Well, that's an easy question- they can't and don't.

Shouldn't that median be closer to $50,000? The bottom of the 60-80% bracket is $55,000.

Awesome, that really helps. Now I'm going to do some digging on median incomes in different cities and states.

Who was that congress critter a few years back who, in response to what is definition of middle class was, said "about $300,000"

It guess it is not surprising when our very wealthy congress people are generally surrounded by people who make a LOT more than a congress person does.

That was Fred Heineman (R-NC) - and he actually said that "$300,000 to $750,000 a year" was the definition of middle class.

http://tinyurl.com/6gh7c6

What's the median pay for journalists in the US? Here in the UK it's probably the single worst paid job by qualifications, including teaching/academia. Don't these pundits have friends in the press who aren't high paid celebrities? Around half of my friends are journalists and hardly any of them make more than the average London wage. Several are below the poverty line.

"What's the median pay for journalists in the US?"

For the average journalist, small town newspaper, not much. My wife and my boss are former journalists for small newspapers in NC. They made very little money, but that was back in the 80s. Here's the current median annual income for Reporters and Correspondents: $33,470. That's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For Broadcast News Analysts, whatever that means, the median annual income is unsuprisingly higher: $46,710.

But for big names, like Gibson , Stephanopoulos, Tweetie, etc. it's much higher. Those people have no idea what the average person lives like anymore.

Based on that chart, one might be tempted to refer to those in Gibson's middle class as "elite,"

People at Gibson's level are paid well not to know, and not to mention, these things.

I used to make excuses for these people. Those days are long gone. They are deliberately, purposefully, pushing the agenda of the people who sign their very large paychecks. An agenda and a worldview that they have come to share.

The best illustration I've seen on income distribution in the U.S. is on www.lcurve.org. They put together a three minute youtube piece that really shows how rich the rich really are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

(Sorry I don't know how to do a proper link. You can also get to the youtube through www.lcurve.org).

$300,000 a year is comfortable, affluent, well-to-do, but it isn't, to my mind, rich or wealthy (I say this even though it's much more than my household income). After you watch the youtube, you'll see how rich rich really is.

Actually, as has been discussed here and elsewhere before, the dividing lines regarding class have only partially to do with annual income but more to do with economic security and the power that goes with it.

In particular, the dividing line between middle-class and rich is that middle-class people have to work for a living (at least until they retire) -- even if that work is all things considered, a pretty sweet sorta gig compared to how, e.g., day-laborers make their livings -- while rich people do not.

If you have at least a certain income (probably indeed over $200K/year), you can readily live a "middle-class lifestyle" and still save enough that after a point, barring a huge market crash or something along those lines, you indeed are rich. Until that point, though, you are still having to go into work everyday jus' like the rest of us, and it's fair to call you middle class, even if you're upper-upper-middle-class / soon-to-be-rich if all continues to go as it's going.

There's a difference between 'well-off' and 'middle-class'.

Irvine is well-off. Fullerton is middle-class.

Seal Beach is well-off. Cypress is middle-class.

Coto is well off.
Fountain Valley is middle-class.

Maxine,

Your resolution is too low -- there are some well-off areas of Fullerton and middle-class areas of Seal Beach and Irvine. Also, in some of the older parts of OC, it depends on how long you've lived there. Where I grew up (Rossmoor), people who moved in when the community were build may even have been working class whilst the people moving in by the time I was reasonably along in school were fairly well-to-do.

Also, your implicit definition of well-off isn't quite the same as being rich -- there are people in even the nice areas of Irvine or in Coto even who are not rich in the sense that they don't have to go to work every day.

People who don't have to work for a living aren't "rich". They're the landed gentry. There are plenty of people who are rich by any reasonable definition but still need to work to sustain their lifestyle.

There are plenty of people who are rich by any reasonable definition but still need to work to sustain their lifestyle. - Ginger Yellow

So what's that definition? When I think of how much money it would take to enjoy the finer things in life on a regular basis (fine food, good amount of travel, not having to worry about debt, having a good car and a good house without having a large mortgage), I'm getting into, might as well set up a system whereby I have an annuity.

Certainly, I'd have to make more than $200K to live in the manner to which I'd wish to become accustomed.

Landed gentry is a good term, IMHO -- it really does capture what I'm after better than "rich" ... but how many people are rich but cannot make it into the landed gentry (at least so long as they aren't unlucky and reach their peak earning potential at a time like now when the market is tanking)? Actually, come to think of it, there's an interesting point here -- what are the socio-economic implications of downturns that might block the rich (under whatever def. Ginger Yellow comes up with) from entering the landed gentry? what are the political implications of having a non-comfortably rich class?

There are plenty of people who are rich by any reasonable definition but still need to work to sustain their lifestyle.

I would generally disagree. I see truly rich as economic security to the degree that if you lost your job or couldn't work that you could maintain your lifestyle.

I suppose that to an extent we all define "rich" in ways that mean "those things based on money that would make me most happy."

If I had a million-some-dollar a-year job that meant I had to travel constantly, never saw my husband and kids but could buy anything I wanted, I wouldn't *feel* rich, no matter the dollar figure. I'd feel trapped.

OTOH, if I outright owned my house and had money to cover my family's gaming fixations, decent haircuts, some clothing and Target purchases, rich enough. If we had enough money to travel as a family every other year or so, too, super rich.

All that said, I'm happy we're well off. But at less than $100,000 a year, I can't feel secure. That's what rich means to me, some level of security.

Oh, and I was so busy responding to another comment that I forgot to mention my major problem with Charlie Gibson's take.

He brought up this whole thing in relation to Social Security, and the withholding tax isn't even based on the *household* income, which is generally what's measured. It's based on individual income. So he was basically arguing that there were a "heck of a lot of people" who individually make $100K or more, even though only about 19 percent of households make that much combined. Maybe Charlie thinks there are still a lot of one-income families out there?

Perhaps, in America, "middle class" is a larger group that encompasses "middle income" as well as some of the extremes.

Basically, everyone in the USA is "middle class" except the idle rich and those too poor to know where there next meal is coming from.

I woke up so steamed at Gibson's out-of-touch elitism, I went to Salary.com to see what the average salary was for some high profile, high dollar professions. I used Downtown Boston (one of teh three highest wage cities in the US) as a guideline. Here's what I found:

1)Primary Care Physician (internal medicine) $180,000
2) Managing Attorney @ Law Firm $185,000
3) Stockbroker 70,000
4) University Law Professor $156,000
5) Managing Biotech Scientist $123,000

Basically to get to $200k in this country you have to 1) reach corporate C-level 2) Surgeon or other highly specialized physician 3) be an excellent salesperson for a top product 4) be an entertainer at an elite level (like Gibson, who is not an elite entertainer, but is at an elite level)

In the largest city in Canada, $200,000 a year for a family of four gets you:

-public school (not private) for the 2 kids
-a 13 year-old car
-a small, old house (but in a desirable neighbourhood)
-a vacation at a rented, run-down cottage + a visit with the in-laws once a year
-a good chunk of savings because I have no pension plan (self-employed)

I consider myself and my family very lucky, compared to the vast majority of people, but rich--no way.

In the largest city in Canada, $200,000 a year for a family of four gets you:

-public school (not private) for the 2 kids
-a 13 year-old car
-a small, old house (but in a desirable neighbourhood)
-a vacation at a rented, run-down cottage + a visit with the in-laws once a year
-a good chunk of savings because I have no pension plan (self-employed)

I consider myself and my family very lucky, compared to the vast majority of people, but rich--no way.

With the new union contract a nurse at Dana Farber in Boston with 15 years experience can expect to 140k. The average salary of a Boston cop is 89k. A cop married to a nurse...229k.

Nurse and cop, sounds pretty middle class to me.

Gibson makes $8 million/year in salary - who knows what his investment income is. For him, the difference between $50,000 and $200,000 a year is trivial. He doesn't even notice amounts smaller than six figures.

I think Ezra hit on something really important when he said that people in New York can make $200k and still feel squeezed.

This income distribution is not indexed to local cost of living. The cost-indexed distribution might be the same and might not, but we could then know what we're talking about when we say a person makes "$200k".

"Basically, everyone in the USA is "middle class" except the idle rich and those too poor to know where there next meal is coming from"

Well, that's what it ends up meaning, for a variety of cultural and political reasons. But it's a bloody useless term if you just accept that.

As for definitions of rich, like I implied, I think there are lots of reasonable definitions depending on the context. I just think that including only (working age) people who can sustain their current living standards without working again is creating a straw man. Human nature in a modern capitalist society seems to dictate that as income and wealth increases, so does one's desired living standard. People who could live off their accumulated wealth increase their living standards to the extent that they no longer can - they move to a more expensive apartment, they buy an expensive-to-maintain yacht, or whatever. It seems bizarre to exclude a multi-millionaire with a lavish lifestyle just because of his extravagance. And at the less extreme scale, I know plenty of bankers who couldn't sustain their current living standard for more than a few years on the dole.

Anyway, for a fuller discussion of these issues, check out a recent thread on Lynneguist's blog Separated by a Common Language. I may be coming across as advocating a British class analysis for the US, which I don't intend to. "Landed gentry" was intended metaphorically, although I do think it is apt. And I do think US resident Americans tend to forget about/ignore non-monetary aspects to class, whether it's a Marx-style capital/worker distinction or cultural signifiers.

To follow up on Mr. Noah's point, this is an interesting stat from Wikipedia:

New York City has a high degree of income disparity. In 2005 the median household income in the wealthiest census tract was $188,697, while in the poorest it was $9,320.[91]

Big differences there. In Seattle, where I live, the median household income was a bit over $60,000 in 2005, while the median house price was about $350,000. Those numbers have both gone up I am sure, but housing is going up (still) faster than incomes.

As of right now, Seattle does not have a single neighborhood within the city limits that is considered "affordable" for housing, i.e., a yearly mortgage payment of less than 30% of the yearly median household income. Most houses in "desirable" neighborhoods start at $450,000, and that would be for a 2 bedroom bungalow with around 1000 square feet.

Ergo, that is why I rent although my yearly income is well above the median household (and I am single).

If I lived somewhere in Eastern Washington, where I grew up, I could own a large house on a smaller income, but I am willing to pay to live in Seattle. (I grew up in Eastern Washington and love it, just am at a stage in my life where the offerings of Seattle make living here a better fit).

Finally, $200,000 seems like more than enough for a comfortable lifestyle, even in NYC. NYCers, does that sound right?

I got a bit sidelined there (it is 2.30am here, so cut me some slack). What I was trying to get to was that I think "rich" isn't the right term to use in contrast to "middle class". It has a place, sure, but not so much in class discussions. As we've seen, it means different things to different people and in different context, and more importantly, the "rich" don't have remotely homogeneous interests or motives, outside of their wealth. It's a one dimensional symbol, whereas class is multidimensional.

This reminds me of a conversation I had about nine years ago when my ex-wife was pregnant. We were barely making ends meet, and were worried about the added financial responsibilities of having a child. I mentioned to the ex's best friend, who had been born into a very wealthy family and never worked a day in her life, that I had read that the average child costs $150,000 to raise from birth to age 18.

The friend replied, "$150,000 a year? That sounds about right". My jaw dropped.

Classes should be defined functionally.
The poor, or lower class have difficulty providing for the basic necissities of life (clearly there is an ever-changing list of what constitutes the basics based on time and location)
The rich can live well without working, or work to maintain an extravagant life style.
The middle calss is everyone else: people who have to work to provide a life style that includes more than the basics (or has retired from a middle class life).
A lot of people making up to a few hundred thousand/yr consider themselves (upper) middle class, not rich.

You people are out of touch, and you're so concerned with convincing yourself that you're the oppressed many that you never see that you're one of the privileged few. There is never a time when making 200l doesn't qualify you as 'rich' in the eyes of 90% of the public.

Get the fuck over yourselves and your own problems. They don't compare to the problems of the vast majority of people. You sound like teenagers screaming because billy the quarterback won't ask you to the prom.

Most of you would get the living shit beaten out of you for saying this kind of crap in the vast majority of bars/clubs/social gathering places. You have no idea how much people are suffering out there, even in the middle class. Stop whining because you can't live forever without working. Most rich people work.

Sure, $200k is enough for a comfy lifestyle anywhere.

But I was just trying to point out that money goes a LOT farther in some places than others. Then again, some places are nicer to live in than others.

If I told you I made $90k and lived in College Station, Texas, that would make me comfortably upper-middle class. But in Menlo Park, I wouldn't be able to own my own house.

soullite

get off the internets and get a second job so you can afford to have your teeth fixed. You waste an extraordinary amount of time ranting when you could be working.

Mr. Noah, I think I read your right, that is, where you are has a lot to do with what you need to make to have financial stability, or at least financial reasonableness. $200k means different things in different places. So too does $60k.

Soullite, I have not seen any comment here that indicates anyone feeling "oppressed." Point me to one. In contrast, it appears that all commentators have focused on how expensive it is to live certain places, and how out of touch ideas of "middle class" are when it comes to working people.

If you can identify a comment that indicates otherwise, please let me know. Otherwise, I think that this thread is rather remarkable in the fact that a lot of folks recognize that they make more than most, and I really don't see any whining about how unfair life is.

Enlighten me, please.

Fake soullite: that stuff is just stupid.

Lmao, my child molesting stalker is back. What a fucking clown. If you don't have what it takes to put your name to something, why the hell should anyone listen to you? Go put a fucking bullet into your brain and do the world a favor you sniveling piece of ape shit.

Seriously, this gutless wonder tracks my posts and notices that I post at all hours, and doesn't realize that in all likelihood I work a rotating schedule? Even jobless people aren't commenting at at midnight, noon, 9AM, 5PM, 4AM, and 1PM. Who keeps a widely varying schedule and severely disrupts their ability to sleep unless they have to?

You're being more than a little creepy, what's next? A horde of E-mails? Calls at home?

And unlike this out of touch asshole, I don't mean to offend any of you that aren't working right now. It's the worst economy in 30 years. I read unemployment figures. I see people sitting in front of Stewarts all day that would fucking love to work even a shit job. I have relatives who are doing terribly. I know it's hard out there.

This scumbag doesn't, doesn't want to, and doesn't care.

Whatever your income is compared to the medium income does not directly correlate into being middle class or rich.

You still can't grasp the huge difference between annual income and personal wealth..obviously you have a huge blind spot. I could make 60,000 per year but have a investment account with ten million dollars in it. I would be rich, but niot based on my anual income.

I could also make 2 million per year, and have 1.99 Million in annual expenses and thus be lower middle class.

A friend of mine made 130,ooo last year, but pays for an ex wife and 3 children. He lives in a two bedroom apartment with lawn furniture and a 7 year old Accord. he's not exactly kennedy rich.

"Irvine is well-off. Fullerton is middle-class."

A few months back the median home price in Irvine was $990K. There are >$10M homes here now. I'm sure we're down around $800K now, but Irvine has a pretty decent upward smear now. Hell, Kobe Bryant lives here.

"I think Ezra hit on something really important when he said that people in New York can make $200k and still feel squeezed."

If you try hard enough, you can feel squeezed with any income. $200k will get you by very well in NYC. I used to live there. $200K will allow anyone to live well in any part of the country if they so desire.

"""I read unemployment figures. I see people sitting in front of Stewarts all day that would fucking love to work even a shit job.""""

And the day Obama gets in office, huge factories and office complexes are just going to shoot up from the empty losts and Obama will escort them to their heavenly job where they make puffy kitty cats for dwarf children and get paid in pure marshmallow creme and warms tarts.....

Ooops, then they woke up.....

Abject, read anonymous's insane 'if you make 2m a year you can still be poor' argument, and tell me nobodies saying that.

Anonymous- The mere fact that he pays for his wife tells you everything. The kids? Thats child support. The wife? Thats alimony. You only have to pay alimony if your wife never worked. If your wife never worked, you're pretty well off. Hell, if you never made your wife work you're pretty stupid. I don't in any way condone alimony at this point in history, but it's pretty easy to avoid unless you try to keep your wife financially reliant on you.

martin: ""$200K will allow anyone to live well in any part of the country if they so desire. ""

Ohh, to be sooo out of touch.
Do you pay for Grandma to have at home nursing care?
Do you have a child with a brain tumor? Do you know what training costs for a child with Downs syndrome?
Are you paying for two kids student loans?

200K doesn't last long..

Not everyone spends their money on new cars and big houses

Anonymous, I know your the scumbag who runs around making fun of my medical condition. And I know you're not really a Hillary supporter. Clearly, very few Democrats would act like you act. Making fun of someone with a possible disfiguring condition could drive more vulnerable people to suicide and it's well out of bounds for normal people.

You just prove yourself more and more of a sociopath every day you spend in here.

Lmfao, this moron pays for 2 kids student loans and he has the nerve to call someone else out of touch. The vast majority of people can't afford to send themselves to college, and he's bitching about his income.

Tell me again how the elitists all vote for Obama?

And spare me the denials and your 'how dare you's, after the things you've said to me under various names I would laugh at you if your entire family died and god personally took a piss on you.

I mean really, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the coward who won't pick a pseudonym is the guy running around as 'BHusseinO' and fake soullite, and 'working man'.

It's not a good idea to let people know your vulnerabilities when you're running around harping on theirs. Especially not when they are every bit as petty as you are. I mean, I sure hope you're not relying on me to show restraint.

"Ohh, to be sooo out of touch.
Do you pay for Grandma to have at home nursing care?
Do you have a child with a brain tumor? Do you know what training costs for a child with Downs syndrome?
Are you paying for two kids student loans?

200K doesn't last long.."

Agreed...it's hard out there if you've got adverse situations. But do only people making 200k experience sick children or elderly parents? Are student loans unheard of outside the top quintile? I think the point here is that 200k goes a hell of a lot further in these situations than 40k does.

Stop whining because you can't live forever without working.

I for one wasn't whining at all. I know that compared to a lot of people, heck, compared to my single mom's income when I was a kid, my family is very lucky. But it's hard to feel rich when you're a job loss or a major illness away from disaster, even if the figures show you're in one of those upper percentiles.

I don't think that debating what the term "rich" means has anything to do with a lack of understanding that a lot of people have it much, much worse than I.

I do think that Ginger Yellow makes a good point that people who are making tons of money and spending it on extravagances skew the argument. I guess I would wonder why anyone making hundreds of thousands or more a year wouldn't have investments that would allow her to live at least comfortably, if not lavishly, if her job went away, but it's quite true that some do.

I also think that Ginger Yellow is quite right that the problem is that "rich" is a contextual term that isn't quite the right one to contrast with "middle class." Arguably, you can define the middle class based on statistics. Rich is not definable in that way, though.

Whoops. That last anonymous was me.

Sigh, you all missed the point. Gibson wasn't talking about the middle class American, he was talking about the middle class lobbyist.

One other problem, though---we really out to define class by _assets_, not income.

Anonymous wrote at April 18, 2008 4:21 AM: You still can't grasp the huge difference between annual income and personal wealth..obviously you have a huge blind spot. I could make 60,000 per year but have a investment account with ten million dollars in it. I would be rich, but niot based on my anual income. I could also make 2 million per year, and have 1.99 Million in annual expenses and thus be lower middle class.

Exactly. That's why class should be based on wealth, not income

Basing class on income exaggerates how well off people are who work for relatively high but not exorbitant salaries (say, $100K/yr). It also doesn't control for disparities in the cost of living in various cities.

Gee...I thought I was doing ok, living off a teacher's salary with two kids in college. It's hard sometimes, but I have what I need. I guess I never realized I was poor by Charlie's standards. Should I be bummed?

liberal, the problem is that we don't generally talk about "middle classes" or "upper classes" in terms of wealth or social status. We're almost invariably talking about income. Specifically, we're discussing "what makes middle class" for the purpose of talking about what intelligent taxation policies are.

I could also make 2 million per year, and have 1.99 Million in annual expenses and thus be lower middle class.

No, that person is rich and he's CERTAINLY not "lower middle class" for the purposes of talking about money and lifestyle. He is simply spending a lot of money (assuming those are non-business-expenses).

Most media people, like Charlie Gibson, along with most politicians seem to me to be completely out of touch with regular people.

liberal, the problem is that we don't generally talk about "middle classes" or "upper classes" in terms of wealth or social status. We're almost invariably talking about income. Specifically, we're discussing "what makes middle class" for the purpose of talking about what intelligent taxation policies are.

This is a good point. However, intelligent taxation policies include taxes on wealth and assets as well as income. Property taxes spring to mind as one example that affects a large number of people.

None of what I've said is an indication that regardless of whether someone making $200K a year is "rich" that he shouldn't pay a higher percentage of his income to taxes than someone making $40K a year. And as we near the $100K mark in our household, I fully agree we should pay a higher percentage than a household making $40K, as well. It's a responsibility to the society as a whole, no matter whether we're "rich" or "upper middle class" or "just doing OK" or whatever definition. We can afford more in taxes than someone who is obligated to spend a much larger proportion of income on basics. There is no doubt of that.

It's just that "rich" defined as $100K uses an adjective for my family that I'd be more inclined to put on Bill Gates' family, and it's a weird thing to me. The term doesn't mean anything in concrete terms.

It's edifying, and kinda frightening, to think that the current definition of middle class seems to include immediately becoming poor if you take a sudden hit like losing your job or having a family member with an expensive medical condition. A generation ago, not being in that kind of constant danger was pretty much the definition of middle-class life. (And yeah, thanks to no-loyalty corporate policies, zero savings rate,disinvestment in public schools and other infrastructure, no real health care as civilized countries understand it, you can be making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and still in danger of being out on the street if your income goes away for six months.)

I just noticed that at 30 I was still in the bottom fifth and now (at 51) I am in the top fifth.

It is better to be in the top fifth but not that much better. I would rather be in the top fifth in health.

And let's not forget that the vast majority of professors, at St. Anselm and elsewhere, don't make more than $100,000.

Sorry I should have said that I am now in the top group

I used to cook in restarants now I work in IT. Cooking was more fun (pay sucks though).

Oh, puleese. Get over it. If you can't afford private schools, send your kids to public schools, like 90% of the population does. If you can't afford a house in your chosen community, then either rent or move to a community where you can afford a house. But do not tell me that the problems of a family making 200K in any way resemble those of a family making 50K. Not the same world.

PeonInChief,

I don't know that anyone except the one guy who has a problem with soullite has made the case that the problems facing a family making $200K are the same as those facing a family making $50K.

I always wonder how people pull it off at all if they have kids. When my husband and I had no kids and were making $45K it was tough, and that wasn't so long ago I don't remember. Heck, when I was single and making $30K it was no picnic, although it was easier, and most problems I had then I can attribute to my own fault. A few years ago, when I gave away my clothes from my size 6 days to a woman who'd had a fire, it was clear where all of my income had been going.

One thing I will disagree with, though, is this idea that people should just pick up and move out of areas where they can't afford housing easily. It's easy to say pick up and move out of NY, LA or Chicago, but when you're leaving your friends, your family and all of the ties that we have to our communities, it's no so simple.

I don't know why so many, like Ezra here, continue to give Charlie Gibson (and by extension, the rest of the corporate media) the benefit of the doubt by assuming they speak from economic ignorance or because they live in New York or DC or whatever.

Any idiot, and I mean ANY idiot -- even a broadcast news "journalist" -- knows that $200,000 a year is a lot of dough. Gibson, after all, wasn't born into a family of zillionaires. Nor was he born yesterday. He's paid a boatload of money by ABC-Capital Cities-Disney, etc. etc. to protect and defend the interests of his corporate masters and the capitalist class in general, and he's very good at it.

Gibson knew EXACTLY what he was doing Wednesday night, as did his sidekick Stephanopoulos. They both know how the game is played; they both know what their bosses want, and they both understand that satisfying those wants is the key to keeping jobs that pay enough to make $200,000 a year look like chump change.

If you doubt me, go Google the history of how a company lickspittle like Tim Russert got to be Washington bureau chief for NBC, and what GE management, from Jack Welch on, have come to expect of THEIR "news" employees. The point is, all those bad things that people like Ben Bagdikian warned would happen when the major industrial conglomerates got their hands on the networks have come to pass -- in spades.

So please, spare us the Charlie's-just-a-dolt explanations. WE should be smarter than that.

There's really only one real question here. People/ families making $200K are at the 33% marginal income tax rate. Is it worth rolling back the Bush tax cuts on these people, knowing that may well make plenty of them vote Republican *on principle*?

I can't see the Democratic Party raising taxes on salary earning people when it won't *close the tax loophole on hedge fund managers,* as it had the opportunity to do last fall. Personally, I am raising this to the level of *principle.*

I know social liberals like to squawk and moan and whine about the so-cultural reasons people vote Republican. I have to tell you, they all pale in comparison to taxes and anti-government sentiment, in their various permutations. This is the sad by product of years of bad government for the few. And don't kid yourselves that Clinton did such a hot job there, either. NAFTA and deregulation set up most of what happened to the Bush economy. Bush just added the tax cuts.

I don't think it's worth it at this point. Roll them back on the handfuls of people making more than 200K, including the CAPITAL GAINS tax break on the uber-wealthy who make their money almost entirely off financial markets (which is the key point!) and you'll have revenue back without a middle/ upper-middle class tax rebellion.

Most of us will agree with Warren Buffet that his cohort should pay a higher percentage than than their receptionist. Win the election and take it from there. Let the primary care doctor keep his tax break.

Well-off and 'wealthy' are completely different.

You can be house-rich, and cash poor, like many in Orange County, and that's still considered well-off.

But, not Irvine. Anyone who grew up in Irvine is 100% totally wealthy. Although the swarm of Orientals that invaded Irvine in the 1980s.....they do keep nice lawns and landscaping, though.

Fullerton is red-neck. Placentia and Yorba-Linda are horrifying. Anything North County ---all those places are one rung up from a trailer park.

But delicate Irvine----the rarified gentry that were raised in Irvine wouldn't even associate with people of such a lesser cachet.

There's nothing worse than someone who grew up in Irvine, trying to pass himself off as "Newport Adjacent".

There's a big difference between Newport and Irvine, and I've got the exact boundary---the Mason-Dixon line---marked off.

I keep a set of maps on me, so I can cross-check addresses against.

Although, I can usually tell who lives where by facial features. Irvine people have that yellow-ish, sallow, Oriental-type complexion.

Newport Beach complexions are so bright, tidy, and clean-cut !!!! So refreshing !!!

Doesn't this graph show individuals, and Gibson meant a two-income family? That reduces the extremity of his stupidity. But he's still out of touch.

I've noticed that the vast majority of elites in the Democratic Party were the well-to-do kids who grew up in places like Irvine; Cherry Hill, NJ; or Greenwich, Conn.

These kids were pampered and coddled every step of the way, and enjoyed all the benefits from parents who were safely ensconced as white-collar professionals.

These Country-Club kids simply play at being Liberal. It's just a novelty for them.

On the other hand, the hard-scrabble kids that had tough backgrounds and run-down neighborhoods......they end up joining the Republican Party.

Fascinating.

Doesn't this graph show individuals, and Gibson meant a two-income family?

The link appears to indicate household income.

Regardless, though, Gibson is ridiculous. Social Security withholding is based entirely on individual income, not household, and he still maintained that "a heck of a lot of folks" would be affected by raising the cap from $97,000. In what country? Because a household income of $100K, which is a lot in this country, probably doesn't mean one individual is anywhere near $97K in individual income in most cases.

Maxine...say wha??? is that a joke?

there is so much wrong w/ that post i'm not sure where to even start!

how about let's start w/ our last two presidents. i think we cd both agree that presidents are the ultimate elites of their respective political parties..no???

clearly, bill clinton was living the life of luxury in hope, ark. in his trailer and alcoholic step-father while george bush was growing up in the school of hard knocks at andover.

how about we call it even...

"I've noticed that the vast majority of elites in the Democratic Party were the well-to-do kids who grew up in places like Irvine; Cherry Hill, NJ; or Greenwich, Conn."

And I've noticed that ring-wing trolls who show up on left-wing blogs to spout about what "real Americans" are thinking or doing almost always are blowing it out their very large conservative assholes.

Funny how that works.

"And I've noticed that ring-wing trolls who show up on left-wing blogs to spout about what "real Americans" are thinking or doing almost always are blowing it out their very large conservative assholes."

I don't know Peter Principal, there's something to her theory. I think that there is a tendency for children of upper income professionals to become *social* liberals and vote Democrat, out of a sense of social expansiveness that comes with deep seated security.

Children of a more working class backgound, who had part time jobs in high school and college (maybe they even went part-time), and who went right to work without dillydallying in grad school and so forth, tend to retain a tighter focus on *economics* for the rest of their lives. This frequently turns up in their choice of career. (Read: they go to business schools and engineering schools, they get credentialled). If their economic interests seem, to them, to lie with the Democratic Party, they vote Democrat. If they seem to lie with the Republican Party--frequently narrowly defined in terms of lower taxes, but maybe for some it's a professional identification-- they vote Republican.

This is not to say the Republican Party is not the party that tends to most blatantly favor the wealthy. But, the Democrats are, more and more, trailing right behind them and go along, too, while merely glossing it better.

Why is that?

I think really, Peter, your sociological imagination fails you.

In fact (egads!) most of you get an F.

I know we can't talk avout class in this country, but come on.

A little dated on the figures. For 2006, the upper income brackets for households were:

$20,035
$37,774
$60,000
$97,032

and the floor for the top 5% was $174,012. By now, Gibson's middle class is the top 5%.

I think that there is a tendency for children of upper income professionals to become *social* liberals and vote Democrat,

Ah, but just as many, if not more, are also social liberals who pretty consistently vote republican. That is, of course, where all of those Republicans in Greenwich CT, Irvine, CA, and Cherry Hill, NJ come from who don't really care much about abortion.

However, since being raised in relative wealth before attending an ivy league school (or school with other wealthy students) seems to be a prerequisite for working at a political publication, it should be no surprised that the writers of blogs at TAP and The Atlantic tend to come from those backgrounds.

The sort of sad part about those Republicans who "went to work right away" and got degrees in engineering without the detour through grad school afterwards is that they're not really the top of the social pyramid that benefits the most from Republican policies. Rather, they're the ones who did relatively better than the more working class people they grew up with, so they perceive themselves -- incorrectly -- as being "on top."

On the other hand, the paragon of that archetype of the working class guy who made it big in the presidential race was John Edwards, and he was the most liberal candidate in the crowd this cycle.

Once upon a time, a Gentleman told a Gal he lived in Newport Beach. But, she was suspicious because the Gentleman didn't look Newport. He didn't act Newport either. She could tell he didn't really live there, but played along and asked him for exact address anyway. He got flustered and mumbled something about Corona del Mar. He then started talking about Spyglass Hill. He finally burst out and confessed he didn't really live in Newport Beach, but actually lived in, gasp, IRVINE---a much lesser locale.

The Gal ended up dumping him and refused to ever speak to him again.

More than anything else, it was the dishonesty that she couldn't accept.

Good for her ! It's nice to see a gal standing up for herself.

---Teach these Cads from Irvine a lesson !