. . . . And makes the same point that I made yesterday: Bush may be in better shape than conventional wisdom allows. Everyone assumes that the next election will be about security, Iraq, and the WoT — but what if it’s not? What if it follows the trend of the last few years, and basically turns on what’s in your pocket?
Good economic news filters into the public consciousness slowly, and seeds that are being planted now may very well redound to Bush’s benefit come November. Keep that in mind as the election cycle spins. (And, if it turns out to me true, also keep in mind that I said it before Bainbridge 😉
You know, I don’t see the economy as helping Bush a lot. My impression is that good economic numbers don’t help in themselves — that is, that people don’t react to growth in GDP as a reason to vote for an incumbent. Rather, economic voting is based on the job market, both unemployment and wages, which tends to track along with other good economic news.
Now, the job market isn’t as bad as it has been for the last year or two, but it seems like a real stretch to say that it’s good enough to be a positive asset for Bush.
What if it follows the trend of the last few years, and basically turns on what’s in your pocket?
Then Bush is certainly going to lose: his tax cuts have been calculated to make the poor poorer and the rich richer, and those in the middle uncomfortably less well off. And they’ve worked to do just that. Of course, Jeb Bush’s solution of mass disenfranchisement is clearly still an option ….
As part of the middle class who is benefitting from the changing of the Marriage Penalty, increase in retirement contributions and the increase in deductions of equipment by small businesses I would respectfully have to disagree with the last poster.
dtSAT, for all I know you do in total benefit right now (I wouldn’t be able to judge for individuals without detailed figures on your total tax burden). In the long run, thanks to Bush turning the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit in history, no one benefits.
In general, Bush’s tax cuts are of course designed to benefit only those with an income of over $100K per year* – and anyone under that will not only not gain: they will lose, because the tiny cheques they get back are outweighed by the rising tax burden made necessary by cutting income/inheritence taxes.
*George W. Bush. Dick Cheney. Condi Rice. And so on…
I guess no one benefits… except me. Maybe, I am one of the few. However, I doubt it.
It would be difficult for me to disagree with your generic analysis and conclusion more. My benefits are tangible and your conclusion appears to be speculation about what may or may not happen. Your critique of Bush seems similar to ones made of Reagan.
It seems to me that it was an expanding economy and business revenue that enabled the reduction in the deficit.
I’ll take my hard earned dollars today over theories about tomorrow any day of the week…
cheers
his tax cuts have been calculated to make the poor poorer and the rich richer
Wow. I ain’t never heard that one before;)
How do poor people get poorer, BTW?
Just out of curiousity, Jesurgislac, can I ask where you live? Generally — nothing specific, but a region, at least? I can find you people here in the DC area making $100,000+ who are not “rich” by any traditional definition of the word. It seems such an arbitrary number to pull out of the air.
Believe me, not everyone making $100K is running around dressed like the Monopoly guy. Not that that has any effect on the argument regarding the middle-class overall tax burden, but people really seem to get hung up on that six-figure salary number. The kind of people you’re suggesting were targeted by the tax cuts . . . you’re going to need a lot larger number to raise anyone’s hair these days.
Phil,
Good point. The problem is the sloppy use of the terms “rich” and “poor.” Jes and his ilk tend to believe that anyone North of, say, $100K as rich.
This ain’t accurate.
I know a lot of families, where I live, who own small houses, have 2 kids, and both parents work, who are completely and utterly strapped for cash and time. Lotta stress. Lotta worry. Lotta frenetic activity.
Nobody on the planet would consider them rich, yet their combined incomes are prob’ly $150K.
And college tuition bills ain’t even been incurred yet.
So, when folks use “poor” and “rich” as cliches, it always raises the red flag of poor analysis, in my view.
I know a lot of families, where I live, who own small houses, have 2 kids, and both parents work, who are completely and utterly strapped for cash and time. Lotta stress. Lotta worry. Lotta frenetic activity.
Nobody on the planet would consider them rich, yet their combined incomes are prob’ly $150K.
I’m in roughly that category, and I don’t feel rich, but I am. A family with a combined income of 100K is taking in more than roughly 9 out of 10 American households, and a family with a combined income of 150K is taking in more than 19 out of 20 American households. If you’re in the top income decile, calling yourself just ‘middle class’ without qualifiying it with ‘high income’ or some such is wildly misleading — the real middle class isn’t doing nearly that well.
I’m in roughly that category, and I don’t feel rich, but I am.
Doesn’t that say it all? You don’t feel rich, yet you read the papers, which tell you that you are.
It’s also “wildly misleading” to say $150K is rich in a vacuum. If you live in Mississippi, Yes, you are rich. If you live in S.F., trust me, you ain’t rich.
Please pay more taxes, Lizardbreath, you ain’t payin’ your fair share:)
Of course, gross income is only useful at very low granularity (20K vs 200K). When you want to focus in on what number means what, you have to take into account cost of living, family size, and so on.
Richness is really a lifestyle, and if you live in a reasonably priced area, are single, have no kids, and rent a condo, you can have a very rich lifestyle for 60K. On the other hand, you can make 120K and not live a rich lifestyle at all.
Regardless, ‘fair share’ is nearly always best determined by the market, as long as strong monitoring and penalties are in place to keep the f*$#$ing cronies from hijacking the market.
Doesn’t that say it all? You don’t feel rich, yet you read the papers, which tell you that you are.
I look at the Census Bureau statistics which tell me that I’m richer (in terms of income) than 19 out of 20 Americans. My subjective perception of how rough I have it from a financial point of view simply doesn’t mean much — tax cuts targeted at people with my income or greater don’t benefit 19 out of 20 American households.
It just struck me as really funny to note that the tax cuts were targeted at those with $100K+ incomes, then toss out Dick Cheney and George Bush as archetypal members of that income bracket. If they had wanted to target just themselves and their peer group, they would have added a zero to that number, or at least multiplied it by five or more.
It’s like saying, “This health plan is targeted at people who are a little below their ideal weight: Lara Flynn Boyle, Calista Flockhart, Kate Moss . . . ”
I think it’s wishful thinking at this point. Maybe later if Iraq ever gets off the news – but until then everything is drowned out by the noise in the middle east.
Ok, who here is better off then they were 4 years ago?
Ask your average Ohioan one question:
Are you better off today than you were four years ago?
That’s the standard. The rest is wishful thinking.
“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”
I’m definitely fatter. I blame Bush!
I need to get back to the gym.
I just rejoined sidereal…three weeks and going strong…it really makes a difference in my outlook.
And I blame Bush too for the haitus. He had me feeling so depressed and convinced he was actively working toward an accerlation toward Armeggedon, I thought, why bother.
Then I saw myself naked in the mirror at home and thought, if the end is coming, I’d really rather leave a nicer looking corpse than this.
It’s also “wildly misleading” to say $150K is rich in a vacuum. If you live in Mississippi, Yes, you are rich. If you live in S.F., trust me, you ain’t rich.
If you’re a single person making $150K/year in S.F. you’re not rich? What exactly is your definition of “rich”?
Ok, who here is better off then they were 4 years ago?
I took a pay cut, but that’s more because I moved to Indianapolis, which apparently escaped the brunt of the “Associate Salary Wars” of 1999-2000 (Chicago did not).
Recall those days fondly. Graduated from a second-tier Chicago law school in ’99 with an offer at one of the “large”* Chicago firms. Between acceptance of my offer and actually beginning work, I received two salary increases. Within weeks after starting work, I got another increase.
von
*Given that “large” can now mean “firms with 1000+ lawyers,” it’s worth noting that I’m using “large” in the traditional sense: 250+ attorneys, somewhat stuffy air, represents large corporations, etc.
Navy Davy
Nobody on the planet would consider them rich, yet their combined incomes are prob’ly $150K.
Well yes, most people in the world would consider them rich. And, if Lizardbreath is correct and the family income of $150K puts them in the top 5% in the US (the 2nd richest country in the world behind Luxumberg I think) then they are rich period.
All the financial stess and frentic activity (while real no doubt) is not caused by a lack of income. Most likely it’s a result of that very common effort to live beyond one’s means.
I have a vague recollection of reading of a study (survey?) done in the mid-1980s that found a remarkably consistent pattern across almost all income brackets. Nearly everyone felt stretched financially, and the large majority believed that they would be free of financial problems if only their income was doubled. This was as true for those pulling in $250,000/year as it was for those making $15,000.
I’m a hell of a lot better off than I was four years ago, I can tell you that. After a two-and-a-half year salary freeze at my company, I’ve gotten a decent raise and a couple of bonuses. My wife is making 50% more than she was four years ago. Although we don’t have much savings, still, we’re getting there, consistently saving into both my 401(k) and a regular savings account. And thanks to someone’s tax plan — I don’t know whether this was Clinton or Bush — I am now able to deduct a large percentage of my student loan interest from my Federal income taxes, helping me to pay down the debt faster.
Are things perfect? Not by a long shot. And Virginia taxes are going to go up, although not because of the Bush tax-cut-and-spending-jag, but because our past governors and our legislature are a bunch of buffoons. But I’m definitely better off. And we’re nowhere near $100K+ in household income.
Josh,
If you’re a single person making $150K/year in S.F. you’re not rich?
No, if you’re single at $150, you’re doing fine. If you’re married, combined income is $150, own a home, paying child care, school, or college, NO, you ain’t rich.
Better off than I was 4 years ago? I certainly am. But that would have been true, whether Gore or Bush was in office. It’s just a normal trajectory.
Most people don’t reach the apex of earning potential until their early 40s, after they’ve paid their dues.
But, FWIW, when I was young & poor, I wuz still votin’ GOP:)
Oh, I forgot to issue my usual caveat: I don’t attribute any of my being better off to Bush — except the student loan interest thing, if that was him — didn’t vote for him in 2000, won’t vote for him in 2004.
Oh, I forgot to issue my usual caveat: I don’t attribute any of my being better off to Bush — except the student loan interest thing, if that was him — didn’t vote for him in 2000, won’t vote for him in 2004.
Well, this sounds encouraging: Nationwide, 17.8 percent of the median family income was used to buy a single-family home at the median price in 2003, down from 18.5 percent the previous year, according to a study to be released today by the Center for Housing Research at Virginia Tech and the Virginia Association of Realtors.
The article goes on to say that The median home price (in VA, 2002)* rose 13.8 percent to $210,206 from $184,674. FYI, the median price for a house in SF recently topped $500K!!
Both my wife and I are doing much better than 4 years ago. And, many of our friends who have been out of work have not only found work, but have multiple offers. My co. has a couple/3 open recs for programmers and salespeople now.
*my addition
Just out of curiousity, Jesurgislac, can I ask where you live?
Cambridge, and to answer the question you politely didn’t ask, I earn roughly $54K a year, but live in a house I own that’s worth about $260K at the current market rate. That is, I’m better off than 60% of the US, and decidedly better off than my income by itself (smack in the middle of the fourth 20%) would indicate.
I didn’t pick 100K out of the air, and I agree with whoever said that Bush and Cheney are in an income bracket way above that. Bush’s tax cuts are designed to begin to benefit people with an income above 100K – to be precise, $104K. The top 5% are better off: the top 1%, those with an income of $330K+, are those who will notice being better off: the top 1%.
I don’t think it is relevant to compare our wealth to that of other countries in this thread. The original post is about our economy under Bush and whether it will help him or not.
Ok, who here is better off then they were 4 years ago?
My income has increased by 49% under Bush.
Now having said that, at the end of 1999 I thought the market was just crazy and got out. I used to go out to Silicon Valley and laugh at what those guys were doing with their money. I thought they were crazy.
As the economy really started to show decline in early 2000 I took a 20% cut in pay. Ouch! Since, then having worked my butt off I have made up for it and added more in the last 4 years.
After sitting down with my wife (who leans well left) and showing her how we have benefited with respect to taxes the last couple of years it really made her think. It hit her bottom line (her purse) and she appreciates it greatly.
Calling somene rich is such a subjective thing. My personal definition of rich is not having to go to work and still being able to purchase whatever my heart desires. If you feel the need to ask how expensive something is… you ain’t rich (IMHO) If you can’t travel to Italy next week for 2 months… you ain’t rich.
Well, I’m a heck of a lot better. The tech sector was nosediving in Indianapolis late 1999 early 2000. There are many reasons for this; many places unwisely spent all their money on Y2K fixes, brain drain due to the coasts sucking up talent due to dot com startups, etc.
I had to mothball my business because I wasn’t making enough to justify working for myself after insurance and taxes. Early 2003 I left the consulting firm I was with to start taking on my own clients again, and rebuild the business. I was pleasantly surprised at my effective tax rate this year; although I paid more taxes in percentage of income than Bush, Cheney, and Kerry, despite them making 10 to 20 times what I do.
So, how much of that is due to Bush? Eh, I don’t know. But it seems to me that things could have gone much, much worse during the recession we had.
This election cycle is a big quandry. For the first time in my (brief) life, I’m presented with no canidates that I can really feel remotely good about supporting. I guess since I live in Indiana, which is pretty much a lock for Bush, I’ll just vote whoever is libertarian and call it good.
Neutral question: Is this indicia of a weak or strong economy?
No, if you’re single at $150, you’re doing fine. If you’re married, combined income is $150, own a home, paying child care, school, or college, NO, you ain’t rich.
Let’s just say I disagree. On $150K/year you can easily afford to pay for all of that and still have a comfortable lifestyle. And being able to buy a home in the inner Bay Area and still have a comfortable lifestyle is a pretty good working definition of “rich” to me.
Josh,
Depends on how old you are and what your responsiblities are, I reckon.
The tech sector was nosediving in Indianapolis late 1999 early 2000.
You’re in Indy, too, Neolith? (I thought I was alone in the world!)
Calling somene rich is such a subjective thing. My personal definition of rich is not having to go to work and still being able to purchase whatever my heart desires.
I believe that the technical term for this is “fuck you” money.
Retroactively suspending, and now reinstating, the posting rules. BTW, my view on profanity is the FCC’s pre-JJ’s breast/”Bono at the Oscars” view: If it’s not obscene in substance, mere form won’t get ya. But don’t tell Moe, the Posting Rules [Godwin’s law].
“(I thought I was alone in the world!)”
You got GenCon! Who needs friends?
I’m pretending to be interested in visiting my wife’s creepy sister in Indy as an excuse to get over there.
Well maybe all this good news is going to lift his boat by election day. But right now? Leaking and more leaking.
My income has become negative, but that’s entirely my own doing.
I’m married, so I suppose the “marriage penalty” thing will help a bit at some point. But I actually think the marriage penalty was fair enough–more than made up for by reduced living expenses, and swamped by social security in the long run. And we got the $300 once. Woo. I think we lost it at the state level.
Without going into too much detail–I cannot possibly express how much more of a difference something approaching universal health coverage would have made in my life. (Not for myself, either; I’m covered through school.)
Well, I’m better off. I have tenure, so no job worries as long as i don’t engage in “gross moral turpitude” (I think that’s the phrase). I switched jobs four years ago, and as a result moved from an expensive housing market to a cheap one. Owing to inherited wealth, the gift that keeps on giving, I had been able to buy a house where I used to live, and lo! it had appreciated greatly in value during the time I owned it, and I made out like a bandit. I have health insurance through work, so when I had appendicitis last year it was just massively inconvenient, not financially disabling.
My students, on the other hand, are finding the job market pretty tough, and I teach at a good school. And those of my friends and acquaintances who do not have lifetime job security and a modest trust fund are feeling the pinch.
And if we really want to talk about who benefits from the tax cuts, we should mention the repeal of the estate tax, which only benefits those who inherit from people whose estates are in seven figures.
Oh, and insofar as it’s led to a philosophical discussion of “what does it really mean to be ‘rich'” I don’t apologize for using the phrase “making the poor poorer and the rich richer” – though I agree that “rich” is kinda subjective. It would have been clearer to say “Making those in the top 5% better off: making those in the bottom 60% worse off” but it wouldn’t have had the same cadence.
I’m pretending to be interested in visiting my wife’s creepy sister in Indy as an excuse to get over there.
Oooooh! ObWings Gencon party at von‘s house! Last one to steal his liquor is a rotten egg! 😀
Topic? Well, given I make an order of magnitude less than the sums you’re talking about — ah, grad school — I’m pretty much poor by any standard. I’ve got one heck of an earning potential if/when I ever get the PhD (although, ironically, my earning potential is going down precipitously the longer I stay in grad school) but… uh… well, have fun discussing “richness”, folks 😉
Glad to know all you rich better-off-now-than-4-years-ago folks are doing so well…really, I am.
HOWEVER…the original question was to ask the average Ohioan.
hilzoy,
If you really want to be accurate, you should point out that the repeal of the estate tax actually represents a tax increase on approx. 98% of Americans (because of the repeal of the stepped-up basis rule).
And then you should point out that the preferential tax rates on dividends (as opposed to salary, 401(k) withdrawals, or other “ordinary income”) really only benefits the trust fund class.
I saw an interesting economic analysis recently looking at Bush’s policies (tax cuts and medicare drug benefit) through a generational perspective. I think the article concluded that Bush’s policies represent a huge transfer of wealth from those (say) under 20 to those (say) over 50 (as well as being a transfer from lower income to higher income individuals).
Just about all of my family members in rural NE Ohio are better off than they were four years ago, too. For the record. I’m sure there’s some reason they aren’t “average” or something, though.
The may be “average” Phil, but they’re not in the majority it would seem:
Kerry Maintains Lead Over Bush Among Likely Voters in Ohio
Or maybe they don’t vote. Either way, it’s not looking good for Bush in the mother of all battleground states.
Oooooh! ObWings Gencon party at von’s house! Last one to steal his liquor is a rotten egg! 😀
Uhh, no. But I would get a drink with whomever’s in town and interested. In what passes for Downtown, after work (’round 7ish) — what suits you. (I have no idea when Gen Con is; all my role-playing game knowledge was acquired during the Reagan era.)
(I have no idea when Gen Con is; all my role-playing game knowledge was acquired during the Reagan era.)
Trust the Computer, von. The Computer is your friend.
[And I have no idea either. My friends, aka the owners and drivers of the car, are making that determination.]
Give me a Reagan-era reference, and I can play ball. Paranoia.
In the Reagan-era, Gencon was in Wisconsin.
http://www.gencon.com/indyhome.aspx?file=indy
In the Reagan-era, Gencon was in Wisconsin.
I knew that as well. At the (now, seemingly inappropriately named) Mecca center. The only reason why I know it’s now in Indy is that I was taking a walk last year and saw some, umm, colorfully-dressed conventioneers.