Skip to main content

View Diary: 90% of Americans will pay less income tax under Obama than McCain (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I love these "middle class" tax cuts (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, ZZZzzz, SciVo, soms, jfromga, TDreamer

    Because its amusing to actually believe that Congress believes people who make over $100K are middle class. Hillary believed it too.

    As long as we keep using numbers, like 90% rather than just saying "class", we can dominate the issue.

    •  Percentiles can be dangerous . . . (9+ / 0-)

      I've mentioned this stat to lots of people since I heard it, but unfortunately I can't site where it is from. It was back in 2000 and I didn't write it down or save a link for 8 years. Any way, at the time of the 2000 election, 17% of Americans thought they were in the top 1% of incomes . . . Can you imagine how many thought they were in the top 10%?

      Individuals in the country tend to think of themselves as higher up the food chain than they actually are, I think just coming out and saying that if you make less than $225k your taxes will stay the same or go down would work just fine, and then we all hold that line.

      •  and an even higher percentage thought (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SciVo, patooker

        they soon would be in the top 1% income bracket. It's just pure delusion. The American Dream is just, exactly, that, a dream. "Good times are just around the corner." Bah!

        Boycott Berkshire Hathaway until the Klamath River flows freely to the ocean.

        by bottsimons on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Social psychologists call this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dpryan, patooker

        the "Lake Woebegon effect." Seriously.

        I do like conducting hearings in an actual hearing room -- John Conyers

        by ebohlman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:27:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I also remember reading (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        patooker

        that some people identify with those making more money that they do because they "aspire" to make more money.  In other words, your family might make $75,000 a year, but you'll still oppose tax hikes on those making $100,000 because you think that's going to be you at some point (even if that is an unrealistic aspiration).  

    •  Sorry to say, but some of the more expensive (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      texasmom, Giodude, tamasher, bottsimons

      parts of the country, $100K is middle class - the upper end of middle class, but middle class nonetheless.  If you live someplace like SF where an ordinary home in an ordinary neighborhood runs $600-$700K, earning $100K/yr doesn't qualify you for the country club set.  I earn way less than that, but I know my salary (as an office worker) would be considered quite high in many parts of the country even though it's rather average here.

      Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc

      by lineatus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Under Obama's plan, tax cuts extend to $227,000 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Giodude, lineatus, SciVo

        The cuts just aren't as big as McCain's in this range.

      •  Exactly... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        texasmom, lineatus, dpryan

        I live in Manhattan, where it's very hard to find a nice 1BR apartment that you have to put less than 100K down on and then take a significant mortgage.  Obviously, in other parts of the country, the 100K is enough to buy a large house in cash.  That said, tax policy can't really be regionalized or indexed to cost of living.  Other things can be and are (civil service pay being the biggie), or could be and probably ought to be (judicial salaries being a good example).

      •  Even in Texas (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RyoCokey, lineatus

        a working couple with children, two cars and a combined family income of $100,000 would not be considered wealthy.  Mortgage or rent payments, insurance, health care, child care and energy bills would have to be carefully managed if they wanted to put away anything as savings.  

        Obviously, they would not be impoverished, but they would not be living high.  Unless of course, they chose to live on credit.

        The truth always matters.

        by texasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:49:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, you could have two married people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          texasmom, lineatus

          each working at jobs that pay $50,000 per year (teachers, espeically with some extra duties, can make that, along with police, fire fighters, refinery workers here in Louisiana, and a whole host of other "middle class" jobs) and get to $100,000.  While that might put them in the upper percentile statistically, I doubt that the teacher married to a refinery worker is going to consider themselves "rich."  

        •  well.. (0+ / 0-)

          It isn't starving either. A household income of $100k/year is what I call prosperous and even rich in comparison to a lot of others.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site