Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [SH] [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 17:00

Post #26 of 57 (2248 views)

I'm not really saying they're related. I thought the OP had conflated the two at first- I took him to be saying that the upper middle class is both getting screwed with taxes and falling behind economically in the larger scheme of things. (He wasn't really saying that, I just thought he was.)

My point was that the upper middle class might be getting screwed by taxes, but they're still largely improving their economic lot- much like the OP.

And while it might not be fair, it's not exactly as unfair as raising taxes on young hotties because they get to enjoy a lot of sex. Taxes and ones economic status are inexorably tangled, no?

I think it's just a tough sell for many in the upper middle class to make right now. "Waaa, I'm losing my itemized deductions, and I won't be able to stuff my retirement account with as many thousands of tax exempt dollars as before!"

When you're presenting that case to the poor and to those in the declining lower class even while your economic status is steadily improving, it just isn't likely to generate much sympathy. IMO.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Post deleted by spudone [ In reply to ]

Dec 15, 17 18:03

Post #27 of 57 (2231 views)

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [spudone] [ In reply to ]

blueraider_mike

Dec 16, 17 6:30

Post #28 of 57 (2178 views)

spudone wrote:

blueraider_mike wrote:

oldandslow wrote:

It appears that the upper-middle class gets hit big-time (esp. in blue states), and that pays for tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy. The corporate tax cut is also partially funded via debt. Middle and lower classes get very small tax cuts that are actually much smaller than they would get if they simply got a rebate check paid out of the $150B/year that this thing costs. Of course, there are winners/losers throughout the system. Eventually, since all individual tax breaks are sunsetted after 10 years, all individual filers could/will be screwed then. This is based on prior news and may have changed. We won't know the specifics for another hour.

You can spin this anyway you like, but the vast majority of folks are getting a tax cut. Only 30% itemized and after this bill the number may only be 15%. Your are right, those is high tax states will get less but then again, they have be subsidized the most through the years but it will be mostly anyone making over $150K. So I would tell you to make more money and feel confident that you next marginal dollar earned will be taxed less.

And once again, middle and lower classes cannot get large tax cuts because they don't pay much in taxes if at all...do you suggest that we send them bigger checks?

Lol talk about spin. I suppose you'll tell me that in the 10 years over which most of the middle class benefits expire, I should have plenty of time to be making >1 million / year, eh?

Stop drinking the breitbart kool-aid.

Show me with facts that the vast majority of the tax payers do not get a cut?

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [blueraider_mike] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 7:37

Post #29 of 57 (2159 views)

Show me (with facts) that anything that I have said is incorrect.

Quote:

Middle and lower classes get very small tax cuts that are actually much smaller than they would get if they simply got a rebate check paid out of the $150B/year that this thing costs. Of course, there are winners/losers throughout the system. Eventually, since all individual tax breaks are sunsetted after 10 years, all individual filers could/will be screwed then.

Compare this with what you wrote:

Quote:

Show me with facts that the vast majority of the tax payers do not get a cut?

10 years down the road, almost everyone loses whatever small cuts they would receive. (fact).

I would argue that my statement is more detailed and a more accurate analysis. This is primarily a corporate cut/reform bill. The gains for individuals are miniscule especailly given a cost of 1.5T (losses by upper-middle class pay for gains by really wealthy). The major selling point is that the corporate cuts will go to everyone in the form of vastly higher economic growth, which most economists find dubious. BTW, given the large number of "winners/losers" I have no idea if the "vast majority" will receive tax cuts, or if those cuts will be in any way meaningful. Corporations will get the largest permanent cuts and the the very wealthy will get the next largest (by percentage).

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 7:38

Post #30 of 57 (2159 views)

Good observations

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 7:42

Post #31 of 57 (2159 views)

Same thing happening in Canada but recently reined in somewhat by changes. For instance gov't no longer allowing certain types of income splitting. I don't worry about gov't collecting taxes. Too many people prefer just being an employee with benefits taken care of. Not only that gov't continues to make having employees more and more a pain in the ass.

Velocibuddha wrote:

https://www.marketwatch.com/...llionaire-2017-10-27

This opinion piece is interesting.
A bit alarmist. And often incorrect. But interesting.

Personally, I feel that:
1) Democrats (post Reagan) typically raise taxes on the upper middle class and claim they are "raising taxes on the rich"
2) Republicans typically cut taxes for the extremely rich and say that they are "cutting taxes for everyone."

It seems this new tax bill is going to attempt to do both a Republican thing and Democrats thing at the same time.
It might be a super duper screw the upper middle!

Politics aside, this seems to be where we are heading anyway.

1) Are we heading for an economy where everyone who is NOT poor will be a "business owner"?
(Where all good jobs will be done by "contractors business owners" and all idle rich will be CEO's of investment companies)?
2) When the middle and upper middle classes have either become poor or become "small business people"
How will the government collect taxes then?
(Clearly, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any inclination to cut the government payouts for their pet constituencies).

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 8:15

Post #32 of 57 (2144 views)

Here's an interesting anecdote - the upper middle-class make up a vast majority of those who participate in the endurance sports - triathlon, cycling and running.

A quick google search finds a fact from a survey by USAT from 2010, that the average income for their members is over $100,000. I've seen in some IRONMAN demographic info that for IM race participants the average is over $150,000.

From what I can tell for cycling and running, it's similar - survey many runners at large races, and I'm guessing many are making more than $100,000, and of course they keep going on and on about how cycling is the new business execs golf!

Running is a bit of an outlier of the three (running cycling & triathlon), because relatively speaking it's inexpensive. However, for both cycling and triathlon, the argument here is of course the equipment costs, that are required to participate - you need to be in the upper-middle-class to afford it all!

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [vitus979] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 9:53

Post #33 of 57 (2126 views)

Quote:

And while it might not be fair, it's not exactly as unfair as raising taxes on young hotties because they get to enjoy a lot of sex. Taxes and ones economic status are inexorably tangled, no?

Well, they are related to the extent that the government wants money even more than it wants fairness, and the better off have more money. However, I'm against conflating the two things and then asking "Aren't you better off overall?". I wonder how that principle would apply elsewhere...

You could bring african slaves to America. "Sure, you're a slave, but aren't you better off here than where you might be victim of genocide, disease, or starvation?"
You require young hotties to have sex with old people. "Sure you have to have sex with old people sometimes, but your total sex life is still way better than theirs!"
You require happy employees to work overtime for free. "Sure you have to work overtime, but you were already that happiest people so it's easier for you."

The bottom line is I'm against feeling that a particular group owes other people more just because they have something good. For the most part everyone agrees with me -- until we get to money. Evidently, money deserves to be a special case.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [blueraider_mike] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 12:48

Post #34 of 57 (2099 views)

blueraider_mike wrote:

So I would tell you to make more money...

...middle and lower classes cannot get large tax cuts because they don't pay much in taxes if at all...do you suggest that we send them bigger checks?

OMG, either one of these comments is enough to earn a visit from a ghost of Christmas. But both in one post?!? Geez.

Did you read the CBO's analysis of the Senate version? It's a couple weeks stale but the provisions affecting personal net by income bracket on page 10 are not significantly different from the current bill. They show that the lower class are immediately hurt by this bill, and that all brackets do gradually worse over the next decade until almost everyone under six figures is getting shafted. But of course the ultra-rich are only part of the top bracket and they'll be doing quite well.

https://www.cbo.gov/...commendationssfc.pdf

I don't have a problem categorically with people getting rich but I do think it's un-American for there to be substantial barriers to becoming rich, and studies have shown this to be the case in the US. I also think it's bad to make it particularly easy for those born into massive wealth. Let us tax those piles of gold to the extent it eases the burden on hard-working lower-middle class taxpayers. And most importantly, we have a structural problem with a widening wealth gap in the US, and the only decent way to fix it is by making our tax policy more progressive.

Alex

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Dec 16, 17 14:41

Post #35 of 57 (2083 views)

What is "upper middle class"?

Is upper middle class in Ca different than upper middle class in Az? Wy?

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [blueraider_mike] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 6:17

Post #36 of 57 (2049 views)

blueraider_mike wrote:

oldandslow wrote:

It appears that the upper-middle class gets hit big-time (esp. in blue states), and that pays for tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy. The corporate tax cut is also partially funded via debt. Middle and lower classes get very small tax cuts that are actually much smaller than they would get if they simply got a rebate check paid out of the $150B/year that this thing costs. Of course, there are winners/losers throughout the system. Eventually, since all individual tax breaks are sunsetted after 10 years, all individual filers could/will be screwed then. This is based on prior news and may have changed. We won't know the specifics for another hour.

You can spin this anyway you like, but the vast majority of folks are getting a tax cut. Only 30% itemized and after this bill the number may only be 15%. Your are right, those is high tax states will get less but then again, they have be subsidized the most through the years but it will be mostly anyone making over $150K. So I would tell you to make more money and feel confident that you next marginal dollar earned will be taxed less.

And once again, middle and lower classes cannot get large tax cuts because they don't pay much in taxes if at all...do you suggest that we send them bigger checks?

Anyone with 3 or more kids (3 kids is close to wash 4 or more no doubt a loser) who did the Standard deduction in the past, will most likely LOSE (I am one of them). No one seems to be talking about the deduction for dependents ($4050 per dependent) is going away. So I use to deduct $12k Stand. Ded plus 5 (3kids, wife, self) * $4k = $32k new plan $24k. Oh and the higher kid credit (use to be $1k up to age 17, now will be $2k up to 16) yeah my youngest would have been in the last year of that but will now be dropped. Even with the lower tax brackets, I am looking at about $1000 tax increase (now if I made more that might change into a tax savings as the lower rates would help more)

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [dvfmfidc] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 6:25

Post #37 of 57 (2048 views)

dvfmfidc wrote:

What is "upper middle class"?

Is upper middle class in Ca different than upper middle class in Az? Wy?

What's middle class. I always love discussions about money (numbers) that try to happen with words.

I would say Upper middle class is probably $100k up to not really sure $500?

Yeah, it could be argued given cost of living it is a regional thing. Here in the midwest, $250k buys a nice house 2k sq ft, 4 bed 3 bath. type of thing.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 10:44

Post #38 of 57 (2011 views)

To contrast. I am a londoner. My college room mate is a mancunian. Basically the same as (or as close to Manhattan v's Columbus ohio)

If we both made 100k

4 bed house in London 1.25m. 4 bed house in Manchester starts at maybe 3-400k

What you earn has little to do with it. People earning 50k in parts of UK experience better quality of life than those earning double elsewhere

I would also edit to add

I know people asset rich cash poor with out a pot to piss in who would by most measure be wealthy but income wise are lower middle class

I know middle class people with millions in assets who would not consider themselves wealthy

Money is relative to where you are and how much you have.

I shit you not. The person who owns the property over the road from me was bought out from their family business for 380m euros more than 20 years ago. My house is smaller than his gardeners.

Money is Very literally a relative measure of anything. 100k a year gets you nothing in Monaco. You could be a king in delhi.

Earnings are a poor measure. They say nothing about your circumstances and the argument you can move is fatuous because the same job in Columbus v's NY or monaco v's Delhi will not pay the same

Last edited by: Andrewmc: Dec 17, 17 10:58

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 11:55

Post #39 of 57 (1989 views)

Andrewmc wrote:

To contrast. I am a londoner. My college room mate is a mancunian. Basically the same as (or as close to Manhattan v's Columbus ohio)

If we both made 100k

4 bed house in London 1.25m. 4 bed house in Manchester starts at maybe 3-400k

What you earn has little to do with it. People earning 50k in parts of UK experience better quality of life than those earning double elsewhere

I would also edit to add

I know people asset rich cash poor with out a pot to piss in who would by most measure be wealthy but income wise are lower middle class

I know middle class people with millions in assets who would not consider themselves wealthy

Money is relative to where you are and how much you have.

I shit you not. The person who owns the property over the road from me was bought out from their family business for 380m euros more than 20 years ago. My house is smaller than his gardeners.

Money is Very literally a relative measure of anything. 100k a year gets you nothing in Monaco. You could be a king in delhi.

Earnings are a poor measure. They say nothing about your circumstances and the argument you can move is fatuous because the same job in Columbus v's NY or monaco v's Delhi will not pay the same

Seems like a good argument for a flat tax. 20% on all income from all sources. Everybody pays no matter how much or how little they make.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 12:10

Post #40 of 57 (1980 views)

Agreed except if you are sat on assets and not drawing any income from them

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 15:38

Post #41 of 57 (1955 views)

Quote:

Seems like a good argument for a flat tax. 20% on all income from all sources. Everybody pays no matter how much or how little they make.

I don't think you understood the main thrust of his post. There can be a massive difference between wealth and income. A singular focus on income tax leads to avoidance via wealth growth. Flat tax on income does nothing to address that, and actually underweights taxation for the wealthy. Taxable income is truly just the tip of the financial iceberg for the ultra-wealthy. Never mind the reality that ending progressive taxes is completely divorced from reality, and would be catastrophic for societal stability.

Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 17, 17 22:43

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Dec 17, 17 19:40

Post #42 of 57 (1925 views)

and are allowed "corporate type" deductions.

What is a "Corporate type" deduction?

~Matt

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]

Dec 18, 17 1:32

Post #43 of 57 (1895 views)

Exactly. Using our example of the middle class

Let's say you bought a home thats appreciated. You have 20+ years of pension savings, and let's say for arguments sake that they are worth .75-1.5m which is not an outrageous assumption if you are in your 40's

Your salary is an ever decreasing percent of your net worth but the one the tax system is primarily focused on

Good example of this is the duke of Westminster. Under 30, one of the richest land owners in the UK. An estate worth billions and almost no inheritance tax was levied. His income is not even a rounding error on the value of his estate.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]

blueraider_mike

Dec 18, 17 6:22

Post #44 of 57 (1857 views)

DavHamm wrote:

blueraider_mike wrote:

oldandslow wrote:

It appears that the upper-middle class gets hit big-time (esp. in blue states), and that pays for tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy. The corporate tax cut is also partially funded via debt. Middle and lower classes get very small tax cuts that are actually much smaller than they would get if they simply got a rebate check paid out of the $150B/year that this thing costs. Of course, there are winners/losers throughout the system. Eventually, since all individual tax breaks are sunsetted after 10 years, all individual filers could/will be screwed then. This is based on prior news and may have changed. We won't know the specifics for another hour.

You can spin this anyway you like, but the vast majority of folks are getting a tax cut. Only 30% itemized and after this bill the number may only be 15%. Your are right, those is high tax states will get less but then again, they have be subsidized the most through the years but it will be mostly anyone making over $150K. So I would tell you to make more money and feel confident that you next marginal dollar earned will be taxed less.

And once again, middle and lower classes cannot get large tax cuts because they don't pay much in taxes if at all...do you suggest that we send them bigger checks?

Anyone with 3 or more kids (3 kids is close to wash 4 or more no doubt a loser) who did the Standard deduction in the past, will most likely LOSE (I am one of them). No one seems to be talking about the deduction for dependents ($4050 per dependent) is going away. So I use to deduct $12k Stand. Ded plus 5 (3kids, wife, self) * $4k = $32k new plan $24k. Oh and the higher kid credit (use to be $1k up to age 17, now will be $2k up to 16) yeah my youngest would have been in the last year of that but will now be dropped. Even with the lower tax brackets, I am looking at about $1000 tax increase (now if I made more that might change into a tax savings as the lower rates would help more)

Cry me a river...so sorry you may have to pay more. So you are in the 20% that may have to pay more, meanwhile there are 80% that will pay less. I raised kids, never got a child tax credit, now they are in college and none of the expenses are deductible because I make above some arbitrated AGI number invented out of thin air. I can't deduct contributions to IRA for my wife. I have had to pay AMT a couple of times and I am not rich. I am so tired of this "what's in it for me" when you have been getting all the benefits of the tax code.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [blueraider_mike] [ In reply to ]

Dec 18, 17 7:29

Post #45 of 57 (1821 views)

Quote:

Cry me a river...

I raised kids, never got a child tax credit, now they are in college and none of the expenses are deductible because I make above some arbitrated AGI number invented out of thin air. I can't deduct contributions to IRA for my wife. I have had to pay AMT a couple of times and I am not rich.

Doesn't look like anyone needs to cry, you have filled up the river all by yourself ;). BTW, did your wife end up getting a job? that would be the necessary first step in getting 401K contributions.

Quote:

I am so tired of this "what's in it for me" when you have been getting all the benefits of the tax code.

Can you please tell me how I have been benefiting, since I probably pay more in total tax than most folks with my income? You are confusing the overall state taxation which has been buttressed via SALT vs. individual tax loads. You are also ignoring the higher flow of federal benefits to lower taxed states. "California" as a state has benefited AND lost due to this dynamic, upper-middle class and wealthy folks have pretty much paid for it (in exchange for economic opportunity, we're not really altruistic at all ;). Why do you misrepresent that, and why do you care so much?

My problems with this have little to do with myself (FYI, I probably will be out ~5K in taxes, and the drop in property values will be covered by rise in stock options). My concerns are:

This is paid for by ~$150B/year at a time when almost all economists agree that deficit spending is counter-productive.
The primary beneficiaries are the ultra-wealthy. Nice folks, I know a lot of them, but it isn't good for the country as a whole at a time of historic inequality.
Corporate tax reform is good, but this benefit will mostly flow to investors (like me).
The cuts for everyone else are paltry and temporary, given the budget hole that we are widening.
The plan is precipitous, and will cause economic dislocations which may well exceed the S&L crashes of the late 80's and wipe out purported long-term economic growth.
Healthcare changes and inflation adjustments will disproportionately affect those 80% that you seem to champion.
Subsequent efforts to pare back benefits due to "budgetary shortfalls" that are worsened to due this plan will fall primarily on the 80% that received a small payout now for worse policies later.

In the end it is unwise and fiscally risky. There are a few plausibly good elements, but they are overshadowed by an abdication of fiscal restraint. You don't seem concerned by that at all, and seem to be caught up in misplaced partisan bitterness.

Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 18, 17 9:32

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]

Dec 18, 17 8:49

Post #46 of 57 (1783 views)

oldandslow wrote:

In the end it is unwise and fiscally risky.

How about 8 years of global central banks driving down interest rates to 0% and inflating asset prices. This makes the fiscal risk of tax reform look immaterial. Tax reform is all about getting votes in the mid term elections and appeasing the special interest groups.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [summitt] [ In reply to ]

Dec 18, 17 9:18

Post #47 of 57 (1772 views)

Quote:

How about 8 years of global central banks driving down interest rates to 0% and inflating asset prices?

The economic condition of the world was vastly different back then. Many steps were necessary then that would be terrible policy now. Given the benefit which accrued to to people with capital, I have no problem with higher taxes for beneficiaries of those policy. This is unnecessary and counter-productive.

Quote:

Tax reform is all about getting votes in the mid term elections and appeasing the special interest groups.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]

Dec 18, 17 12:45

Post #48 of 57 (1721 views)

But back to the original point.....

It is stupid to be a person.
(And completely moronic to be a person with high income, in a blue state).

I think I will become a corporation....

I want to be a corporation that owns a well diversified mix of appreciating assets.
Assets that provide for all ones basic needs and .... luxuries.
Assets that pay a ceremonial amount of income.
Assets that register a ceremonial loss (equal to the ceremonial income).
Assets that can be easily transferred to future generations tax free.
(Thanks Trump ...... that's all assets!!!)

The Velocibuddha Working Corporation should really avoid paying all salaries going forward. That's just stupid!!!

Instead, investments should be made in the Velocibuddha Housing Corporation, the Velocibuddha Feeding Corporation, the Velocibuddha Travel and Triathlon Corporation.

Already established are the:
The Velocibuddha Health Corporation
The Velocibuddha Rich Old Dude Corporation
The spawn of Velocibuddha College Education Corporation.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]

blueraider_mike

Dec 18, 17 13:42

Post #49 of 57 (1684 views)

My wife has stayed home to raise our kids...she is now ready to go back in the work force but because of our tax code it really isn't worth it.

My beef with the last post is taking a singular family and starting they now have to pay more when the vast majority are not going to have to pay more.

The only argument against this is the deficit will raise, but when we are going to spend 50T in the next decade, I am not going to get hung up on a 1.5T increase...the debt is raising because of entitlement spending that is on auto pilot and growing above inflation. Doing this bill or not really doesn't impact the debt or deficit in any meaningful way.

Again, tax cuts always benefit those that actually pay taxes...why must you and others keep saying this is a negative? There are still goodies for those that don't pay, in fact, due to the child care tax credit we are willing to send money above and beyond what many pay back to them in this bill.

Re: Upper middle class get the shaft (again) [blueraider_mike] [ In reply to ]

Dec 18, 17 15:11

Post #50 of 57 (1646 views)

Quote:

The only argument against this is the deficit will raise, but when we are going to spend 50T in the next decade,

Please look at the bullet points a few posts back. The deficit is the biggest problem and it is sufficient, but it is far from the only one. You don't address them.

Quote:

... when we are going to spend 50T in the next decade, I am not going to get hung up on a 1.5T increase...

That deficit number is much larger, it assumes that almost all the individual tax breaks end after 2025. You can't purport to be champion of the 80% and then use a number which requires you to completely screw over almost all of that 80% in a handful of years.

BTW, present deficit is ~$500B/year ($440B?), adding $150-200B every year doesn't matter?

Quote:

Again, tax cuts always benefit those that actually pay taxes...why must you and others keep saying this is a negative?

Always? That's funny, if you added up all the taxes (federal/state/sales/payroll/property/etc.), I pay a pretty hefty amount. By your own logic, you should be appalled that a big-time taxpayer like me is subsidizing folks both above and below my income bracket. Wouldn't you say that is "a negative"? ;). No big deal and don't worry 'bout me, but continued "winning" by folks at the very top is economically inefficient and inherently destabilizing, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.