Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't forget that middle class folks don't want to have low income ghetto trash as neighbors. Therefore increasing the low income tenant percentage in a building will only determine class folks from moving there. The end result the entire building becomes occupied by low income ghetto trash. And the middle class is once again left out in the cold.
I've defined it many times on this board. I would say for a single person it would be a minimum annual income of say 70K and up. Married couples I would say 120K and up. And then of course you have upper middle class with a higher income.
DeBlasio's goal is correct..to earmark housing for specific income brackets, low-income and middle income earners. The problem is the allocations...58% to low-income and 22% to middle income is wrong, and should be reversed. Low-income residents have plenty of government assistance to rely on, and are not leaving the city except under very specific circumstances. The middle class? They are not wealthy enough to be insulated like the rich, or poor enough to qualify for government assistance, which makes them the most vulnerable and the group leaving in droves.
Of course, it would not be "popular" to only earmark 22% of housing for lower-income, but I would think he would have the guts to do the right thing and maintain the middle class here. Wake up DeBlasio!!
I've defined it many times on this board. I would say for a single person it would be a minimum annual income of say 70K and up. Married couples I would say 120K and up. And then of course you have upper middle class with a higher income.
Up to WHAT? $100,000,000???
Like I said, DEFINE IT.
Otherwise anything said about the "middle class" is nonsensical babble.
I haven't read much on it yet, but it looked to me as though his plans for building has more to do with creating cheap housing for the genuinely poor, rather than trying to stop the upward spiral of housing costs for the middle class. First, am I right, and, second, does this seem like a good idea? Isn't it a more serious problem if the middle class can't survive here?
Depends on who you ask. If DeBlasio can prevent the truly poor, as opposed to the working poor, from leaving the city, and in essence brings down the median income of the city and makes the city look better on paper for someone in my position who may be considering moving there, sounds like good politics to me.
The working poor are going to leave the city the first chance they get because they have the skills to gain employment in other cities. Your truly poor, homeless, welfare, Section 8, are probably living better than the working poor because of benefits and entitlements, which is true in any city not just New York. What looks better; bring the truly poor up to speed and put them through college or workforce programs where they can actually afford to stay in the city just to make the benefit and entitlement programs look successful, or talk about the working poor, who are going to do it on their home without the governments help, and the City cannot claim their success.
Keep in mind the legacy of Giuliani and Bloomberg, and what DeBlasio has to do in order to make it appear as though he is for the little man and the majority of the city, as opposed to the ultra rich.
No city ever does anything for its working poor. They taunt you with a laundry list of programs you cannot qualify for, which only motivates you to do more on your own so that you can pay even more money into those same programs you cannot benefit from. Why would anything change under DeBlasio?
Don't forget that middle class folks don't want to have low income ghetto trash as neighbors. Therefore increasing the low income tenant percentage in a building will only determine class folks from moving there. The end result the entire building becomes occupied by low income ghetto trash. And the middle class is once again left out in the cold.
Otherwise anything said about the "middle class" is nonsensical babble.
Use your brain and stop babbling nonsense. It makes you look like a fool. Middle class top income I'd say roughly 150K for couples. Upper middle class I'd say starts for a couple at 200K.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
