I feel poor tonight

especially with the redefinition of the "middle class" as being those who earn an average of $250,000 a year.  Depending upon the year, I earn between $40,000 and $57,000, and I thought I was doing well enough.

Granted, I never quite earned that college education, but I made sure that my children had the opportunity for that college education.  My older daughter has actually earned the education I once desired, and now works in government.  Her salary?  - $42,000 per year.  My younger daughter, after nearly completing her first year in college is set on a goal of being an elementary school teacher...starting salary $35,000 per year.

Since when is "middle class" defined as earning $250,000 per year?  Since when is defining middle class defined as those earning over $97,000 per year?

If middle class is now defined as those earning over $97,000 per year, then my annual salary, which granted is just not keep up with inflation, describes me as impoverished.  I do sometimes feel impoverished, but, when I contemplate my personal circumstances, I feel more secure than I believe most average people might be.

Why do I say I feel more secure?  I own my own home, I have very little debt, I have income being tucked away for retirement, I secured my children's college education, but then again, I am not so certain about my future economic security.  In contemplation of the insecurity I believe I might face if I live long enough for finally collecting on my life's income being taxed for social security and medicare, I have warned my children that I plan on living with each of them, equally, once I finally retire, knowing what I have set aside will not be "enough".  It has been a family joke that is accepted as a reality.

As I watched the debate tonight, and was outraged at the attacks offered against Obama, I then was offering some "screaming" at the television as well.  What wouldn't I give to earn $97,000 per year?  What wouldn't I give to make sure each of my children earned that plus?  Would I feel so "insecure" about my retirement years if I earned $200,000 or more?  Would I feel that paying more taxes in that income tax bracket was within my ability?  (I can say yes affirmatively to each of these questions.)

I heard Hillary suggesting that police, fire fighters, teachers, would all be taxed "more" if Obama's payroll taxes on social security and medicare taxes were raised beyond that $97,000 figure, and immediately knew that she was offering a bogus suggestion, except in the most extreme of circumstances (here in Palm Beach County, the top officials in police and fire fighters are earning that, but I mean only 10 or 20 and not the thousands actually such working in such fields).

I realize that many posting at this site are "professionals", and I consider myself a professional too, but not one earning a large salary.  It appears my children will never earn that large salary either, because of their own chosen occupations.  I believe most Americans are in the same "boat" as me, if not worse...

When thinking about elitism, and contemplating "middle class" as earning $250,000 or even $200,000, somehow I think middle class has left me and most of Americans...

•  Did this debate...

  leave you feeling poor as well?  All thoughts and comments welcome...

  by LtdEdishn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM PDT

•  Gibson was at his most outraged

  When talking about raising the Social Security cap above $99,000. Did he realize that this only affects about the top 2%-3% of earners?

  by Scoonie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:41:38 PM PDT

  •  2-3%?

    Are you sure? I thought that approx 10% of Americans earned over 200k annually.

    The median income is around 60k per year but of course, depending on what region you live in, that may not be considered middle class.

    by NCDem Amy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:49:42 PM PDT

    •  For 2005,

      it was a bit less than 3.5%.  For 2007, I would imagine it was about 4%.  (This is households, not individuals.)

      by Justanothernyer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:00:05 PM PDT

    •  Hell No

      The Social Security limit of $99,000 is per-person, not per household. Only about 2%-3% of individuals make more than $99,000 in earned income.

      by Scoonie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:16:12 PM PDT

      •  For 2005, for individuals

        it was a bit less than 5% of Americans over the age of 15.  This does not distinguish between earned and unearned income, so this number could be  biased upward slightly.  2005 Individual Income Distribution

        Also, it is likely this number is somewhat higher currently.

        Though still small, it is roughly double the number
        you are postulating

        by Justanothernyer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:26:21 PM PDT

  •  It will demolish

    the idea that social security is an insurance program instead of a welfare program.

    by Justanothernyer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:49:56 PM PDT

•  Something is very wrong here

  A first grade teacher at $35K.  Put another way, we are paying the people who teach our children poverty wages by this scale.

  I admire you and your daughters all.

  You feel poor tonight.  I feel sick.

  by newfie53523 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:41:56 PM PDT

  •  $35K is about average in Alabama

    The following is a chart that gives the minimum salary ranges for teachers in Alabama, depending upon the teacher's degree:

    Degree Level      < 3 years      <9 years <br>Bachelor's Degree  $29,538        $33,913
    Master's Degree     $33,968        $39,000
    Doctorate Degree   $39,286        $45,104

    It's a sad commentary that we pay the people we expect to teach our children so little, yet then complain about the poor quality of the education these teachers provide.

    by LynneK on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM PDT

  •  $35K is not poverty level in many parts of the

    country.  My sister is a teacher and lives in a small, midwestern college town.  Were she working full-time (which she has chosen not to, as her district allow her to be part-time), she would make close to $40K.  My brother-in-law (same age as my sister) works in insurance.  He makes about $45K.  Salaries just aren't that high in this part of the world (housing is a lot cheaper, too).

    by msanthrope on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:08:20 PM PDT

    •  Very true...

      I averaged about $35k every year between 2001 and 2005, made almost $40k in 2006 (living in North Jersey at that time, so I did kinda feel a little 'pressed' at times back there).  I moved cross-country last year and had some trouble finding work so I only made about $22k last year, most of which was while I was still at my old job back in NJ.

      Just started a new job two weeks ago that will have me making more than I ever did before in 6 months, but I'll still only be around $30k the end of this year; and at about $40k next year when I work my first full year there.

      Now granted, I'm single and I live alone in a small-ish apartment in Portland OR - don't own a car, but fortunately I don't need one here in this great city; do have a cell phone, but no land-line phone...my biggest expense outside of rent and food is my digital cable / internet package.

      I live well, and I'll even be able to afford a few long weekend trips / mini-vacations here and there once I get the time off from work (18 days vacation my first year there!)...

      But I definitely understand the diarist's point, and I still can't quite believe it when I hear things like that from politicians and media types.  I guess I am living in a different America from them, then.  $200,000 a year would let me retire at like 45...

      by Hardhat Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM PDT

      •  My husband and I made the most

        we have ever made in our 16 years of marriage last year...a little over $22K. I would think I was in hog heaven if we made $30K, so I find it hard to believe that $97K is considered "middle class". To me, $97K is the lap of luxury.

        by LynneK on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

•  I definitely feel poor

  but I donated to the Obama campaign anyway and it felt great!

  by loud zoo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:42:08 PM PDT

•  I borrowed our whole future stimulus check

  to pay our tax balance. how backwards is that?

  by ballerina X on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:47:50 PM PDT

•  I don't know where you live

  but here in New York City it appears that about 1/3 of police officers are detectives and sergeants who make an average of $100,000 per year.  NYC Police Officer Salaries

  In the suburban counties around New York, pay can be higher.

  Being middle class in New York City can easily require an income of more than $100,000.  

  by Justanothernyer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:48:18 PM PDT

  •  Starting salary and actually...

    earning ability from your own link:

    Start receiving full pay and benefits from your first day of recruit training ($25,100 per annum). Upon the completion of the Police Academy (six months), your annual salary increases to $32,700. Salaries will continue to increase every year and upon completion of 5½ years of service, base salary will increase to $59,588. In addition to these base salaries, there is overtime earning, holiday pay, night differential and uniform allowance.

    by LtdEdishn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:00:52 PM PDT

    •  The paragraph you quote above

      relates to salaries of police officers in their first five years.  The site goes on to say:

      1 in 6 uniformed members of the NYPD are Detectives. A Detective’s (3rd Grade) average earning is
      $100,000* (Promotion to Detective is not based on a promotional exam, it’s based on merit)
      1 in 7 uniformed members of the NYPD are Sergeants. A Sergeant’s average earning is $100,000*
      1 in 20 uniformed members of the NYPD are Lieutenants. A Lieutenant’s average earning is $122,000*

      *These salaries include base salary, average overtime and night shift differential, holiday pay, and uniform allowance. The above ranks do enjoy the same additional benefits described above.

      Here in New York, the portion of police officers earning over $100, 000 is far greater than the 10 or 20 of thousands you postulate for Palm Beach. As I noted in the previous post, it is about 1/3.  Nothing I said implied that all officer make that much money.

      My point is that HRC is not wrong given the state she represents.  

      by Justanothernyer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:08:42 PM PDT

      •  Yet...

        the averages offered in no way represent the "middle class".  I acknowledge that living in NYC means you pay a lot more that anywhere else in the country, and if you work in NYC you better earn a lot more than anywhere else in the country.

        I live in Palm Beach County, home to some of the richest individuals and families in our nation, the retirement capital of the "elite", described as the wealthiest county in the State of Florida, and I have offered a simply fact that cannot be disputed.  If you describe "middle class" as those earning $97,000 or more, I am in the "impoverished" thought of "class warfare", even while doing well enough.  

        We cannot define middle class by New York City standards.  The majority of America does not live in New York City, nor are we defined by "Wall Street", and the "elite" who now define middle class as earning in excess of $97,000 or $200,000.  If Hillary is not "wrong" in offering statistics, then she is blind to the rest of the country.

        by LtdEdishn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:24:22 PM PDT

  •  yeah and what kind of place can you get...

    ...for 100k a year in NYC?   You might be able to rent a not completely sucky apartment but good luck owning a house.

    by DawnG on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:22:42 PM PDT

•  call me poor

  and of the lower class, and I did get those degrees, and I am in one of the "professions"..but I would have to sell my soul and move from my home to make the big bucks.
  I make more money in a year than my dad could make in 5, but he had health insurance and retirement, and I have neither.
  And never will, unless someone gives it up for us.
  Obama?  
  Hope so, since I think he is gonna win.

  by on the cusp on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:48:53 PM PDT

•  Where did those definitions come from?

  The debate? Which I did not get to see, my family preferred Red Sox / Yankees.

  by 1918 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:49:01 PM PDT

•  I feel dumber tonight and poor (n/t)

  by RaulVB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:49:52 PM PDT

•  Tell ABC they are NUTS!

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by David Kroning on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:00 PM PDT

•  it's not how much money you make that matters...

  ...it's how far you can get with what you make that matters.

  I hate the way people measure lower, middle, and upper class.  You can't pin a number on the quality of one's life with something as arbitrary as income.

  My husband and I live lives as comfortable as people making twice our salaries for reasons that have absolutely NOTHING to do with how much we make a year and everything to do with HOW we spend our money.  

  I refuse to live in a place that costs us more than 20% of our net income and there are people living in places that cost more than two thirds their salary and they become slaves to their homes.  When I paid off my car, I didn't turn around and buy a new one.  I'm going to run that beautiful, smooth running low priced sedan into the GROUND.  You have no idea what NOT having a car payment for over 3 years can do for a person's budget!  yet there are people out there spending 30k, 50k, whathave you for the honor of owning a name brand gas guzzler.  They treat a car like a fashion accessory.  

  It helps that my husband and I don't have children (by choice) but even if we did we could still manage quite nicely on an income that impoverishes some families because I refuse to spend $75 per phone on a freaking CELL PHONE PLAN.  There is no one in this world that I need to talk to that much that I can't wait til I get home to call them for free(ish).  I can barely stand to send a check to the cable company every month the rotten crooks.

  I do not feel poor.  I feel richer than, frankly, I deserve.  I feel fortunate.  

  Someone who understands what is really important in life, and doesn't squander their lives and wealth chasing after crap that isn't, is never poor.  

  by DawnG on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:15 PM PDT

  •  Wow...

    if you want to succeed in America, just don't have any children or a cell phone?  Seriously...that makes the future so much brighter.  I don't "claim" to be impoverished, I only state that the definition of "middle class" is now defined as something beyond my own income level.  I don't feel "poor", have well planned out and saved for my retirement, yet am questioning taxation policies especially as it relates toward income and who is defined as middle class.

    If you believe that not having a cell phone will strengthen you ability as a "retiree" in the future, more power to you.  If you live in a city that has taxpayer investing in great public transportation, more power to you.  Unfortunately, we all do not live in cities such as that.

    Last night, I offered a diary showing that our national debt has actually increased to the whopping figure of $9.4 trillion and more....  If you think not buying a car or not having a cell phone will recompense our country you are not paying attention...

    by LtdEdishn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM PDT

    •  This actually bolsters my point....

      There is a "middle-class lifestyle".

      If you can't afford to take a short yearly vacation, pay for your health-care needs, pay for decent food with a few luxury foods, live in a comfortably-sized house, etc.....

      YOU'RE NOT MIDDLE CLASS.

      (At the moment the prime thing which throws people out of the middle class is health care costs.  A really healthy person with no kids or dependents can be middle-class on far, far less money than a sick person with a sick spouse and sick kids.)

      Now, some people have been living middle-class lifestyles on working-class incomes, or rich lifestyles on middle-class incomes, or indeed rich lifestyles on really poor incomes.  This is what all that consumer debt is about.

      But the underlying problem is that you need more money every year, as inflation continues -- but not in wages -- and as public services get cut, to live a middle-class lifestyle.

      Heck, the old 1950s middle-class lifestyle, with one wage earner, one homemaker, and three kids, is damn near impossible, and requires an income of several hundred thousand dollars even in low-priced areas.

      So the middle class has been going away.

      by neroden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:54:31 PM PDT

    •  I didn't say that.

      Just becuase my husband and I don't have children, I didn't even IMPLY that having children was a financially bad choice.  I don't consider having children to be a financial choice at all, though it is a choice with financial consequences.

      And I have a cellphone too.  But I pay $20 every 3 months for that phone instead of $80 a month.  I also have a 27inch TV that I paid $200 for 5 years ago instead of a wide screen flat panneled TV that costs five grand.  I buy my furniture at garage sales.  I buy my clothes (when I can) at thrift stores.  I never pay top dollar for something new unless I absolutely HAVE to have it last a long long time.

      Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  I meant that people can live much better on less if they don't go chasing the more expensive and flashy "stuff".

      As for the national debt...WTF?  Where in the heck did that come from?

      by DawnG on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:55:48 PM PDT

•  The trouble is the shape of the income curve.

  It's a backwards L:  you know what they look like.  99% of the people have 1% of the income, while 1% of the people have 99% of the income.  (It's not actually quite that bad yet, but it keeps getting closer.)

  There was a recent diary where people put themselves into quintiles (top 20%, bottom 20%, etc.)  You'd think that the top 20% would be rich and the middle 20% would be middle class?  No.  That's not how it works.  

  The middle class has been evaporated by regressive taxation and services policy.  Did you know that marginal income tax rates go up most of the way... but then go down at several crucial points, including the Social Security limit, and an income level of approximately $500,000/yr (when all the "phaseouts" and "floors" and "ceilings", which are hidden taxes on people within a certain income range, have taken full effect)?   The other half of the policy is to add high regressive fees to public services, while eliminating or reducing the quality of many of them -- the cuts to public transportation are a classic example, while a more subtle one is the damage to the food safety regime (richer people can go find safe food for extra money; other people not so much).

  Almost everyone is either poor or working class now.  People living a "middle class" lifestyle have to have quite large incomes due to spiralling health care costs, among other things.  The fairly deliberate right-wing attacks on the funding and quality public schools are another example of the way middle-class lifestyle is being priced out of existence.

  As for living a genuinely rich lifestyle, even being in the top 1% isn't enough; you need to be in the top 1/3 of 1% (a million dollars a year).  Either you manage to strike it superrich, or you get slowly forced down to the working class.  And many of those who thought they'd struck it superrich just lost their money in the financial collapse....

  We're degenerating into a tiny, superrich elite and a great mass where people with $250,000/year incomes have more in common with people with no income than they do with the elite.  This seems to be the natural consequence of Republicant tax-the-poor, debase-the-currency, spend-what's-left-on-wars policy.  

  Unfortunately for the superrich, this, when it gets to extremes such as it is heading for, is also the situation which leads to stuff like the French Revolution.  If you want to maintain your family's vast fortune, you need to distribute enough of it -- particularly in hard times -- to keep the lower classes from torching your mansion and beheading you, with the support of the middle class....  Some of the superrich understand enlightened self-interest and are largely on the side of progressive redistribution of wealth (Warren Buffett, George Soros -- and indeed FDR).

  Unfortunately, some of the poor, working class, and professional class have either been tricked by the pro-wealth-concentration people, or work for them and hope to get "trickle-down" benefits from their masters.  (That didn't work out so well for people working in the financial industry, though.)

  by neroden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:44:15 PM PDT

•  If you make $40K, your are poor

  In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the US Census Bureau.

  http://pubdb3.census.gov/...

  by swaydo intellectual on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:02 PM PDT