| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
middle class...
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... |
middle class...
On 10/2/2014 8:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I'll have to work on figuring out what you are saying. Went over my head. |
middle class...
On 10/2/2014 9:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2014 8:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I'll have to work on figuring out what you are saying. Went over my head. Just wondering where the bar is. Several here have noted that they are in the "middle class" but I am not sure we are all on the same page as to what is "middle class". Most rich folks I have known claim to be "middle class", but I am pretty sure their def is different than mine. So for the sake of conversation, when I say "middle class" I am not referring to folks who made 6 figures during their working years... I am talking about folks who are making between say, 40-80 in general upper middle class might get you up to 100,000 a year. Of course there is always the exceptions like NYC, etc... |
middle class...
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:53:45 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I'll have to work on figuring out what you are saying. Went over my head. That figures...since you are a dumbass. |
middle class...
|
middle class...
|
middle class...
On 10/2/14 2:42 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/2/2014 1:06 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:25:07 -0400, KC wrote: On 10/2/2014 11:10 AM, wrote: I whole lot depends on where you live. Even the government civil service has established salary corridors acknowledging that it costs more to live the same in different places. A family that is middle class in Southwest Florida would be close to the poverty line in Hawaii and they would be doing great in Tennessee. I am also not sure I agree with Ruben's definition of middle class but I really do not agree with much that asshole says anyway. He was one of the architects, along with Summers and Greenspan, of Clinton's bank deregulation that almost brought down the financial system in 2009 . I think I would say middle class is the median wage, down 25% and up 50% weighted by the cost of living where you are. By Ruben's measure the lower end of middle class is on public assistance. Yeah, I noted NYC, and I know Hawaii is a bit of an oddity but if you live in NYC and make 130 and are still struggling to maintain a "middle class" lifestyle, maybe you "sacrifice a little", move out of the city 20 miles, buy a car and live like a king... :) I can't think of anywhere 20 miles from NYC that I would live. They almost had me up state, around Kingston but it was very lucrative job and I was looking at a real nice rural lot. I lived across the river from Endicott for a while but I turned down that job too. I was also offered Atlanta, Raleigh, Charlotte and Tucson. My ex wasn't interested in moving and if I was going to deal with that, I decided I would go for sunshine. She is still there, I am here. Well, then it sounds like you wouldn't be the guy I am talking about that lives in the city at 130 a year and struggles.... like I said though, for "that guy", there is a lot of options without giving up your job in the city... Living in New York City on $130k a year these days would be tolerable if you were single and didn't have any sort of fancy tastes. A large number of people with that sort of income live across the river in New Jersey. |
middle class...
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:56:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. Along the same lines, many people who are technically above the middle income, middle class line still consider themselves middle class. That's where they came from, and while they may be earning well above that imaginary mark, they are still living essentially the same as they used to. Yeah, they may not have to budget for that new set of tires, not worry about about a clothing budget, etc. But as their lifestyle naturally expanded in subtle ways, the money gets used up and after a while it doesn't feel like they are making that much more than they used to. While we've certainly spent some money along the way, my wife has always kept us grounded. We've socked away money for retirement. When that happens, if the SS checks are still around, they'll just be icing on the cake. |
middle class...
|
middle class...
On 10/2/14 4:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. The problem is defining the quality of life implicit in the term "middle class." It is impossible to quantify with consensus. |
middle class...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. |
middle class...
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek |
middle class...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:02:08 -0400, KC wrote:
On 10/2/2014 9:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/2/2014 8:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I'll have to work on figuring out what you are saying. Went over my head. Just wondering where the bar is. Several here have noted that they are in the "middle class" but I am not sure we are all on the same page as to what is "middle class". Most rich folks I have known claim to be "middle class", but I am pretty sure their def is different than mine. So for the sake of conversation, when I say "middle class" I am not referring to folks who made 6 figures during their working years... I am talking about folks who are making between say, 40-80 in general upper middle class might get you up to 100,000 a year. Of course there is always the exceptions like NYC, etc... === In the NYC area the upper middle class starts around $300 to 400K annual income these days. My oldest son the lawyer just bought a condo in Brooklyn, decent place but only about 1200 sq ft and in a so so kind of area. It was somewhere in the vicinity of $1M plus he pays both NY and NYC income taxes. Youngest son bought a decent but not great house in the NY 'burbs, older place that needed a lot of work, around 2,000 sq ft in a very nice town. It set him back over $900K. He also pays NY and NYC income taxes. To be considered wealthy in the NYC area takes an annual family income of about $1m + or a net worth in excess of about $10M. Believe it or not there are quite a few people who qualify. |
middle class...
|
middle class...
|
middle class...
On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. Yup. You're an intellectual cipher. |
middle class...
On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. |
middle class...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:25:07 -0400, KC wrote:
if you live in NYC and make 130 and are still struggling to maintain a "middle class" lifestyle, maybe you "sacrifice a little", move out of the city 20 miles, buy a car and live like a king... :) === Not really. All of Long Island is expensive, as is North Jersey, Westchester, Rockland and Fairfield counties. You'd have to go 80 or 90 miles up the Hudson or way out into central Connecticut, well away from the coast and NY metro area. |
middle class...
On 10/2/14 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:59:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 4:42 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. The problem is defining the quality of life implicit in the term "middle class." It is impossible to quantify with consensus. For something you can't define, you certainly have no problem talking about how badly they are doing. You can't have it both ways. You're the one using obsolete terms. I'm the one saying we need different measuring sticks and descriptors. I went to college and paid attention in stats 101 and 102. |
middle class...
On 10/2/2014 5:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. Yup. You're an intellectual cipher. If you are so smart why aren't you rich? |
middle class...
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 4:14:59 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Too bad no one was even talking to you, lardass. |
middle class...
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:53:29 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
I went to college and paid attention in stats 101 and 102. I thought (and so did you ) that you went to Yale. |
middle class...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:53:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/2/14 6:44 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:59:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 4:42 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. The problem is defining the quality of life implicit in the term "middle class." It is impossible to quantify with consensus. For something you can't define, you certainly have no problem talking about how badly they are doing. You can't have it both ways. You're the one using obsolete terms. I'm the one saying we need different measuring sticks and descriptors. I went to college and paid attention in stats 101 and 102. === Really? Say something in "Statistics" for us and then tell us what it means. |
middle class...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:59:10 -0400, Harrold wrote:
On 10/2/2014 5:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. Yup. You're an intellectual cipher. If you are so smart why aren't you rich? === Precisely because he thought he was smarter than he actually was, typical sociopath stuff. |
middle class...
|
middle class...
|
middle class...
|
middle class...
|
middle class...
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing. |
middle class...
On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing. Well, of course, but... Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of course, it can do. For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are necessary. I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some bizarre regs, just as Maryland does. For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the middle. Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn. Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use. Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say ..308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a "heavy barrel." If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a "new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior to a slim barrel ban? It can't. I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel. It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for the rifle has to be "heavy." So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and idiotic. No argument from me. But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated. Who decides the correct level of regulation? |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? The corporations who pull the strings of our obesely large government. You are the pivot man in this big circle jerk. Speaking of obese, how's porky doing? |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 8:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing. Well, of course, but... Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of course, it can do. For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are necessary. I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some bizarre regs, just as Maryland does. For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the middle. Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn. Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use. Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say .308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a "heavy barrel." If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a "new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior to a slim barrel ban? It can't. I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel. It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for the rifle has to be "heavy." So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and idiotic. No argument from me. But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated. Who decides the correct level of regulation? Hopefully voters, given the opportunity. I don't know much about Massachusetts regulations on AR15 type firearms, mainly because I have no interest or need for one. I am not "against" people owning them ... I just have no interest in them. Here's an example of what I consider to be an attempt to impose excessive regulation ... and it's related to gun control. We just had state elections here. One of the candidates running for attorney general (Warren Tolman) saturated the airways of this very liberal thinking state with political ads stating that if elected he would use the inherent powers granted to the attorney general to require that all handguns sold in the state be of a fingerprint enabled "smart" design. Existing handguns would have to be retro-fitted over some period of time. Ultimately it would make all existing handguns illegal to own unless modified. Problem is, gun manufacturers currently do not sell "smart" guns or retro kits. This guy was endorsed by Deval Patrick, the current (D) governor. Fortunately, there's a limit to MA liberalism. Tolman was soundly rejected by voters. |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 8:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing. Well, of course, but... Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of course, it can do. For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are necessary. I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some bizarre regs, just as Maryland does. For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the middle. Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn. Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use. Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say .308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a "heavy barrel." If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a "new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior to a slim barrel ban? It can't. I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel. It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for the rifle has to be "heavy." So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and idiotic. No argument from me. But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated. Who decides the correct level of regulation? The officials you elected and your King. ;-) |
middle class...
On 10/3/14 9:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 8:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote: One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500. I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all who seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all over the country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much they insist they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you struggle like "middle class" folks is comical... I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in parenthesis above. But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form. Looking at my 1040 form; Is it line 22, Total income? Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income? Is it line 43 Taxable income? Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That) Line 22 Total income = 100% Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22 Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22 taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22 Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes. Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year. Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty. So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean? Mikek Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into a home from all sources by everyone in the home. All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful information. The median household income in the United States in 2012 was just under $31,000. I think his point is what number do they use and how would they actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their state house. If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax deduction. The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?) The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are more. Mikek You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg. The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise. There goes that jerky knee again. You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little on abusive regulation to Somalia. . Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that "regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations? The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing. Well, of course, but... Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of course, it can do. For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are necessary. I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some bizarre regs, just as Maryland does. For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the middle. Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn. Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use. Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say .308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a "heavy barrel." If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a "new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior to a slim barrel ban? It can't. I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel. It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for the rifle has to be "heavy." So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and idiotic. No argument from me. But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated. Who decides the correct level of regulation? Hopefully voters, given the opportunity. I don't know much about Massachusetts regulations on AR15 type firearms, mainly because I have no interest or need for one. I am not "against" people owning them ... I just have no interest in them. Here's an example of what I consider to be an attempt to impose excessive regulation ... and it's related to gun control. We just had state elections here. One of the candidates running for attorney general (Warren Tolman) saturated the airways of this very liberal thinking state with political ads stating that if elected he would use the inherent powers granted to the attorney general to require that all handguns sold in the state be of a fingerprint enabled "smart" design. Existing handguns would have to be retro-fitted over some period of time. Ultimately it would make all existing handguns illegal to own unless modified. Problem is, gun manufacturers currently do not sell "smart" guns or retro kits. This guy was endorsed by Deval Patrick, the current (D) governor. Fortunately, there's a limit to MA liberalism. Tolman was soundly rejected by voters. Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. The gun matter you mentioned was fairly simple and easy to explain, but many others in disparate areas of governmental interest transcend arcane. |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. The gun matter you mentioned was fairly simple and easy to explain, but many others in disparate areas of governmental interest transcend arcane. We need to elect a king with brains and common sense. Problem is liberal thinking appeals to the masses who are fooled into thinking that liberal poleticians will treat them right. |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. That's true. It's why we elect people to represent us. The problem is that liberals tend to push the emotions of an issue, knowing that the general public doesn't know better. Can't lose with that approach. Government needs to be rational and thoughtful, not a means of power grabbing. |
middle class...
On 10/3/14 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. That's true. It's why we elect people to represent us. The problem is that liberals tend to push the emotions of an issue, knowing that the general public doesn't know better. Can't lose with that approach. Government needs to be rational and thoughtful, not a means of power grabbing. Please. The conservatives push, push, push, and in ways much more horrific than the liberals. |
middle class...
On 10/3/2014 9:50 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. That's true. It's why we elect people to represent us. The problem is that liberals tend to push the emotions of an issue, knowing that the general public doesn't know better. Can't lose with that approach. Government needs to be rational and thoughtful, not a means of power grabbing. Please. The conservatives push, push, push, and in ways much more horrific than the liberals. As a retired person with more time on my hands than I like, I watch a lot of political commentary and media coverage. Here are some of my very amateur observations: Overall, the Democratic Party seems to be well organized and very uniform on issues. Watching and listening to representatives of the party, they almost always are repeating the same lines, often word for word, when discussing an issue. It's as if the DNC publishes talking point memos that they memorize and repeat for the media. The only exceptions seem to be Biden and Hillary. You never know what Biden is going to say (the DNC cringes) and Hillary hasn't said much about anything so far. The Republican Party is totally different and, other than some Tea Party supporters, seem totally disorganized. Now, I am not saying that I agree with any particular person but Ted Cruz isn't a Rand Paul and Jeb Bush isn't a Mitt Romney or John McCain. Point is, there are significant differences in them as politicians in terms of their positions on issues. So, I have to ask myself what's better? A party that is in lock step with each other, verbalizing the same points on issues or a party that represents some diversity in thought? The same trends obviously extend to the politically aligned media. That's why I don't watch MSNBC or Fox News exclusively. I like to hear both sides but it seems the GOP side has many more facets to it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com