2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Malthus]

Since when is a teacher making 80k/year "working class"?

That is very much middle class in my world.

I just googled the term "working class", and turns out it means manual labor.  So that's not quite what I intended to convey.  The relevant distinction is between people who derive their income mainly from working, or mainly from owning assets.

That strikes me as the dividing line between the wealthy and non-wealthy.

In a more income based metric, I think of "working class" as being a run right below "middle class", but I can see that it could be based more on the type of work done, rather than actual income, so a plumber might be "working class" even if they make a middle class income.

But in a strictly income hierarchy, anyone making $80k/year, in most places, is very much middle class. Even upper middle class in some areas.

Wouldn't that depend on other cultural factors besides income?

I think the dividing line between working class and middle class is a lot fuzzier these days, because it was based on cultural factors and the culture has changed (that's how you get a wealthy plumber being 'working class'). I'm not sure I even buy that it is relevant anymore.

The line between the truly rich and upper middle class still makes a lot more sense: other than celebrities of various sorts and a few other oddballs, the rich are rich because of what they own, while upper middle class earn money because of what they do.

As you may remember, I think a better division among those who earn because of what they do is between "haves" and "have-nots". The difference is striking: "have-nots" are those who work in jobs where they are more or less interchangeable, have little bargaining power, and tend to work on contract for low salary with few benefits and limited chances for advancement; they would include typical "working class" jobs like service-sector employment, plus an increasing amount of what used to be though of as solidly middle-class pursuits (for example: many academics find, to their horror, that they are relegated to this class - no chance of tenure, employment by short-term contract, easily replaced, limited bargaining power). The "haves" have some sort of skill, credentials and/or experience that puts them in high demand and gives them bargaining power. So high-priced plumbers could be found in that category, even though it was traditionally considered a solidly 'working-class' job.

[Berkut]

Except that it isn't true that overall the rich haven't won so many battles. The evidence directly refutes that:

With sharp analysis and an impressive range of data, Martin Gilens looks at thousands of proposed policy changes, and the degree of support for each among poor, middle-class, and affluent Americans. His findings are staggering: when preferences of low- or middle-income Americans diverge from those of the affluent, there is virtually no relationship between policy outcomes and the desires of less advantaged groups. In contrast, affluent Americans' preferences exhibit a substantial relationship with policy outcomes whether their preferences are shared by lower-income groups or not. Gilens shows that representational inequality is spread widely across different policy domains and time periods

I don't accept the methodology of his data.

Of course not.

[Admiral Yi]

Some of the current GOP candidate tax plans are a good example of plans that uniquely benefit the rich, they get the lion's share of the tax cuts

Any across the board percentage cut in taxes is going to award the lion's share to the rich, just as any across the board percentage rise in taxes is going to impose the lion's share on the rich, based on the very simple math that 1% of a poor person's income is less than 1% of a rich person's income.

I am no fan of the current tax cut proposal, and in fact crossed Jeb! off my list almost solely on the basis of his plan, but this particular logic shouldn't be guiding our thinking about the tax regime.

[Martinus]

Some of the current GOP candidate tax plans are a good example of plans that uniquely benefit the rich, they get the lion's share of the tax cuts

Any across the board percentage cut in taxes is going to award the lion's share to the rich, just as any across the board percentage rise in taxes is going to impose the lion's share on the rich, based on the very simple math that 1% of a poor person's income is less than 1% of a rich person's income.

I am no fan of the current tax cut proposal, and in fact crossed Jeb! off my list almost solely on the basis of his plan, but this particular logic shouldn't be guiding our thinking about the tax regime.

This logic doesn't work, because individuals, by large, cannot deduct expenses from their taxable income.

[Admiral Yi]

This logic doesn't work, because individuals, by large, cannot deduct expenses from their taxable income.

Please elaborate.

[Martinus]

Since when is a teacher making 80k/year "working class"?

That is very much middle class in my world.

I just googled the term "working class", and turns out it means manual labor.  So that's not quite what I intended to convey.  The relevant distinction is between people who derive their income mainly from working, or mainly from owning assets.

That strikes me as the dividing line between the wealthy and non-wealthy.

In a more income based metric, I think of "working class" as being a run right below "middle class", but I can see that it could be based more on the type of work done, rather than actual income, so a plumber might be "working class" even if they make a middle class income.

But in a strictly income hierarchy, anyone making $80k/year, in most places, is very much middle class. Even upper middle class in some areas.

Wouldn't that depend on other cultural factors besides income?

I think the dividing line between working class and middle class is a lot fuzzier these days, because it was based on cultural factors and the culture has changed (that's how you get a wealthy plumber being 'working class'). I'm not sure I even buy that it is relevant anymore.

The line between the truly rich and upper middle class still makes a lot more sense: other than celebrities of various sorts and a few other oddballs, the rich are rich because of what they own, while upper middle class earn money because of what they do.

As you may remember, I think a better division among those who earn because of what they do is between "haves" and "have-nots". The difference is striking: "have-nots" are those who work in jobs where they are more or less interchangeable, have little bargaining power, and tend to work on contract for low salary with few benefits and limited chances for advancement; they would include typical "working class" jobs like service-sector employment, plus an increasing amount of what used to be though of as solidly middle-class pursuits (for example: many academics find, to their horror, that they are relegated to this class - no chance of tenure, employment by short-term contract, easily replaced, limited bargaining power). The "haves" have some sort of skill, credentials and/or experience that puts them in high demand and gives them bargaining power. So high-priced plumbers could be found in that category, even though it was traditionally considered a solidly 'working-class' job.

Or it could very well be that middle class is simply disappearing, being either demoted into working class or promoted to lower upper class.

[Martinus]

This logic doesn't work, because individuals, by large, cannot deduct expenses from their taxable income.

Please elaborate.

Seriously?

[Admiral Yi]

Seriously?

Seriously in the sense that I don't understand your point.

[Admiral Yi]

Re: Gilens' study, I would need to know a little more about the nature of his "thousands of proposed policy changes" before I formed an opinion about his conclusion.

[DGuller]

Seriously?

Seriously in the sense that I don't understand your point.

I second Yi's sense of confusion.

[Martinus]

Individuals pay taxes on income, not profit. Given that we all have to meet certain expenses simply to survive, biologically, socially and professionally, it is disingenuous to say that the rich bear a heavier burden of taxation than the poor.

[Malthus]

Or it could very well be that middle class is simply disappearing, being either demoted into working class or promoted to lower upper class.

Perhaps. I'm not wedded to the terminology.

I do think the old social divisions are breaking down and becoming less relevant, and that society is, increasingly, bifurcating into the haves/the rich/whatever on the one hand, and the have nots/the working class/whatever on the other; and with upward social mobility getting ever more difficult, as the former class is smaller than the old rich plus middle class.

[grumbler]

Sorry to jump in late, but I was surprised to read statements from earlier in the day which argued, essentially, that Elizabeth Warren's problem was that she clung to her principals.  Garbo and dguller appeared to be saying that clinging to principals was a bad idea, and that they wanted politicians whose principals were flexible.

Am I the one other who doesn't understand what a principal is, in this context, or are they?  In the normal English with which I am conversant, a principal that is abandoned for expediency was never a principal to begin with.

[grumbler]

Individuals pay taxes on income, not profit. Given that we all have to meet certain expenses simply to survive, biologically, socially and professionally, it is disingenuous to say that the rich bear a heavier burden of taxation than the poor.

Are you ever going to get around to explaining your argument that "individuals, by large, cannot deduct expenses from their taxable income?"  Yi, DG, and I would all like an explanation of what that means.

[garbon]

Sorry to jump in late, but I was surprised to read statements from earlier in the day which argued, essentially, that Elizabeth Warren's problem was that she clung to her principals.  Garbo and dguller appeared to be saying that clinging to principals was a bad idea, and that they wanted politicians whose principals were flexible.

Am I the one other who doesn't understand what a principal is, in this context, or are they?  In the normal English with which I am conversant, a principal that is abandoned for expediency was never a principal to begin with.

I'm a little confused. We know you've been a doddering, old fool for quite some time, but how did you manage to confuse DG (who doesn't appear to have mentioned principals or principles) and myself (who did mention principles) with Valmy who mentioned both principals and principles?