U.S. Middle Class nearly gone

[SickBeast]

So we pay 10% more tax but you guys pay on average $4500/year on health insurance.  There is no way that I pay $4500/year more in tax than you, so essentially we pay *less* tax overall.

I get $550 a month out of my pay for health insurance and it doesn't cover hardly anything. I still have over a $100 a month paying in health bills not covered by insurance.

We will see what Rollo says. He doesn't typically respond well to being proven wrong.

[RolloTheGreat]

I am not in Chicago anymore, in Indianapolis. The apartment complex requires a $300,000 insurance policy so that along with our car insurance is $200 a month and last month when my van had it's side window smashed and robbed found out the policy doesn't cover any of my contents in the apartment or vehicles. The insurance guy said we would have to itemize all contents we have and add yet another policy and it would be another $200 a month.

What the hell? Have you been running over police while drunk?

We pay $100/mo for two new cars, full coverage. Even adding my teenager driving a sports car was only $130/mo more.

I don't get it.

And seriously- you need to expand you job searches beyond big cities. It's very expensive to live in big cities and what you get for the money is not worth it. (robbed van is a case in point)

[RolloTheGreat]

So we pay 10% more tax but you guys pay on average $4500/year on health insurance.  There is no way that I pay $4500/year more in tax than you, so essentially we pay *less* tax overall.

I get $550 a month out of my pay for health insurance and it doesn't cover hardly anything. I still have over a $100 a month paying in health bills not covered by insurance.

We will see what Rollo says.  He doesn't typically respond well to being proven wrong.

I'll wait until I'm proved wrong to see.

A lot of people here don't pay anything for health insurance.

We pay $400/mo, pre-tax, and it covers everything.

So do you think I'm wishing I was paying between 3-4X more than that in tax, or paying the $4800? Gosh, that's a puzzler.

[SickBeast]

So we pay 10% more tax but you guys pay on average $4500/year on health insurance.  There is no way that I pay $4500/year more in tax than you, so essentially we pay *less* tax overall.

I get $550 a month out of my pay for health insurance and it doesn't cover hardly anything. I still have over a $100 a month paying in health bills not covered by insurance.

We will see what Rollo says.  He doesn't typically respond well to being proven wrong.

I'll wait until I'm proved wrong to see.

A lot of people here don't pay anything for health insurance.

We pay $400/mo, pre-tax, and it covers everything.

So do you think I'm wishing I was paying between 3-4X more than that in tax, or paying the $4800? Gosh, that's a puzzler.

Rollo you're not making proper sense of the numbers. Even $400/month is $4800/year. That equates to *way* more than 10% of my annual taxes. Not to mention the fact that I get far better government services including affordable university tuition and free universal healthcare.

[BoFox]

BoFox, you're just used to urban pricing and cost of living. A family with $70K annual income probably gets $55K take home because they're not in a very high tax bracket, and have 3 kids for deductions.

I picked a random town of 12,000 people in Wisconsin, and did a quick search, didn't even bother shopping:

http://www.firstweber.com/homes/1506956_...calculator

First house I looked at has 4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3 car garage, cul de sac lot backing up to woods, and costs $1000/month on a thirty year with a 10% down payment.

That leaves them $43K, and when you live on that you buy cars like this:

http://www.carsoup.com/details/used/2014...mwU9S_SkY0

Even at asking price, it's $223/mo for 60 with 20% down. Multiply that by two and add insurance/gas and that's another $1000 month. Those aren't POS cars, they're low miles used full size cars with lots of drivetrain warranty left.

Still have $31K a year left, which I think the family can live on pretty easily.

They're probably not flying to Disney World to stay a week at the Wilderness every year, but that's not everyone's idea of a good vacation either. It's probably my least favorite vacation, because when you're not from a high population density area going to Dizzy World's long lines and millions of people wandering around is sort of like what you imagine Hell will be like when you get there.

People in this bracket go camping for vacations, or do what I do less frequently.

I wouldn't consider a family living in that house, driving those cars, and going camping a week or two every year "poor". I'd consider them "middle class America".

They're probably not saving much for retirement, but frankly, most people don't.

Hmm, maybe in a rural or near-rural town a family with 3 kids would live financially comfortably.  It's a pretty nice home.  However, a mortgage requires $$$ up front.  What if the family didn't have $ up front (due to being able to save up $ in the first place) - and maybe bad credit like 40% of the Americans?  They'd be renting like losers.  Utility costs go through the roof for a big family like that - unlike living in an apartment where you don't have to pay for some of the utilities.  Electricity (and gas), water/sewage, garbage, internet and cable, cellphone service for the older kids, TV's and computers/laptops, etc..  they all add up quickly.  Food is another thing unless one of the parents stays home to cook canned beans, spinach, corn, potatoes for dinner everyday.  Clothing...  if these are teenage girls who do not want used clothes from a thrift store, then OUCH!!!!  My boys must have awesome Nike shoes just because other boys have it too at school, so I have to let my wife buy the coolest Nike shoes they can find...  bummer.  Then things break down like used cars, appliances, electronics, lawn mowers, bicycles...  maintenance can be a bitch at times unless one has costly comprehensive warranty/insurance on everything.

Kids aren't THAT cheap.  Any good parent who doesn't want their kids to hate them earning $70K/year will be pushed to the limit with 3 kids growing up as teenagers.  My Dad was making $72K/year back in the early 90's ( inflation-adjusted for now would be much higher) had 3 kids and had to stop saving $ for our college tuition for a while when my brother and I were teenagers - but he was rather thrifty by American standards, only buying one brand new car in 1996 for the first time.  It wasn't bad though, but it wasn't easy - I wanted Nike shoes so badly but never got the nice ones..  even had Payless shoes causing quarter-sized blisters on my heels   :(

[dmcowen674]

What the hell? Have you been running over police while drunk?

We pay $100/mo for two new cars, full coverage. Even adding my teenager driving a sports car was only $130/mo more.

I don't get it.

And seriously- you need to expand you job searches beyond big cities. It's very expensive to live in big cities and what you get for the money is not worth it. (robbed van is a case in point)
[/quote]
I lived in the boonies once when we were in Oklahoma. debi last worked then and we both got the best jobs we could find and both not much better than minimum wage.

Insurance I am paying double because of a bogus ticket when we we had our motorcycle accident in 2011.

The trooper that followed us to the hospital charged me with failure to maintain lane control, wreckless driving and $500 damage to the gravel.

[RolloTheGreat]

Hmm, maybe in a rural or near-rural town a family with 3 kids would live financially comfortably.  It's a pretty nice home.  However, a mortgage requires $$$ up front.  What if the family didn't have $ up front (due to being able to save up $ in the first place) - and maybe bad credit like 40% of the Americans?  They'd be renting like losers.  Utility costs go through the roof for a big family like that - unlike living in an apartment where you don't have to pay for some of the utilities.  Electricity (and gas), water/sewage, garbage, internet and cable, cellphone service for the older kids, TV's and computers/laptops, etc..  they all add up quickly.  Food is another thing unless one of the parents stays home to cook canned beans, spinach, corn, potatoes for dinner everyday.  Clothing...  if these are teenage girls who do not want used clothes from a thrift store, then OUCH!!!!  My boys must have awesome Nike shoes just because other boys have it too at school, so I have to let my wife buy the coolest Nike shoes they can find...  bummer.  Then things break down like used cars, appliances, electronics, lawn mowers, bicycles...  maintenance can be a bitch at times unless one has costly comprehensive warranty/insurance on everything.

Kids aren't THAT cheap.  Any good parent who doesn't want their kids to hate them earning $70K/year will be pushed to the limit with 3 kids growing up as teenagers.  My Dad was making $72K/year back in the early 90's ( inflation-adjusted for now would be much higher) had 3 kids and had to stop saving $ for our college tuition for a while when my brother and I were teenagers - but he was rather thrifty by American standards, only buying one brand new car in 1996 for the first time.  It wasn't bad though, but it wasn't easy - I wanted Nike shoes so badly but never got the nice ones..  even had Payless shoes causing quarter-sized blisters on my heels   :(

I'm going to have to disagree on a few points again:

1. Kids shouldn't hate their parents because of their income. The fact of the matter is most people don't earn $70K, and most households don't have that. To say only well off people are happy is absurd.

2. People who rent aren't "losers". Nonetheless, a couple making $70k between them can always live at the Golden Plover apartments in a 2 bedroom for $560 a month all utilities paid for 2-3 years to save up the $18K down payment on that house. They can easily afford $500/mo saved on top of the $560 rent with no utilities. (and 3 teenagers takes at least 16 years to happen- theoretically they do their house buying before they have kids)

http://www.apartments.com/golden-plover-...i/8vcc0n3/
3. Kids don't have to have designer clothes.

4. You may need a cable or ISDN modem, but I don't know if anyone "needs" the wasteland that is cable/satellite tv. I think about dumping it for Sling TV or just over the air fairly regularly just on the principle it costs a lot and sucks.

5. Be glad your dad stuck around to buy you the Payless shoes. A lot of them don't, and my guess is he was not enchanted with doing whatever he did 40+ a week to support you guys. My dad was a sales manager earning that kind of money + profit sharing in the 70s, and I've thanked him profusely a couple times in recent years for what he did when we were kids to earn that money. Travelling around in states he had never been to without a GPS, opening up markets had to just suck from a stress stand point. I can't even imagine it. I remember one time he took me with him on the road and we were dining in a fine restaurant and I had my first food they light on fire on your plate, some kind of pork in a liquor sauce I think. As I was happily munching my newfound delicacy I told my dad, "Dad this is GREAT. You're out here on the road, dining on this fine cuisine, and we're back at home eating the usual dreck". He looked me in the eye and said, "This SUCKS. I would rather be sitting in our kitchen eating a peanut butter sandwich with you and your brother than eating the finest meal in the country. This is a sacrifice I make so your mother doesn't have to work, and we can have a lifestyle. I hope you never have to do this and can be home every night with your family." (he was gone 1-2 weeks a month in those days, until he moved up the ladder)

[RolloTheGreat]

Should note I'm not trying to disrespect you BoFox.

I get where you're speaking from, I think that way myself more than half the time. When you live in an urban setting and have a few bucks it gets hard to believe anyone could live on less, because the choices we make seem reasonable and logical.

They're only logical in the urban setting with a few bucks though. People in small towns just don't live like that. Their kids hoodies don't cost $120..

[SickBeast]

Notice how Rollo completely ignores my post after I have proven him wrong.

[RolloTheGreat]

Notice how Rollo completely ignores my post after I have proven him wrong.

I don't know that you've proved anything.

1. 19% of those covered by employers here don't have to pay anything at all, and still have our lower taxes. They're better off as is.

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2014-...-findings/

2. The article I linked said that the higher taxes you pay exceed our cost of insurance.

Note that, although the Canadian government's health spending leads to larger taxes, Canadian taxpayers don't have to spend as much on health care as their American counterparts. This doesn't quite negate the increased tax burden, but it does make it easier to bear.

Read more: http://www.finweb.com/taxes/5-difference...z3u9aaYzZK

3. Your wait times are pretty legendary, for ER and appointments.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-wa...-1.2663013

4. Oops, no universal coverage for prescriptions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...122007.htm

5. When 46,000 of you guys are coming here for your health care, it's not really an endorsement of your system:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/report...e-in-2011/

6. I would say even if the cost is the same, I'd rather pay for a good immediate access system for my family than pay for a crappier system for everyone. (not to mention having "everyone" sitting next to us in the clinic- you can pretty much isolate yourself from hookers, gang bangers, junkies here)

[SickBeast]

Rollo I hate to break it to you, but even if your employer pays for your health insurance, that's money that they could have been paying you instead had you lived in Canada.

[BoFox]

Hmm, maybe in a rural or near-rural town a family with 3 kids would live financially comfortably.  It's a pretty nice home.  However, a mortgage requires $$$ up front.  What if the family didn't have $ up front (due to being able to save up $ in the first place) - and maybe bad credit like 40% of the Americans?  They'd be renting like losers.  Utility costs go through the roof for a big family like that - unlike living in an apartment where you don't have to pay for some of the utilities.  Electricity (and gas), water/sewage, garbage, internet and cable, cellphone service for the older kids, TV's and computers/laptops, etc..  they all add up quickly.  Food is another thing unless one of the parents stays home to cook canned beans, spinach, corn, potatoes for dinner everyday.  Clothing...  if these are teenage girls who do not want used clothes from a thrift store, then OUCH!!!!  My boys must have awesome Nike shoes just because other boys have it too at school, so I have to let my wife buy the coolest Nike shoes they can find...  bummer.  Then things break down like used cars, appliances, electronics, lawn mowers, bicycles...  maintenance can be a bitch at times unless one has costly comprehensive warranty/insurance on everything.

Kids aren't THAT cheap.  Any good parent who doesn't want their kids to hate them earning $70K/year will be pushed to the limit with 3 kids growing up as teenagers.  My Dad was making $72K/year back in the early 90's ( inflation-adjusted for now would be much higher) had 3 kids and had to stop saving $ for our college tuition for a while when my brother and I were teenagers - but he was rather thrifty by American standards, only buying one brand new car in 1996 for the first time.  It wasn't bad though, but it wasn't easy - I wanted Nike shoes so badly but never got the nice ones..  even had Payless shoes causing quarter-sized blisters on my heels   :(

I'm going to have to disagree on a few points again:

1. Kids shouldn't hate their parents because of their income. The fact of the matter is most people don't earn $70K, and most households don't have that. To say only well off people are happy is absurd.

2. People who rent aren't "losers". Nonetheless, a couple making $70k between them can always live at the Golden Plover apartments in a 2 bedroom for $560 a month all utilities paid for 2-3 years to save up the $18K down payment on that house. They can easily afford $500/mo saved on top of the $560 rent with no utilities. (and 3 teenagers takes at least 16 years to happen- theoretically they do their house buying before they have kids)

http://www.apartments.com/golden-plover-...i/8vcc0n3/
3. Kids don't have to have designer clothes.

4. You may need a cable or ISDN modem, but I don't know if anyone "needs" the wasteland that is cable/satellite tv. I think about dumping it for Sling TV or just over the air fairly regularly just on the principle it costs a lot and sucks.

5. Be glad your dad stuck around to buy you the Payless shoes. A lot of them don't, and my guess is he was not enchanted with doing whatever he did 40+ a week to support you guys. My dad was a sales manager earning that kind of money + profit sharing in the 70s, and I've thanked him profusely a couple times in recent years for what he did when we were kids to earn that money. Travelling around in states he had never been to without a GPS, opening up markets had to just suck from a stress stand point. I can't even imagine it. I remember one time he took me with him on the road and we were dining in a fine restaurant and I had my first food they light on fire on your plate, some kind of pork in a liquor sauce I think. As I was happily munching my newfound delicacy I told my dad, "Dad this is GREAT. You're out here on the road, dining on this fine cuisine, and we're back at home eating the usual dreck". He looked me in the eye and said, "This SUCKS. I would rather be sitting in our kitchen eating a peanut butter sandwich with you and your brother than eating the finest meal in the country. This is a sacrifice I make so your mother doesn't have to work, and we can have a lifestyle. I hope you never have to do this and can be home every night with your family." (he was gone 1-2 weeks a month in those days, until he moved up the ladder)

1.  Sometimes they do!  At least temporarily...  some kids are different.  I wanted to say "NO" to those Nike shoes each of my kids are getting, but wife kept on insisting, so I didn't want the WIFE to hate me, lol.

2.  "Renting like losers" - just a figure of speech.  By that, I mean they're literally losing $$$ without any real investment being made.  They'd have to be rather frugal to actually save up $$$ for a house if they don't already have to spend so much $$ on disposable diapers (or have the mother stay home washing cloth diapers instead of working and making $$)..

Another point to note is that many ordinary apartments in smaller cities across the USA like Madison require a working income of $35K in order to be eligible with the application, even if it's just for a 1 bedroom or a studio.  Why that much, even if it's just 1 person???  Ben said that $25K was supposed to be plenty for 1 guy..  That apartment complex that you just linked to above most likely requires a $35K income, and still, there are reviews complaining that the place is a dumpster.

3.  Agreed, but from what I hear about girls (though I don't have any - just 5 boys), girls want designer clothes even more badly than boys do.  Occasionally, I catch my wife spending $25 on a friggin' t-shirt for one of my boys.  It's nuts!!!  I have a hard time dealing with this part!

4.  Same here, I only have the local channels + HBO as part of the 50/50 Verizon FIOS package for $60 a month.  Plus Netflix..  and there are Redbox booths everywhere around here.  Cell service is a bitch though, but I'm using FreedomPop for my wife + kids.  Works awesome, using Sprint's coverage - pretty much just as good as having a direct Sprint subscription, with 4G LTE covering most of the city.  How many people actually know about FreedomPop, though???  My wife's Galaxy Note 3 works with FreedomPop!!!  And they just announced support for the curved LG G Flex 2, the sexiest phone ever made (with optical rather than digital image stabilization, and with one of the fastest SoC around)!!!

https://forums.freedompop.com/discussion...12-11-2015


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2477025,00.asp





5.  No argument there, pal.    But... but... 
You and your wife work everyday, unlike the point your Dad made about working hard so your Mom can stay home..    it'd be hard if your wife had to microwave TV dinners for all of you every night (and TV dinners can cost quite a bit unless they're the unhealthy kinds).  Sorry, my bad.

[RolloTheGreat]

Rollo I hate to break it to you, but even if your employer pays for your health insurance, that's money that they could have been paying you instead had you lived in Canada.

Sick Beast, I hate to break it to you, but in the private sector employers aren't going to give everyone a raise if we get universal health care.

LOL- the employers will get the raise.

[RolloTheGreat]

5.  No argument there, pal.    But... but... 
You and your wife work everyday, unlike the point your Dad made about working hard so your Mom can stay home..    it'd be hard if your wife had to microwave TV dinners for all of you every night (and TV dinners can cost quite a bit unless they're the unhealthy kinds).  Sorry, my bad.

I'm living my dad's hope for me.

Take time off to be with him and my son most weeks of the year. Home every night, take off early to see my son's sporting events and go to all the band concerts at night.

Same with my wife, we've both turned down jobs. We live work/life balance, and work to live. (not live to work)

It's a good system. We get to live on more cash than most people, and can't really have our world turned upside down by a dismissal or be forced to take our careers in directions we don't want to go.

That is as "free" as it gets if you're not independently wealthy.

[BenSkywalker]

I'm proud to live in a country where people are progressive.

Heh, this is rich- you know almost nothing at all about political science I take it, and are woefully ignorant of actual policies in the countries you are discussing it would appear. We'll get to that though

It also helps the economy by raising funds without the need for further inflation.

Increasing the standard of living for a body of people can only be accomplished by increasing productivity. Things that are being funded that are at a lower level of productivity than the segment that originally had said funds results in a net reduction in the standard of living for people. This is economic fact.

Basically you mean that you're a bunch of greedy bastards who could care less about people less fortunate than you.

Remember, you are proud of the country you live in, your words, not mine.

To hell with all of you not job right wing hacks down there.

You have no fucking clue what right wing actually means, or you have no fucking clue what the monetary policy of your government actually is, or you are just trolling.

They think they should have it all with their $200,000/year salaries.

I make an extra ~$250 a day when I need to travel to other locations to fix operational issues. If I did that every day for an entire year I still wouldn't be *close* to $200K a year.

Everyone else should just bow down as their slaves.

Slaves huh? Remember, you are proud of your government.

Then they cry that they have to pay 2% more tax so that poor person can have health care, transit, and an affordable place to live.

And here we go

In Canada a single mom making $45K a year will pay 29% in federal income taxes.

Now, what does a lawyer making $450K a year pay? How about 9%(down from 11%!). Really-

http://behindthenumbers.ca/2015/10/02/cl...loopholes/

How about multi billion dollar corporations, try 15%-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2...tax-rates/

So your country, which you are proud of, takes almost a third of the money from the working poor while taking less then 1/6th of corporate taxes and will soon be taking less than one tenth of people making $450K a year.

Progressive?

Bill O'Reily on a week long tequila bender wouldn't be capable of defending that level of right wing extremism- the kind you are proud of.

It is not remotely close to being in the league of 'progressive'- it is *INSANELY* right wing(are you familiar with the French revolution- your nations absurd pandering to corporations and the wealthy is as close to a text book definition of right wing as we have in the post industrial age).

[BenSkywalker]

Any good parent who doesn't want their kids to hate them earning $70K/year will be pushed to the limit with 3 kids growing up as teenagers.

You have two different and completely unrelated thought threads in this statement.

First off- you sound like a Fox News trust fund baby without a clue about what people make. Luxembourg has the highest median household income in the world, and you are talking about roughly one third more than that rate and acting like it is poverty. I am not aware what type of exposure you have had to people and their handling of finances, but it sounds like you have been shown things in a *very* poor manner.

We'll start off figuring for an average rental to set our baseline-

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/us/

I'll round up and use $1K a month. Using responsible numbers for food, $650 a month for a family of 3 is more than reasonable-

http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finan...?a=viewall

Transportation costs can vary hugely, it is the one area that you are better off living in a major city in terms of overall expense. The norm is 19%, median income is ~$45K which has as run of the mill as we can get cost $712.50

We now arrive at a total of core basic costs tallying ~$2,400 a month. $28.8K a year.

$792 *per week* to cover additional expenses at $70K per year. To frame that slightly different, your scenario leaves a family with almost as much disposable income as the national median for total income. If you can't live well with a family of 3 at $70K a year, you suck with money.

Forgot to hit the second point- wealth and how good you are at being a parent are very often polar opposites. Don't ever confuse how much you spoil your children with how good of a parent you are- I say that in *NO WAY* to be demeaning, I have caught myself feeling bad because I couldn't buy my kids certain things when they were younger that they wanted, all of my children now say I should have worked less and they would have had less so I could have spent more time with them when they were younger. Seriously, that new toy probably isn't worth the time it will take away from your children. Again, not bashing you on this point in any way- I have made that mistake myself.

[RolloTheGreat]

Any good parent who doesn't want their kids to hate them earning $70K/year will be pushed to the limit with 3 kids growing up as teenagers.

You have two different and completely unrelated thought threads in this statement.

First off- you sound like a Fox News trust fund baby without a clue about what people make. Luxembourg has the highest median household income in the world, and you are talking about roughly one third more than that rate and acting like it is poverty. I am not aware what type of exposure you have had to people and their handling of finances, but it sounds like you have been shown things in a *very* poor manner.

We'll start off figuring for an average rental to set our baseline-

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/us/

I'll round up and use $1K a month. Using responsible numbers for food, $650 a month for a family of 3 is more than reasonable-

http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finan...?a=viewall

Transportation costs can vary hugely, it is the one area that you are better off living in a major city in terms of overall expense. The norm is 19%, median income is ~$45K which has as run of the mill as we can get cost $712.50

We now arrive at a total of core basic costs tallying ~$2,400 a month. $28.8K a year.

$792 *per week* to cover additional expenses at $70K per year. To frame that slightly different, your scenario leaves a family with almost as much disposable income as the national median for total income. If you can't live well with a family of 3 at $70K a year, you suck with money.

Forgot to hit the second point- wealth and how good you are at being a parent are very often polar opposites. Don't ever confuse how much you spoil your children with how good of a parent you are- I say that in *NO WAY* to be demeaning, I have caught myself feeling bad because I couldn't buy my kids certain things when they were younger that they wanted, all of my children now say I should have worked less and they would have had less so I could have spent more time with them when they were younger. Seriously, that new toy probably isn't worth the time it will take away from your children. Again, not bashing you on this point in any way- I have made that mistake myself.

I BoFox's attitudes are pretty normal for upper middle class or upper class urbanites in large cities.

I'm sure he can't imagine how a family of five could live on $70K, his house probably cost $500k and may not even be that special a house.

You're right though- a household income of $75K means you have more cash than 66% of the households in this country and a lot of families easily live on it.

Probably not like yours, mine, or BoFoxes family, but if they live in a city under 50K population it wouldn't be hard. Things just cost less. Housing, restaurants, transportation are all much cheaper in the smaller towns and cities. Nobodies kids wear Abercrombie and Fitch or whatever kids wear these days, their skateboards aren't ordered from custom builders, they probably don't all have this years hot cell phone. Different lifestyle. (in some ways probably a better one)

[SickBeast]

Ben seeing as Canadians only pay 29% tax on income over $138,586 I'm going to say that you're an idiot and you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

[SteelCrysis]

Ben seeing as Canadians only pay 29% tax on income over $138,586 I'm going to say that you're an idiot and you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

[BenSkywalker]

Ben seeing as Canadians only pay 29% tax on income over $138,586 I'm going to say that you're an idiot and you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

Heh, you do calculate taxes a bit differently and my number was wrong for personal, I was using the marginal rate on $45K for people of the lowest taxed province in Cananda which is Nunavut(due to the highest deduction). Found a tax calculator for Canada, already linked articles with the wealthy and corporate tax rates-

http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/Tax...rsonal-Tax

Still taxing the poor a higher percentage than the most wealthy, still proud?

[dmcowen674]

Still taxing the poor a higher percentage than the most wealthy, still proud?

It's that way here.
Trump acknowledged his secretary pays more in taxes than he does.

[BenSkywalker]

It's that way here.

Yes it is, not nearly as bad as the off the cliff lunatic right Canadian system, but it is more than would be believed by some.

The problem is, people don't truly have their mind around what 'rich' is. It isn't someone who makes $200k a year, that's for damn sure, they aren't close to sniffing rich. With poverty on one end of the scale, and Donald Trump on the other, his secretary is a whole hell of a lot closer to poverty than Donald, and she probably makes over $200k.

We have dumb as fuck progressives using the same tired as hell class warfare arguments that anyone that makes a dollar more then you is a dirty, greedy thief and the terribly uneducated masses lap it up. Meanwhile, a multi billion dollar corporation will shut down another major plant sending tens of thousands of jobs to China while the progtards have their pitchforks out for people making 1% of those that sent those jobs overseas are compensated.

Reducing the available disposable income for those most apt to spend it is just stupid in our current economy. The "progressives" have set up a system where people pay more in taxes then corporations sitting on, in at least one case, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of profits they have laying around. Companies that employ hundreds of thousands of Chinese people in what amounts to slave labor camps, while employing a couple thousand Americans. The "progressive" way of dealing with it? Tax the few employees they do have here through the roof. Because, you know, all of their salaries combined in totality don't touch a weeks profits for the company- but the "progressives" are nothing but little blow up dolls that multi billion dollar corporations use at will.

The Democrats and Republicans scream across the aisle at each others' extremism, while being less then 1% off in almost everything.

[SickBeast]

Holy cow Ben, what are you trying to compare? Someone making $45K with someone self employed making $200K? Of course the self employed person will be able to write a bunch of stuff off and pay less tax! It's that way everywhere! It drives me crazy too but it by no means makes your point valid. For people who work for regular employers, we have a far more progressive taxation system than what you guys have in the USA.

IMO there should not be any loopholes in our taxation systems. They also need to find a way to clamp down on all the overseas investments in places like the Island of Man and the Cayman Islands. It's not fair.

[BenSkywalker]

Of course the self employed person will be able to write a bunch of stuff off and pay less tax! It's that way everywhere!

No, it isn't like that everywhere. Your country is dropping the tax *rate* on people filing that way from 11% to 9%- that's what they are paying on their profits. Forget write offs, they are paying *half* the *rate* that the working poor are, and personally I don't consider that the most extreme right wing thing you are doing with your tax rate.

Multi billion dollar corporations in Canada are paying a 15% tax rate- in the US that number is 39%- well over *double* and certainly a *much* higher percentage than the working poor.

For people who work for regular employers, we have a far more progressive taxation system than what you guys have in the USA.

Actually, you have a regressive system for the true wealth in your country. The multi billion dollar corporations pay less in taxes than the working poor- that is disgusting. They ship those good middle class jobs overseas, your government thanks them by letting them keep more of their money. But, you are parroting the class warfare your ideological camp feeds you to keep you happy with it.

$45,000
$200,000
$2,000,000,000

And the lowest number pays the highest percentage. No, in the US that doesn't happen.

http://fortune.com/2014/11/21/the-five-c...tax-rates/

The true wealth, the people responsible for the shrinking middle class, is being supported by your attitude which is the same as most who identify as 'progressive'. Focus on the guy making slightly more than you and ignore the company that is actively killing the middle class.

For the record, due to the way your country works, Rollo and I could form a "business" swap from salary employees of a corporation to contract workers and immediately end up with ~20% more money in our pockets. Stop focusing on people with slightly more money then you, focus on where the real problem is. Yes, you will no longer be considered 'progressive'- you would fall under the category of 'conscious'.

[SickBeast]

I realize that our corporate tax rate is lower however I was under the impression that the lower rate makes Canada more attractive to corporations which is good for jobs. I could be wrong. I'm not a fan of corporations. There is no arguing that our personal taxes are more progressive though. Not only that, but we pay similar tax compared to the US and we get way more services for our money. You guys blow all your money on the military. It's crazy. Like you said, you have double the corporate tax rate. What do you have to show for it? A bigger army? I care more about my heath and affordable education.

[RolloTheGreat]

I realize that our corporate tax rate is lower however I was under the impression that the lower rate makes Canada more attractive to corporations which is good for jobs.  I could be wrong.  I'm not a fan of corporations.  There is no arguing that our personal taxes are more progressive though.  Not only that, but we pay similar tax compared to the US and we get way more services for our money.  You guys blow all your money on the military.  It's crazy.  Like you said, you have double the corporate tax rate.  What do you have to show for it?  A bigger army?  I care more about my heath and affordable education.

Its easy for you to do so in the shadow of our army's protection.

Not a fan of corporations? Who do you think pays the salaries that provide your tax base, and salary by extension?
Lemonade stands and paper boys?

[ocre]

I realize that our corporate tax rate is lower however I was under the impression that the lower rate makes Canada more attractive to corporations which is good for jobs.  I could be wrong.  I'm not a fan of corporations.  There is no arguing that our personal taxes are more progressive though.  Not only that, but we pay similar tax compared to the US and we get way more services for our money.  You guys blow all your money on the military.  It's crazy.  Like you said, you have double the corporate tax rate.  What do you have to show for it?  A bigger army?  I care more about my heath and affordable education.

Actually, Ben contributed an eye opener. Please pay attention.

There is a lot of debating going on here in the USA and a hell of a lot more energy put into propaganda to push these agendas. That propaganda and those efforts spill over into other countries like yours. It is really easy to get fooled and misled.

See, your country is not involved in this kind of debate. There is not the intensity nor the effort. That does not mean that things are perfect. They are not and there really is no perfect way that pleases everyone completely.

In the USA, there is tremendous turmoil and clashing of ideas. But, honestly.....this is not something new. It's been very useful and a driving force. Some of these great battles are petty, some are revolutionary.

Our country is far from perfect but it is not near as bad as you may think. Of course your country would have you believe things are so much better there. Surely you can understand why. But not everyone there is so happy.

I can also tell you, there are very very proud Americans too. You may not see that on our news outlets, those are just used as propaganda megaphones to spread and smear big ideas. But generally, it is not this terrible place. Far from it. We have a lot of turmoil and have divided ideas, but that is what this country is founded on.

[dmcowen674]

Ben is acknowledging the problem but pointing the finger at the wrong guilty party.

[SteelCrysis]

Ben is acknowledging the problem but pointing the finger at the wrong guilty party.

That's a record for him. Most of the time, he can't even manage to acknowledge the problem.

[RolloTheGreat]

Ben is acknowledging the problem but pointing the finger at the wrong guilty party.

No, he is correct.

Taxation/govt is not the answer to prosperity as government is an expense in an economic system, not a source of wealth, fix for the trade deficit, or self sustaining.

He's also correct that taking disposable income from people that have "more than enough" in the redistributionist's words hurts the economy. Close to home example: In the last three years, I have purchased two full size trucks, a sports car, and a 150hp boat made by American firms, all new off the lot. No car replaced had more than 70K miles on it, the boat replaced was five years old, so I didn't "need" new vehicles. If the government was taking half our income I would never do that, and that would have been $130K the government would have spent on some slackers rather than supporting American jobs. (not the yachts Ben mentioned, but the same principle on a lower scale)

Remember when Obama did that Social Security tax cut? I went out and bought new appliances for the kitchen, again American company. (GE)

When you raise taxes on people with money to spend, they don't spend it. When you give money to broke people, they get a haircut and a six pack. There is no doubt that when you redistribute income to the broke they spend every cent, but they don't spend it on things that cost much and those sectors suffer.

When we made $55K a year household income 20 years ago we bought used cars (no money to American workers) and a used boat (no money to American workers) Now we buy new cars when they get to 60-70k miles and provide good used cars for the people who can't afford new cars and buy the goods of American companies helping to keep them working.

That's how the economy should work, not "Hate to say it, but you guys have figured out how to make a decent living. You get to support a bunch of slackers now."

That's not "progressive", that's a crazy hobo wet dream.

[BoFox]

No way to avoid taxes.  That's the way of life.  ;-P

As to the hobo wet dream - yeah, subsidize the factory workers as well (like with the farmers being subsidized), rather than handing out food stamps for free to a perfectly capable 25-year old who screwed up with drugs instead of graduating from high school and isn't even trying to make up with some kind of vocational rehabilitation.  Subsidize all would-be laid-off middle aged workers, greatly discouraging companies from doing any further lay-offs here in America (close to the point of actually preventing further migration of jobs to overseas sources).  

Forgot to hit the second point- wealth and how good you are at being a parent are very often polar opposites. Don't ever confuse how much you spoil your children with how good of a parent you are- I say that in *NO WAY* to be demeaning, I have caught myself feeling bad because I couldn't buy my kids certain things when they were younger that they wanted, all of my children now say I should have worked less and they would have had less so I could have spent more time with them when they were younger. Seriously, that new toy probably isn't worth the time it will take away from your children. Again, not bashing you on this point in any way- I have made that mistake myself.

Nicely pointed out - agreed.  Hats off to that.

Using responsible numbers for food, $650 a month for a family of 3 is more than reasonable-

A family of 3 kids (as that was what I was talking about as you quoted from me in that post, unless you started thinking of a family of just 3)?  I dare you to live on that budget for just one month.  It's certainly do-able, but not easy, and not that healthy.  Gwyneth Paltrow thought that she could manage to survive on food stamps for a week, and carefully worked out a budget.  Yet, she miserably failed just 4 days in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...r-days-in/

She just doesn't know how to eat UN-healthy like those who have to live off crackers and peanut butter.  And this isn't how I would want to feed my kids unless we could barely afford living in a trailer (double-wide would be necessary with 3+ kids), for $600/mo in the redneck part of the woods.

If you can't live well with a family of 3 at $70K a year, you suck with money.

Again, I assume you meant with 3 kids.  I could definitely live well like you did in the year 2000, with that Playstation 2 that you bought for $300 (while I get to buy it for $10 from a thrift store today).  We just have to wait 5-15 years to get our hands on anything that came out (like with that new Star Wars movie at the theater, or that minivan with 250K miles for $1000 instead of $40000 brand new and hope it runs fine for 2 years without breaking down).  Financial comfortability just isn't there with that income, with a haircut costing $20 (or $15 at the cheapest for that crap haircut) - unless you do absolutely everything at home including washing cloth diapers, pulling out that abscessed tooth using pliers, etc.

Pretty much everybody in a 2nd world country like Mexico (let alone a 3rd world country) would feel rich with a $70K income, even with 10 kids, but that's because a fine burger (with 1/2 pound beef) cost $1 at their local restaurants rather than $10+ at restaurants around here, and a haircut cost 50 cents rather than $20.  Much of the same stuff here just cost an arm and a leg, even at Walmart or Target where the cheapest bottle of shampoo cost $5 (for a large bottle of crap shampoo, that is).  In Mexico, a bundle of 4 bottles of pretty much the same thing would go for $1.  

Car insurance is another thing entirely.  Rates are actually higher for poorer people.  And in big cities, rates actually double or quadruple.  Want a car in Brooklyn, but got rear-ended a few years ago which wasn't even your fault?  The price is $350-400/mo just for minimum required coverage no matter the car.  

What sucks about this in America is that it's NOT easy for the kids' future if they do not get support from elsewhere like college pell grant and scholarships, without forcing kids to take out a massive student loan against themselves if they want a serious college degree.  

Just don't make the same assumption Gwyneth Paltrow did.  Take the challenge yourself for 1 month or even 1 week - and see how easy (or hard) it actually is (if your have 6 kids still in your household, just multiply $70K income by 8/5).  I have many family relatives who seriously struggle - one of my cousins with an $80K income is still struggling in Texas, but finally able to START paying off the loans at last.    

Sickbeast, you still don't think it's easy with your income, even though you have a nice pension - having to rent out the basement and all?  Of course you're middle class, as you're able to take your family on a cruise to the Caribbean, but do you think a $70K salary alone is EASY for a family with 3 kids in the US/Canada? I think it's a considerate financial challenge just to manage a comfortable level of living - else, the wife/mother would feel forced to take on a full-time job as well - even if it means daycare... DAYCARE, baby, DAYCARE FOR THE POOR KIDS!!

P.S. - By "poor", I meant "lower class" - just a matter of semantics.

[BenSkywalker]

I realize that our corporate tax rate is lower however I was under the impression that the lower rate makes Canada more attractive to corporations which is good for jobs.

It absolutely does work like that. Hmmm, take a side bar with me real quick

You are working with a normal family making ~$70K a year and doing OK. You save what you can when you are younger, and increase that amount when the kids are grown. Over the years you have invested a sizable portion of your retirement savings into Ford motor company because they are a sturdy stock and you want long term stability with growth over time. It's closing in on your retirement age, you have about $400K in total valuation with your Ford holdings, not a huge amount but over the course of four decades of saving you did pretty well with it. It slightly edges out the $350K your broader holdings have amounted to.

Now Ford goes and hires a new hotshot CEO, some young wunderkind that proposes a new corporate restructure that if passed will trigger a massive increase in your holdings, the analysts are projecting your $400K will be worth $1.6Million putting your retirement savings up to almost $2Million. What's more, part of the restructuring will be moving their headquarters from just outside of Detroit to just outside of Toronto(a fucking *HUGE* upgrade) meaning that your government will now be gaining additional *billions* in tax revenue every year along with a *lot* of high paying jobs due to the new influx of high ranking executives.

You feeling good about? All on board?

See the new CEO's restructuring plan is to shut down every single manufacturing plant in North America and move all the jobs to China saving a metric ton on labor costs plus removing some of the more obtuse regulations they have to deal with on a regular basis. They are closing up shop in Detroit and moving to Toronto as they realized the obvious benefits of a significantly lower tax rate that would allow them to pay out far greater returns to their share holders.

So you end up in what most people consider 'rich' territory along with a lot of other people, your government picks up a shit ton of cash and your nation gains a reasonable chunk of high paying employees.

Yeah, over a quarter of a million jobs(Fords suppliers all went under of course)- all of them at least reasonable paying middle class jobs, left for cheaper continents- but who can you blame?

Now in that scenario the CEO did his job to the letter. He took care of his share holders- you have the money to buy that dream house you and your wife have been longing for since you first got together. Your grandson who is looking to go to MIT and has the brains and grades to make it happen will now be able to afford it. You have your health, your family, and now you have the funds to do the things you always wanted to.

I have a few different points with this side story- one is that oft times what can come across as utterly cruel actions by a corporation are the ones that they are supposed to do based on their duty to shareholders. That frequently leaves us with a bitter taste in our mouths, but what if *only* the poor owned stock in that company, would it be OK then?

Second point would be to ask you exactly how you felt about the situation? Now my example is extreme, but in reality that's only because I hit pause on current realities and then jumped ahead 40 years to the point we are heading to. Clearly this wouldn't happen all at once, but we *never* hear about jobs coming *back* from second or third world countries. You yourself make out in this example, and make out quite well, you are able to benefit your family considerably while you yourself have done nothing to harm anyone.

This brings me to my third point. We are in a globalized economy and an information age- why the fuck are we still using the same sort of tax constructs that were brought into popularity before the telephone had been invented? This to me is utterly idiotic. I slammed your side of the aisle because you guys attacked me from the left, if Rollo had come at me from the right I would have done the same to the US Republican platform. The biggest difference to me when dealing with ideologues from either leaning is at least the right doesn't try to act like they are out fighting the good fight for the poor. The left wants to position themselves as both intellectually and morally superior, with nothing to give them a leg to stand on outside of rhetoric.

Not only that, but we pay similar tax compared to the US and we get way more services for our money.

That is another avenue I could get very deep into, the lack of production for the dollars the government is spending. Let's say the US government doing *ANYTHING* with money involves massive costs that simple don't exist in any other part of the real world. To drive home that point-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

You spend 41.9% of your GDP on your budget, we spend 41.6%. You are correct, ours doesn't cover health care for every person(although medicare/medicaid do cover a hell of a lot).

There is no arguing that our personal taxes are more progressive though.

Yeah but no Our top personal tax rate is 39%- 10% raw higher than yours(~30% relative). You guys just have a lot of other taxes that we don't on a national level. Your financial system is promoted as progressive, but it really isn't. In no way am I saying that ours is, but our politicians don't even try to act like it is most of the time.

Ben is acknowledging the problem but pointing the finger at the wrong guilty party.

Who isn't guilty is the real question. I was attacked from the left, I go after that. If Rollo attacked me from the right I could launch into what they have done to help get us to where we are- for the record Rollo- I'm going to slaughter them on spending habits *HARD* as that is their biggest hypocrisy(much as the lefts ignorant class warfare is their's).

BoFox- yeah, I was figuring for a family of three while you clearly said three kids, I'll post later with that breakdown, honestly I'm just tired as hell right now

[RolloTheGreat]

 I think it's a considerate financial challenge just to manage a comfortable level of living - else, the wife/mother would feel forced to take on a full-time job as well - even if it means daycare...  DAYCARE, baby, DAYCARE FOR THE POOR KIDS!!

So much wrong in all that but I'll pick a few.

1. All daycare is not equal. Mine was a college grad woman in my neighborhood who played on my volleyball team. She watched a couple kids to earn some extra bucks. My son doesn't seem scarred by it, honor roll every term, confirmed in his church, plays multiple instruments, has played all the sports, and I couldn't get him to give me Christmas ideas this year because he said he has everything he ever wanted.

2. Some women actually (gasp) choose to work. My wife enjoys her job, has two months a year paid time off, flexible hours, can work from home, is a valued manager who makes good money. Once when I was offered a job for more money she straight out told me no matter how much I make, she will continue in her career. (and she just old me that no matter when I retire or how much we have she plans to work until 65 because she finds it fulfilling and has enough free time to enjoy life as well) Not every working mom is getting told "Get me my damn coffee" over a luncheon counter, women actually succeed in these modern times.

3. The sticks are not as bad as you think. I'd note Washington DC has the highest crime rate in the country. Wouldn't live or work there for $1m a year. Something to be said for safety and not being around urban crime and expense.

4. No family living on 70K is going to be paying daycare by choice, it costs too much for 3 kids to be cost effective. They'd have to work different shifts or use family.

5. There is no $1000 car constraint. I linked to a car with 20K miles and the remainder of a 5 year/100K warranty for $200/mo- easily affordable on that level of income.

I think you're just to used to urban ways to know or understand how very much cheaper it is iin the rest of the country.

[SickBeast]

You can't survive on $70K where I live with 3 kids. Not even close. My wife and I make considerably more than that and we just eek by by the time we have paid for everything. Rollo you're forgetting things like student debt. Plus there are always unexpected expenses that crop up, particularly when you own your own home.

Just as an example of a couple of my bills, I pay over $1300/month for daycare for 2 kids, plus I try to pay at least $500/month toward my student loans. That's a really huge chunk of my after tax income right there. Plus I pay for the car and all the related expenses along with several other bills (internet, TV, cellphone). My wife covers the cost of the house and the electric/water/gas bills. By the time we pay for food and everything else we have very little money left over (if any).

I would say that yes, you could live off that if you don't live in the city, but let's face it, the big cities are where most of the good jobs are and it's where most people who make a decent living are going to live.

[RolloTheGreat]

You can't survive on $70K where I live with 3 kids.  Not even close.  My wife and I make considerably more than that and we just eek by by the time we have paid for everything.  Rollo you're forgetting things like student debt.  Plus there are always unexpected expenses that crop up, particularly when you own your own home.

Just as an example of a couple of my bills, I pay over $1300/month for daycare for 2 kids, plus I try to pay at least $500/month toward my student loans.  That's a really huge chunk of my after tax income right there.  Plus I pay for the car and all the related expenses along with several other bills (internet, TV, cellphone).  My wife covers the cost of the house and the electric/water/gas bills.  By the time we pay for food and everything else we have very little money left over (if any).

I would say that yes, you could live off that if you don't live in the city, but let's face it, the big cities are where most of the good jobs are and it's where most people who make a decent living are going to live.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhome...6985-92518

A $339,000 house in Washington DC

http://www.firstweber.com/homes/1505686_...r-WI-54467

A $339,000 house in Plover, WI

Starting to see why what you guys think of as "reality" just isn't everywhere?

There's no doubt a family of five living on $70K gross is decidedly middle class. There's also no doubt it can be done without resorting to eating government cheese and driving $1000 beaters.

Those people may miss out on going to Disney or the Carribean, but I'd also argue they need to less because where they live is so much more relaxing and aesthetically pleasing than the cities.

[dmcowen674]

You can't survive on $70K where I live with 3 kids. Not even close. Plus there are always unexpected expenses that crop up, particularly when you own your own home.

By the time we pay for food and everything else we have very little money left over (if any).

debi and I survive solely on my check to check on half of that. More than half goes to rent.

[RolloTheGreat]

You can't survive on $70K where I live with 3 kids.  Not even close.  Plus there are always unexpected expenses that crop up, particularly when you own your own home.

By the time we pay for food and everything else we have very little money left over (if any).

debi and I survive solely on my check to check on half of that. More than half goes to rent.

It's impossible to live on that, I read it on teh intarwebz.

I'm sure the people who live on $100K cant imagine anyone living on $50K, the people who live on $200K can't imagine living on $100K, etc.

Just human nature.

[dmcowen674]

Well after the first of the year I have to look into a 2nd job. We have no cushion and been that way for too long, should anything happen we are out on the street.

I'm going to see if I can get a part time job at one of the many Indy 500 shops that surround us here. I used to like working on cars.

[BoFox]

 I think it's a considerate financial challenge just to manage a comfortable level of living - else, the wife/mother would feel forced to take on a full-time job as well - even if it means daycare...  DAYCARE, baby, DAYCARE FOR THE POOR KIDS!!

So much wrong in all that but I'll pick a few.

1. All daycare is not equal. Mine was a college grad woman in my neighborhood who played on my volleyball team. She watched a couple kids to earn some extra bucks. My son doesn't seem scarred by it, honor roll every term, confirmed in his church, plays multiple instruments, has played all the sports, and I couldn't get him to give me Christmas ideas this year because he said he has everything he ever wanted.

2. Some women actually (gasp) choose to work. My wife enjoys her job, has two months a year paid time off, flexible hours, can work from home, is a valued manager who makes good money. Once when I was offered a job for more money she straight out told me no matter how much I make, she will continue in her career. (and she just old me that no matter when I retire or how much we have she plans to work until 65 because she finds it fulfilling and has enough free time to enjoy life as well) Not every working mom is getting told "Get me my damn coffee" over a luncheon counter, women actually succeed in these modern times.

3. The sticks are not as bad as you think. I'd note Washington DC has the highest crime rate in the country. Wouldn't live or work there for $1m a year. Something to be said for safety and not being around urban crime and expense.

4. No family living on 70K is going to be paying daycare by choice, it costs too much for 3 kids to be cost effective. They'd have to work different shifts or use family.

5. There is no $1000 car constraint. I linked to a car with 20K miles and the remainder of a 5 year/100K warranty for $200/mo- easily affordable on that level of income.

I think you're just to used to urban ways to know or understand how very much cheaper it is iin the rest of the country.

5) It all depends - if the parents already have bad credit (due to student loans, or having to depend on credit cards just to pay the bills during hard times or when moving, etc.), then they would have to settle for a used car for sale in the personal ads without any financing.  Some car dealers allow for direct deduction from work paychecks, but the fees/interest rates are probably a rip-off. 

2)  LOL, some women just want to rule with their own career, ha.  Maybe she makes more $ than you?  

4)  You got me there, but you're saying $70K ain't enough for daycare with 3 kids.  Maybe if 1 or 2 are old enough to stay at home..  or different shifts/family help like you said.

Think DC is hard?  Try NYC (anywhere on Long Island, including Queens and Brooklyn).  The average median income of the US would hardly suffice for a "middle class" standard of living on that island, even if having only 1 kid.  One of my friends just moved the hell out of Brooklyn, to Cincinnati, and it's night-and-day for them.  

Luckly, I don't live inside of DC.  I live about 19 miles from the White House, in a sweet spot that's just the right mix of city and suburb - and it's an upscale area as well.  It's within walking distance of downtown of the city that rocks (in Montgomery County).  There are thousands of restaurants in this county alone, it's staggering just to choose where to drool at next.  Yet, so many of them are considerably more expensive than say, Madison, Wisc. 

And no, LOL - my home isn't a slum like that one in DC!  It has a double wooden deck in the back, with the top deck covering about 1000 sq. feet overlooking a forest preserve that runs down my back yard, with massive towering trees about 120-130 feet tall everywhere right above the deck (lots of leaves in the fall, lol).  There are so many parks and forest preserves everywhere around here.  There's a stream down there about 200 feet from my house and I can walk on a number of trails from there for miles in different directions - even all the way to DC down Rock Creek, from a different park, although it starts to get a bit "urban" in some places with lots of joggers and cyclists).  We have 2 walk-in closets, our master bathroom has a gigantic jacuzzi tub - and the house is in a very quiet neighborhood with some of the best schools in the country. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...tates.aspx
HOWEVER-
This one shines some insight:

Perhaps, instead, the capital's egalitarian distribution of wealth should be admired, especially at a time when income inequality nationwide is at levels not seen since the 1920s. Or maybe we should just run the town like a corporation by paying President Obama $400 million per year, giving multi-million dollar bonuses to representatives for passing bills, and trimming government salaries accordingly. Then the region's median income would plummet, and no one would have cause to complain anymore about Washington's riches.

https://newrepublic.com/article/112591/w...a-actually

The cost of living has been pushed up quite a bit in this area, thanks to the median (of millions of residents) being so high.  That's why $80K feels a bit "lower class" here - there's just too many damn nice restaurants everywhere that it's depressing to have to choose from the dollar menu at McDonald's, lol.

The DC metro area is a particular one - just draw a straight vertical line down the middle of the entire metro area and you get the idea.  East (about 20-25 mile radius or so) is lower-income blue-collar working class while the entire West (50+ mile radius) is largely ~$85-120K median household income. 

I really like this place here.  The middle class hovers around at $90+K (thanks in part to higher local wages), and many of us are happy here (despite the traffic, more of a crowded feel each year due to rapid population growth.  Crime is quite low in the Western half of the DC metro (and VERY low in my area).  Things cost the same at Walmart/Target/etc. (and pretty much the same at McDonald's, Taco Bell, and any other fast food restaurants) as the rest of the country, so these "standard store/restaurant prices" do not bite quite as much as they do for the poorer folks living in say, Knoxville, Tennessee with 4 kids, with an income of $45K.

New York City (Manhattan) sucks with the filthy rich snobs.  Some places around here suck in the same way.  When I drive just 2-3 miles down from my home to Montrose/Bethesda or west into Potomac, MD, I cannot help but notice a sudden change in the way people drive (rich people driving like selfish assholes, ALWAYS treating their own time like money in their wallet).  They might be rich, driving Audi R8's and 911 Turbo's - occasionally Lamborghinis and Ferraris, but they don't LOOK like happy people.  The middle class folks here LOOK happier than them.  


All that aside --- a lot of it depends on the individual and the family in particular (loans to pay off, bad or no credit, wise management and budgeting - avoiding living above one's own means, ability to save/invest in a mortgage, etc.. etc...).  No one individual/family is the same.

Lots of people are poor, and yet ironically happier than most of the rich people.  We all know that song too well.  It's just more of a financial struggle than ever to live with the financial comfort of the middle class of the 1950's, with today's national average median income (even in many of the rural areas) -- whereas Jimmy Carter said:
"Today’s middle class was my administration’s poverty level"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08...62816.html

Yes, quality food is EXPENSIVE in America.  Too many middlemen and grocery corporations and greedy farmers clawing in every penny they can, with little regard for the majority of Americans....   a lobster costs $1 at that fishing village in Maine, but costs $12 on average anywhere else, because the CEO's need up to $9 from each lobster for their own private jets.

[BoFox]

We are in a globalized economy and an information age- why the fuck are we still using the same sort of tax constructs that were brought into popularity before the telephone had been invented?

Capitalism unfettered in too many subtle ways.
Capitalism -- unfair and unbalanced.
Rollo for showing how it's done in Madison - fair and balanced, I hope.
Here America is, still trying to figure out how to tame capitalism that we once so proudly supported, in spite of the proverbial walls around our fortress quickly crumbling, face down to the sleazy adulteress:  Capitalist Globalization.