3 ms·

No I think you've missed the point. The doctor is making far more over the basic rate required to get by than the carpenter. The doctor's cries at night because

No I think you've missed the point. The doctor is making far more over the basic rate required to get by than the carpenter. The doctor's cries at night because he can't afford another Mont-Blanc pen and the carpenter can't send his kids to school. You have to understand that the doctor's needs are satisfied, not his wants.

tehgawdo 16y ago
Thanks, I finally see the overarching point, make all doctors become carpenters and all his needs will be satisfied. Problem solved.
bcrescimanno 16y ago
Disregarding, for a moment, that you're completely overestimating the value of this hypothetical $250k per year income... The answer is to punish the doctor? This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched. Why shouldn't people be able to get somewhat ahead? Why is the mentality that we all have to be exactly equal so long as we can lump your income with this mythical middle class?
- lkrubner 16y ago
  bcrescimanno, I'm not sure what you are referring to. There was recently an effort made in the USA to allow Bush-era tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year (gross adjusted). Had that gone forward, the doctor making $250,000 and the carpenter making $40,000 would both continue forward without facing an increase in their income tax. Only those people with gross adjusted income in excess of $250,000 who would see an increase in the tax paid on their income in excess of $250,000, although these affluent people would continue to enjoy the Bush era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income they earn. As it was, pretty much all of the Bush era tax cuts were extended. As to this: "This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched." According to Wikipedia, only the wealthiest 1.5% make in excess of $250,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... The poorest 98.5% of the USA makes less than $250,000 a year. Are you trying to define a portion of that wealthiest 1.5% as part of the upper middle class? If so, which part? Would you go into the top 1% and define that, too, as part of the upper middle class? Definitions matter, and it would be good if you could be precise. I would add, my politically active friends are pushing for much higher taxes on the rich. Their focus is not on the poorest 99% of Americans, but the wealthiest 1%. And so, they focus on those making in excess of $350,000. I am curious if you regard that as within the range of the middle class?

tehgawdo 16y ago

Thanks, I finally see the overarching point, make all doctors become carpenters and all his needs will be satisfied. Problem solved.

bcrescimanno 16y ago

Disregarding, for a moment, that you're completely overestimating the value of this hypothetical $250k per year income... The answer is to punish the doctor? This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched. Why shouldn't people be able to get somewhat ahead? Why is the mentality that we all have to be exactly equal so long as we can lump your income with this mythical middle class?

lkrubner 16y ago
bcrescimanno, I'm not sure what you are referring to. There was recently an effort made in the USA to allow Bush-era tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year (gross adjusted). Had that gone forward, the doctor making $250,000 and the carpenter making $40,000 would both continue forward without facing an increase in their income tax. Only those people with gross adjusted income in excess of $250,000 who would see an increase in the tax paid on their income in excess of $250,000, although these affluent people would continue to enjoy the Bush era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income they earn. As it was, pretty much all of the Bush era tax cuts were extended. As to this: "This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched." According to Wikipedia, only the wealthiest 1.5% make in excess of $250,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... The poorest 98.5% of the USA makes less than $250,000 a year. Are you trying to define a portion of that wealthiest 1.5% as part of the upper middle class? If so, which part? Would you go into the top 1% and define that, too, as part of the upper middle class? Definitions matter, and it would be good if you could be precise. I would add, my politically active friends are pushing for much higher taxes on the rich. Their focus is not on the poorest 99% of Americans, but the wealthiest 1%. And so, they focus on those making in excess of $350,000. I am curious if you regard that as within the range of the middle class?