is meaningless.

You don't have to tell us that Hillary tried to find the political sweet spot on this issue. We read just about a year ago that she'd hired over 200 economic advisors to help her sound as though she is concerned about people who are not rich, while not "offending" the rich. (The word used in the article was probably not offending, but that was how the gist of the article came across to me).

I will also note, as I usually do in this context, that Sanders talks about transfer of wealth and wealth inequality, which is very different from focusing only on income inequality--and only in a relatively "meaningless" way.

Taxing the 5%--and only so much of the incomes of the 5% that exceed 250K a year--doesn't generate as much money as would a different kind of tax increase. That, in the context of the US monetary needs, the amount that will be raised will not make a huge difference. But, again, I'm only guessing what the MSNBC pundit meant. These were not my words.

Didn't sound right to me. Was 1st thing that came up in a search when I was curious where middle class ended.

but as you say, politics is part of it.

The question is what a comfortable cut-off point would be. Part of the problem is that cost of living differs so much from place to place, and also that people's life stories differ. I know that I would not be very happy if a politician promised to raise the taxes of everyone who earns more than $100,000 per year. My DH and I are now earning just over that (before taxes) after years of barely getting by. We have tons of debt and just finally bought a modest house after decades of renting. We have one child - never could afford more (indeed, we almost did not have her, since we felt too economically insecure). Our relatives all live overseas, which means high expenses to be able to see them from time to time. Our area is pretty high cost of living. We spend a significant amount of money per month paying off old debts - as I said, we barely got by for years and years, studied long, and have tons of debt as a result. We also got a late start in building up our savings for retirement, so we have to do that quite aggressively. So on paper our income looks decent, but after debt payments, mortgage, retirement funding, and general living costs, there is nothing extra left. Except for traveling to our country of origin every 3 years or so (very expensive - we're still paying the tickets from last year's visit to go say goodbye to my ailing dad), we never take vacations. I buy my clothes at thrift stores. I painted the walls in our house myself. Etc. We are not living hand to mouth, but we're definitely not living in the lap of luxury.

Now someone who lives in a cheaper area, and who is younger and had not built up years of debt, or who got a little something from family to help with that down payment, etc., might find our income quite luxurious. But someone who, like us, had to face hardship in the past and is still trying to build back up, might not want to hear about higher taxes. Even if on paper their income now looks quite nice.

I think that starts to change once you hit the high middle class level of $250,000. That kind of income is more than sufficient, no matter where in the country you live, and no matter what your backstory is. And that's why I think it's a comfortable number for politicians to use. (Hillary is not the only one to use that cut-off.)

Let me add that I don't mind paying taxes if we actually get something for it, or if it actually goes towards worthwhile social programs that help people. But we all know that is not always the case.

like NYC, LA and DC. here in phoenix, it would be a really good income.

That's absurd. 250k is rich. It may not be "obscenely rich", but it's still rich.

she's 70 and he's 67. both are collecting full ss benefits and working full time. she makes 35,000. i don't know how much he makes -- it's his own small business and varies. i do know that between them it's less than $170,000. how do i know this? if they were making more they would have to pay higher medicare premiums.

they pay $3400 for a 1 bedroom apartment which they converted into a 2 bedroom with a wall. their 32 year old son lives with them because he can't make enough to live on his own. they live in peter cooper village (nothing fancy) -- no doorman or anything like that.

they are struggling. they have no savings -- no 401k. he sometimes works till 11pm at night.

they don't take vacations or buy fancy clothes -- just the bare minimum.

they do pay a high amount for their medicare supplemental policy -- both have health problems. it comes to $710 a month with the medicare payment.

she fears losing her job or not being able to work anymore.

if they made at least $200,000 things would be a little easier. $250,000 they would be okay.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

I have no idea how everyone who lives there can afford it.

apartment in queens. it was rent controlled. i worked all the overtime i could get and managed to save enough to put a downpayment on a house in phoenix that cost $164,000 -- beautiful house -- new with pool on 1/2 acre.

even brooklyn, queens, and NJ (where you can get to NYC to work) are really high. my friend's daughter lives in brooklyn -- small 2 bedroom, 1-1/2 bath. they pay $3,000.

Be right back, checking employment prospects.

construction jobs here are great and supposed to get better in the coming years.

we were fortunate. my late husband worked for IBM and moved here on NY salary.

It's just inane.

How to change the discussion is a good question. We have to stop catering to the whims and wishes of the rich. Our priorities are all out of wack, IMO. We are far too afraid of offending people who have more money than they know what to do with while ignoring people who can't even afford shoes.

There are *a lot* of people, particularly married couples, with combined incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. Just in that range in 2013 there 16.4 million filers representing about 44 million people, about 29 million of them adults. If you live in an expensive metropolitan area, you'd find that this is hardly an outrageous range of income. If you raise taxes by 5% or so on these people, first of all you're committing political malpractice as this is a group with very high voter turnout. Second, from a policy perspective, it's not like these are the filthy rich people. Two mid-range civil servants who are married will combine to make $125,000 easily. If you take an extra 3-5% of their income, that might actually hurt.