The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Middle-income households – those with an income that is two-thirds to double the U.S. median household income – had incomes ranging from about $45,200 to $135,600 in 2016.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-middle-class/

We don't know the specifics in each case, but the 83K to 150K ranges cited by the article SR cited are somewhat above the definition of middle class you cite. Even the ranges you cite are way above what I consider to be middle class. It may not be wealthy, but they're doing far better than most.

But you just go right on believing the raw BS the TDS infected media keep telling you.

[SoulReaver]

We don't know the specifics in each case, but the 83K to 150K ranges cited by the article SR cited are somewhat above the definition of middle class you cite. Even the ranges you cite are way above what I consider to be middle class. It may not be wealthy, but they're doing far better than most.

But you just go right on believing the raw BS the TDS infected media keep telling you.

make it 45K for the lower range if you read the twitter feeds

or lemme guess private citizens testifying on twitter don't count either?
what should they do? grab a loudspeaker & shout it in public?

[Gatefan1976]

You funny, dude.







These aren't middle class folks you're talking about. Single with income of 83K, married with income of 150K are definitely what I consider to be very well off indeed. The one guy's talking about REFUNDS of 5K. That's 3-4 times my entire federal tax liability. It's also a good bet that he had been using a number of deductions to shield his income from taxation.

Don't even try to tell me that this is hitting middle class. These folks are way over that level. And I thought you wanted to tax the upper classes?

Or is this more of the same crap; if Trump did it, it must be bad? Stop listening to the MSM and you might learn something.

And the first example, while they don't give an income level, they do refer to the removal of the federal deduction for state taxes. How much you want to bet that guy lives in a high-tax hellhole like NY? That's the fault of the state he lives in, not the feds.

it's not the 60's anymore. Anything less than 50-70k for a job is lower income, not middle class.
the "upper class" takes home over a MILLION dollars per year on one salary, and they are the ones people want to see get taxed more.

[Gatefan1976]

make it 45K for the lower range if you read the twitter feeds

or lemme guess private citizens testifying on twitter don't count either?
what should they do? grab a loudspeaker & shout it in public?

Then they would be snowflake democrat SOCIALISTS!!!

[Chaka-Z0]

We don't know the specifics in each case, but the 83K to 150K ranges cited by the article SR cited are somewhat above the definition of middle class you cite. Even the ranges you cite are way above what I consider to be middle class. It may not be wealthy, but they're doing far better than most.

But you just go right on believing the raw BS the TDS infected media keep telling you.

I think you don't understand how important the cleavage is between rich and poor people in the US. Fact is the ditch is getting bigger every year, and the middle class is slowly dwindling in the US. Let's compare with Canada, your closest neighbor.

This is the third release of data from the National Household Survey (NHS). Roughly 4.5 million households across Canada were selected for the NHS, representing about one-third of all households. (Source)

The top 10% of Canadians made an average income of $134,900, with the top 5% making one third more ($179,800) and the top 1% almost triple that amount ($381,300). Meanwhile, the bottom 90% had an average income of $28,000.

This article on the US actually references the PEW report stats I provided in my previous post:

The most interesting part of the 2015 Pew report, though, was its finding that the middle class is decreasing not only because more people are poor, but also because more people are rich. The percentage of lowest-income earners, those earning less than two-thirds of the median income, had grown 4 percentage points – from 16% to 20% of the population. At the same time, though, the percentage of Americans in the very highest-income households also rose – 5 points since 1971, taking that group from 4% to 9% of the population. The bottom line: The shrinking middle class is less a decline in how well the population as a whole is doing and more of a polarization of where growth is coming: at the extreme bottom and top of the economic spectrum.

So basically, more people are getting poor and more people are getting rich simultaneously. What does that tell you Annoyed? Is your POTUS doing something wrong? How do you explain this tangent? Fact is Trump is killing the middle class with his butched fiscal incentives, which as reported by COUNTLESS people, made them in fact pay MORE in taxes than before. They were lied to.

FYI: I don't want to get into the specifics, and I can't either because I don't have access to anybody's financial informations, but I would wager that those who say **Hey it worked I got a refund! GJ trump!** in fact don't understand where that money is coming from. Previous years have impacts, investments can have impacts, reporting revenues, marital status, etc. SO many elements can affect your annual tax report that it can give the illusion that you're saving tax money.

Trump reform could've worked, but it wasn't built for the imaginary middle class of the US. All the deductions he removed have much more effect on folks who have lower income than having a lower tax rate, this is what most people don't get.

*edit: Sry for long post.

[Annoyed]

So basically, more people are getting poor and more people are getting rich simultaneously. What does that tell you Annoyed? Is your POTUS doing something wrong? How do you explain this tangent? Fact is Trump is killing the middle class with his butched fiscal incentives, which as reported by COUNTLESS people, made them in fact pay MORE in taxes than before. They were lied to.

And how long has this trend been ongoing? 50+ years? And that's Trump's fault?

[Chaka-Z0]

And how long has this trend been ongoing? 50+ years? And that's Trump's fault?

A while, yea something like that. I'm not saying it's Trump's fault, obviously, it's a systemic problem. What I am saying, is that his tax reform to supposedly help the middle class is absolute BS. Either he commandeered this reform or he truly has incompetent financial advisers. He's no the cause, but he's not helping either.

That being said, the most logical explanation is the Corps getting a cookie since the Republicants are knee deep into corporate shenanigans, and all that being masqueraded as being beneficial for the middle class.

At least now some Trump cultists are seeing reason, and are not happy with this reform. They were betrayed by their God.

[Gatefan1976]

And how long has this trend been ongoing? 50+ years? And that's Trump's fault?

Trump is getting blamed for a nail, not the coffin.
But sure, it's a cheap deflection, I'm sure you will run with it.

[SoulReaver]

And how long has this trend been ongoing? 50+ years? And that's Trump's fault?

no it's not a corporate billionaire's fault for being elected on a campaign promise to fix it & instead making it worse than ever

[Annoyed]

A while, yea something like that. I'm not saying it's Trump's fault, obviously, it's a systemic problem. What I am saying, is that his tax reform to supposedly help the middle class is absolute BS. Either he commandeered this reform or he truly has incompetent financial advisers. He's no the cause, but he's not helping either.

That being said, the most logical explanation is the Corps getting a cookie since the Republicants are knee deep into corporate shenanigans, and all that being masqueraded as being beneficial for the middle class.

At least now some Trump cultists are seeing reason, and are not happy with this reform. They were betrayed by their God.

You are right, it's a systemic problem, and the system is human nature.
capitalism, socialism, communism or whatever ism you want, the people on the top get better and better deals, and the people on the bottom get worse and worse deals. The difference is how the people on top and on the bottom are selected.
Under capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

You, me, the man in the moon nor anyone else can't stop this. All you can do is make the best of it.

The people at the top make the rules, and no question, they stack the deck in their favor.

Liberals want to "make them pay" in order to finance all sorts of impossible schemes to help those on the bottom. Such as the Kindergartner's idea to provide for people who don't want to work.

But remember, the people at the top make the rules, and they're NEVER, EVER going to set things up so they actually have to pay the bill. So the working stiff ends up paying for it, one way or another. That can't be changed.

So the best approach for the working stiff is to muddle their way through as best they can, ignoring the people on the top as much as possible. But they don't need to bear the burden of everyone else, either.

[Chaka-Z0]

Nice pessimist speech but I won't be fooled that easily. Do you really believe this tax reform is good for the middle class? Just admit it's ****, I heard he's probably going to change it also. Can't you see he's playing you?

That's like being shat on and thanking the guy for it, asking for more.

[Annoyed]

Nice pessimist speech but I won't be fooled that easily. Do you really believe this tax reform is good for the middle class? Just admit it's ****, I heard he's probably going to change it also. Can't you see he's playing you?

That's like being shat on and thanking the guy for it, asking for more.

I'm definitely lower middle class, and his tax reform and other policies have been good for me.
I will give you two examples of how.

1: As a direct result of tax reform, my federal tax bill has gone down significantly.
2: As a result of his economic policies, employment is at record highs and unemployment is at record lows. As a result of that, my own employer has increased wages in order to prevent myself and others from seeking jobs elsewhere.

How can you argue with that? How can you possibly expect me to have a different opinion?

I've said this before. Do you just ignore the facts because some talking head on the TV tells you otherwise?

[Chaka-Z0]

I don't watch tv, and if I do it's definitely not talk shows and or political debates. Only series and movies.

I guess we'll have to wait for the final results, fine I'll take your word that it's beneficial for you, but I'm quite certain that a majority of middle class Americans won't benefit from that reform . More specifically families/couples which have higher income per households.

[jelgate]

Me thinks you are trying to find patterns where their isn't one

[SoulReaver]

I guess we'll have to wait for the final results, fine I'll take your word that it's beneficial for you, but I'm quite certain that a majority of middle class Americans won't benefit from that reform .

exactly - and that's what counts