Austinist: Perry Trying to Pull a Fast One

fogelsong

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:44:53 -0600

okay, that makes more sense now. you're saying that class depends more on your occupation that wealth or annual income. so where would be i be? i'm a single male pulling in just under $30k. lower class?

anon

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:17:28 -0600

Odom, I agree, the topic got off track and that's my fault. I do actually side with you on the subject of the article. The people with more money get more of a break and its not necessarily right in the eyes of bartenders, waitpersons, valets and so on. Which there are a lot of in this town.

odam

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:26:03 -0600

Perry's Tax Plan Household income % tax change $14,042 and below -0.1 $14,042 to $23,872 +0.3 $23,872 to $33,190 +0.2 $33,190 to $43,403 no change $43,403 to $53,968 - 0.1 $53,968 to $67,019 -0.7 $67,019 to $82,976 -1.1 $82,976 to $104,865 -1.7 $104,865 to $146,804 -3.1 $146,804 or more -4.1 Anon, while i appreciate your breadth of knowledge on the subject and your desire to debate, i think you may be missing the point. It being: Using the list above for the sake of the comparison made in the story, the people making over $150,000 are the "wealthiest" of the segmented groups. Hence, the "wealthiest."

anon

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:28:43 -0600

In today's society is breaks down as 1% being the upper class; think about the names in the social register, Kennedy's, Rockefeller, Hilton etc - if the name is on the social register, it's wealth and they are the upper class. A new class is the corporate class, these are people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell and other top CEO's of huge global companies - they make up 14%. Next is where I think most people get confused in this discussion. The middle class represents 30% of the population and is made up of people like movie stars who make $25M per film and people pulling down $~50K as project managers at corporations, but who's working conditions don't include manual labor. After that is the working class - now there can be electricians pulling down $150K a year, but they are still working class if they participate in the labor - they are another 30%. If they own the company, they could be middle class as well. After that you have the poor, 20% - who average an income of approx. $1258 / mo. pre tax. 5% represent the underclass, people so poor that most of them are not on the books anywhere. But saying Austin's wealthiest people are making $150K is absurd. There are a lot more millionaires here than anyone thinks, I'm talking in the hundreds in Austin metro alone. My point is that class is not divided solely on wealth; it is a make up of money and conditions as well as access to power and influence more than anything else.

fogelsong

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:08:51 -0600

c'mon anon! your argument is based completely on the definition of what the upper and middle classes are defined as. Speaking strictly in numbers, at what percentiles does our population break down into lower, middle, and upper classes? It's always been my personal choice to consider upper class to be the top 10% How do you believe it breaks down?

deb

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:54:12 -0600

hey anon, want to buy me an ipod?

odam

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:36:01 -0600

who let the dogs out?

odam

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:34:09 -0600

who let the dogs out?

poor guy

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:30:29 -0600

take your F***ing academic terms and blow em out your ass, anon. $150,000 makes you wealthier than most people.

outsider

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:28:34 -0600

yea, that guy is a biggot, IMO

anon

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:27:50 -0600

Also, to clarify, I said lower side, not low end. Those two terms are very, very different. $150K is on the low side when you consider the people who make millions who are also in that same class.

anon

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:23:56 -0600

You've never done any research with social stratification have you? Trust me - as hard is it is to believe, it is true; the numbers don't lie and the people who have compiled them over the last few decades have a few accolades among them for their research. Start with Harold Kerbo for some reference.

odamo

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:01:45 -0600

$150,000+ is not low-end of middle class. that's funny, though.

anon

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:58:38 -0600

Be careful of using the term wealthy. The people making 150K are far, far, far from being wealthy. They are actually the lower side of middle class. Need to get a grasp on your social class system for this country before making judgments about political tax cuts. 1% of the country is wealthy - mega movie stars pulling down $25M a film are still middle class. Bill Gates is not "wealthy" in terms of sociological and political arenas.

john

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:56:37 -0600

am I missing something obvious? since we have no state income tax (so nice!), how would they raise property taxes based upon your income? I thought property tax was only related to property value. so, is property tax based on property value AND income?

deb

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:30:46 -0600

of course, regan opposed the notion that nicotine was a drug, so i guess this isn't exactly a revival.

deb

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:28:45 -0600

i love this 80s revival. leg warmers, big jewelry, and reganomics. i can't wait until the 90s revival, when people start double-piercing their ears again.

cvw

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:16:27 -0600

I have to point out the following: there is no state income tax in Texas. What we're talking about here are cuts in property taxes and increases in cigarette taxes. So if you don't own a house, you won't get an cut (fat chance that landlords will pass savings through). And if you smoke, you will have to pay a tax increase. Smoking costs taxpayers a lot of money in healthcare, disability and other costs (yes, I agree, so does fast food), so it's hard to argue that the tax is unfair. Of course cigarettes are addictive and it's difficult to quit, but the fact remains that you CAN quit smoking.