It's Hillary's assertion that a 250,000 a year income is middle class that makes her

[cali]

promise to not increase taxes on the middle class so laughable. The median household income is $53,657. Those making over 206,000 are in the top 5%. And those in that category have seen their incomes steadily rise.

Never mind that pledging to not raise middle class taxes is counterproductive anyways. How do you think we got and maintained such programs as Social Security? But including those in the top 5%? Complete bullshit.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/opinion/campaign-stops/250000-a-year-is-not-middle-class.html?_r=0

[monmouth4]

1. She is so out of touch, sad..n/t

[cali]

2. It's a pernicious and pandering patented predictable Hillary lie.

[monmouth4]

3. Bugs Bunny could not have stated that better....n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. LOL!

[-none]

4. It is not a lie if you actually believe it.

$250,000 a year is so beneath her as to be bordering on a paupers income.

[Hortensis]

21. "households of 4 earning up to $250,000/year"

would be taxed as middle class.

Knowledgeable people believe it because they understand the context. It's not the top "1%" or the top "5%." These people are US. Money and power are being diverted from US to the ownership and/or control of the top 1% of the top 1%. That's the top 0.0001%. THOSE are the people who control business and control governments at all levels and whose very existence is destroying our nation and our wellbeing.

I agree a ceiling of $250K is far more than my husband and I ever made before retirement. But it's not unreachably more than two working adults in urban households bring in these days. This is a reasonable ceiling for middle-class households. Half of all households in America have two incomes.

And remember, people in urban areas have to be paid more than rural because it costs far more to live in urban areas. But there is also just a lot more money floating around urban areas, so most people with nice incomes live there. Just for perspective, a registered nurse in an urban area earns over $60K/year, up to about $90K. Same for accountants, although upper range incomes are over $100K. See why the $250,000 ceiling for a couple with children?

BTW, that $250,000 upper limit for the middle class tax bracket was supported by both Obama and Romney in the last election.

Thanks to conservative economic policy, there is now an enormous rift between people for whom $250,000 could be doable in another decade of hard work and planning, including perhaps moving to an area with higher salaries, and those for whom it is completely unrealistic. I remember when there was no real rift between classes of working people -- back in the 1970s before enthusiasm for dysfunctional and exploitative conservative economic policies swept the country.

Vote Democrat to return to policies that build prosperity for the working classes.

[restorefreedom]

24. how very sad yet true

https://m.

[lostnfound]

5. Maybe the middle of the donor class?

That seems plausible.

[mike_c]

6. that's more than five times the median income in my community....

I make a very good salary for my community, and certainly consider myself middle class, but my partner and I combined don't earn half as much as the OP suggests is a middle class salary.

[Sheepshank]

7. I suppose recycling old news is important when you think it's a real "zinger"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251961731

Sanders’ measure would make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. Under current law, the amount of income subject to the payroll tax is capped at $118,500. That means someone making millions of dollars a year pays the same amount in payroll taxes as some making $118,500 a year. The legislation would subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-on-congress-to-strengthen-and-expand-social-security

Do you plan on questioning or bashing Bernie on this ^^^^?

then again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251961430

then again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251952724

then again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251954236

[cali]

11. This isn't old news. It's timely.

Poor, bitter attempt at deflection.

[Sheepshank]

13. no deflections I didn't divert from the OP, I offered links to this recycled crappola

so...are you going to respond to the quote where Bernie also invokes the $250K threshold? I suppose not, since it doesn't fit the recycled, reused, rehashed argument that you would like to pin solely on Hillary.

[Doctor_J]

8. that's because it's what she makes for a one hour speech

For someone working at her preferred minimum wage of $12/hr, it's about ten years of full time work.

[Art_from_Ark]

35. The math bears you out

$12 X 40 hours X 52 weeks X 10 years = $249600

[Skeeter Barnes]

9. $250k per hour is fine for her and Bill. $650k per year is fine for Chelsea. $15 per hour is

too much for you and me.

[Rider3]

10. Out of touch

I'd love to see any politician live off of my salary.

[Punkingal]

12. Let's face it...she has never had to worry about money in her life.

Not like others do, every single day. How could she have any understanding?

[treestar]

17. that could be said about a lot of people

and a lot of them are liberals.

She has always been very intelligent and was never going to end up working for minimum wage. That's true of a lot of people.

[Punkingal]

22. So what?

[treestar]

29. You are trying to make it some sort of virtue to be poor

and vice to make more money. Don't be a Republican's parody of the left.

So what she never worked for minimum wage?

[Major Hogwash]

14. Face it, she has never had to work for minimum wage in her entire life.

She doesn't even know what "middle class" means.

[treestar]

18. She got the education

not to have to do that, as many people do.

And she was raised in the middle class. She is very smart, and ended up at Yale or wherever. That can happen to middle class people.

that is part of the American Dream and all that so attacking that is a losing proposition with most voters.

[Major Hogwash]

20. Not enough evidently.

She's running for President, again!

[treestar]

30. Not enough what?

Is there something wrong with running for President?

[Adrahil]

15. SO.... who do you all consider rich enough to raise taxes on?

What's the number?

I mean it can;t POSSIBLY be that the median income is too low, right?

I mean, here I was thinking that the problem was that the middle class is disappearing. Apparently, we just define working class as middle class, and people actually living a middle-class lifestyle are now "rich"

[WillyT]

16. K & R !!!

[NurseJackie]

23. Thanks! Good information!

[bvar22]

26. This is one way to do it equitably:

Of course, newly elected President Obama completely forgot about Raising-the CAP,
and appointed a Cat Food Commission promising "austerity" instead.

[JoePhilly]

28. +1

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and recommended!

[Cary]

27. Have you researched this?

I don't think so. I think you see a candidate you have taken some disliking to and a number you think you can use against her.

I am not offended, per se, by saying that someone earning $250,000 is middle class. I would however have to look at the numbers, which are readily available, to see how much tax revenue we are talking about if we exclude these people from a tax increase and I would need to balance that against everything else.

I am in favor of progressive taxation as one way to combat excessive and concentrated wealth. However I am not in favor of raising taxes on people just because they are making more than I am. I would say that people with a net worth over $10 million are starting to look at serious wealth, which to me is more money than they will spend in their lifetimes. I don't see why anyone needs $1 billion, let alone $80 billion like the Kochs.

When you're looking at those numbers $250,000 a year is nothing.