Politicians play on these misperceptions, and lower income people think someone making 200K is sitting around in a smoking jacket, lighting a cigar with a $100 bill while eating caviar.

[onemanarmy]

I think some of us are comparing apples to oranges. Typically politicians are speaking about "Adjusted Gross Income" when defining tax policies. So if a person has an AGI of 50k or 200k, its after all exemptions and deductions. So if you have 12 childrens you have 12 exemptions, and if you still have 200k left to be taxed you are probably not middle class when compared to others. You can be stretched financially, but it's probably because of personal reasons rather than economics.

[Merin]

Thanks for your perspective.

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by neil0311

So while as Greg says we may have technical definitions of what is lower, middle, or upper class, the problem is that these are incorrect perceptions when looked at in context. Politicians play on these misperceptions, and lower income people think someone making 200K is sitting around in a smoking jacket, lighting a cigar with a $100 bill while eating caviar.

I certainly don't think that lower-income people think that someone making $200k a year is in a smoking jacket and eating caviar. However, when someone making $200k complains about how they are barely making it (which I've known some who do), and how so very hard it is to raise their children, then only one thought comes to the minds of those who make lower incomes ... "Then, don't have kids if they cost so much and it's straining your $200k budget". Or just as often, the common thought is that the family is trying to keep up with the Jonses next door and is living beyond their means for that income (too large of a house in too expensive of a neigborhood, new SUVs in the parking lot, or even things like just eating out too much.

But you MUST have "technical definitions" for income classes, otherwise there's no way to gauge who's where. As that example I gave earlier said - a man could have 12 kids and make a million dollars a year and still say he's barefly scraping by. Another guy can be single and make $35k a year and have more spending money in his pocket than the millionaire. But either way, the single guy is still considered "lower-middle" income, and the guy with 12 kids is still considered "high-income". They have to be. You can have income classes based on how many children you have to pay out to raise.