Tax Bill

[sturg33]

Here's a more detailed look, from the same Urban Institute



The supposed "shrinking" of the middle class is due completely to people graduating to higher classes, not lower.

[sturg33]

sure, the stock market has been going on an upward trajectory at all

lol

I can understand why you support communist heroes

[Tapate50]

The supposed "shrinking" of the middle class is due completely to people graduating to higher classes, not lower.

This is what I took from the first graph as well. Insert 57's token forest\trees comment.

[50PoundHead]

Here's a more detailed look, from the same Urban Institute



The supposed "shrinking" of the middle class is due completely to people graduating to higher classes, not lower.

Do you have a link to the study? Does it provide information as to how the categories are defined? Richard Reeves at Brookings has written a very good book called Dream Hoarders and it's aimed at the advantages of the upper middle class. Curious to see how the Urban Institute's work jibes with his.

[57Brave]

hmmmmm



.

Whatever the metric 20% have graduated from Middle to Upper Middle classification.
However the 10.6% gain of the rich is on the back of the lower middle and the poor. The most vulnerable. (LowerMid - 8 / Poor -3 )
Telling me, if this upper mobility was real we would see it from, at the least, Lower Mid to Mid.
Should we be growing the middle class as you assert, we would show gains across the board.
This furthers my point that mobility is restricted to the top tiers of the economy
Like I said earlier, this graph shows the economy is serving only 2 of the 5 economic classifications.
the upper 2.
Is that sustainable ?



Would be curious to see what the cut off middle to upper middle is -- location,status,age,demographic.
That was why I was looking for the Urban Institute article that somewhere accompanies the graph

[thethe]

Upward mobility is only possible if the individual wants it. No - Not everyone is going to get rich. But movement between Poor through Middle is not difficult with a little bit of discipline/hard work/resilience.

[sturg33]

Whatever the metric 20% have graduated from Middle to Upper Middle classification.
However the 10.6% gain of the rich is on the back of the lower middle and the poor. The most vulnerable. (LowerMid - 8 / Poor -3 )
Telling me, if this upper mobility was real we would see it from, at the least, Lower Mid to Mid.
Should we be growing the middle class as you assert, we would show gains across the board.
This furthers my point that mobility is restricted to the top tiers of the economy
Like I said earlier, this graph shows the economy is serving only 2 of the 5 economic classifications.
the upper 2.
Is that sustainable ?



Would be curious to see what the cut off middle to upper middle is -- location,status,age,demographic.
That was why I was looking for the Urban Institute article that somewhere accompanies the graph

You need to look at the post #241.

More people are moving out of poor and lower middle. More people are moving out of middle to upper-middle. And more people are moving out of upper-middle to rich.

By any way you slice, this is a good thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are arguing that it would be better if more and more people stayed in middle class, rather than moving upward? If so, why do you think that is better?

[AerchAngel]

You need to look at the post #241.

More people are moving out of poor and lower middle. More people are moving out of middle to upper-middle. And more people are moving out of upper-middle to rich.

By any way you slice, this is a good thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are arguing that it would be better if more and more people stayed in middle class, rather than moving upward? If so, why do you think that is better?

Because that is where Dummicrats receive their votes.

[thethe]

You need to look at the post #241.

More people are moving out of poor and lower middle. More people are moving out of middle to upper-middle. And more people are moving out of upper-middle to rich.

By any way you slice, this is a good thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are arguing that it would be better if more and more people stayed in middle class, rather than moving upward? If so, why do you think that is better?

THat is the kool-aid he is fed. Call be a conspiracy theorists all you want (not directed at you Sturg) but the Globalists want 2 classes. Wealthy and lower middle class. Under the guise of progressiveism and fairness these ideals have been poison in the youths mind of our world. And its working.

[57Brave]

You need to look at the post #241.

Link for context ?

[57Brave]

[thethe]

Therefore tax cuts were bad?

[sturg33]

Link for context ?

I will provide it when I'm back on PC.. but why do you need context to support your argument? The data is right there. You and LOLGOP are wrong. You should probably tweet to them to tell them to correct their inaccuracy

[sturg33]

Therefore tax cuts were bad?

57 and julio and goldy and jpx has a right to ATT's profits.

[goldfly]

i support communist heroes?

[jpx7]

57 and julio and goldy and jpx has a right to ATT's profits.

Indeed: workers do have a right to a greater share in the profits derived from the surplus value of their labor.

[Jaw]

Indeed: workers do have a right to a greater share in the profits derived from the surplus value of their labor.

I've never understood the Republican aversion to unions in the private sector. I just spent a few days with a couple of relatives who each worked loyally with the same employer for 40+ years. Now they have a decent retirement income thanks to the pensions they receive because their unions negotiated for them. Both companies made plenty of money and are still going strong, and both retirees are still active members of the economy due to their disposable income. What's the problem? Is this still just left over from the old Tammany Hall "voter turnout" jobs the unions pulled for Democrats centuries ago, or what?

[thethe]

I've never understood the Republican aversion to unions in the private sector. I just spent a few days with a couple of relatives who each worked loyally with the same employer for 40+ years. Now they have a decent retirement income thanks to the pensions they receive because their unions negotiated for them. Both companies made plenty of money and are still going strong, and both retirees are still active members of the economy due to their disposable income. What's the problem? Is this still just left over from the old Tammany Hall "voter turnout" jobs the unions pulled for Democrats centuries ago, or what?

I don't believe that Unions are always in the best interest of the workers. When you have a centralized body to negotiate that is both a positive and negative. Proper legal repesentation is key in contract negotiations but it also opens up the ability to bribe a select few for a greater impact. If the market is truly free workers have the option to leave. In the economy we are in now where the demand is greater than the supply workers have a dominant positions from the sheer choice of jobs. I'm fortunate to be in an in demand field so it doesn't apply to all markets but as long as we keep promoting friendly business enviornment policies that demand is only going to increase. Limit illegals and give the poor class more opportunity to succeed.

[thethe]

Indeed: workers do have a right to a greater share in the profits derived from the surplus value of their labor.

The workers have the option of leaving into a robust market for their services.

Who determines this right? How do you define greater share?

[thethe]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/af...rticle/2644488

The insurance company said beginning next year, it will increase its 401(k) match from 50 percent to 100 percent on the first 4 percent of employee contributions and will also contribute $500 to each employee’s 401(k) plan.
Aflac also pledged to boost its investment in the U.S. by $250 million over the next three to five years by growing its U.S. operation and expanding benefits and training programs for workers.

“We are pleased that these tax reforms provide Aflac with an opportunity to increase our investments in initiatives that reflect our company values; providing for our employees in the long and short term, ensuring growth for our company and giving back to the community,” Aflac CEO Dan Amos said.