[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But a question. With no one willing to admit that they actually know what the middle class really is how can the left keep claiming that Ronald Reagan's fiscal policies were designed to destroy it?

Because Regan's policy of things like; eliminating company funded pensions in favour of a company tax credit for 401k contributions, or elimination of an inheritance tax, were meant to make the rich richer and the median income earners poorer. {looks around} And it worked.

Trust me Doc, I believe you but, if you can figure out that the median income earners in our country were the middle class why can't our can't our Minister of the Middle Class? Like I said in my original post the middle class has always been defined by income and now suddenly this gov't can't figure out how much money people should have to be considered middle class.

It seems like a pretty simple thing to measure but, for some reason our social engineering bureaucrats must have decided that measuring the middle class by wealth might show just how few middle class people we really have left in Canada.

So, why not just claim we don't know what the middle class is rather than admitting gov't policies for the last 5 decades have led to the near extinction of the median income earners.

It's actually a simple case of not being able to find just how far you have to move the goal posts to make yourself look good and it's embarrassing that any gov't would actually go public and show such ineptitude or political machination.

It seemed pretty straightforward to me that the Median income (and the one person who is exactly Median ) should be the center of a Normal Distribution curve and the 68% of the population within the first +/- Standard Deviation would be "The Middle Class". The next standard deviations would be the upper and lower income classes, and the last would be the 1% on one side and the abjectly poor on the other.

But I'm not a politician, so these things seem obvious.

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It seemed pretty straightforward to me that the Median income (and the one person who is exactly Median ) should be the center of a Normal Distribution curve and the 68% of the population within the first +/- Standard Deviation would be "The Middle Class". The next standard deviations would be the upper and lower income classes, and the last would be the 1% on one side and the abjectly poor on the other.

But I'm not a politician, so these things seem obvious.

I think the point is anyone can "determine" what the middle class is. They just need to make an arbitrary decision as to what definition to use. They'll need a way to balance income & costs for various areas too because middle class in Toronto could look like the elite class in the Yukon.

[CharlesAnthony]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

It's actually a simple case of not being able to find just how far you have to move the goal posts to make yourself look good and it's embarrassing that any gov't would actually go public and show such ineptitude or political machination.

I am going to let you in on a little secret....... all government departments are just as full of shit.

This ineptitude is to distract attention.

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because Regan's policy of things like; eliminating company funded pensions in favour of a company tax credit for 401k contributions, or elimination of an inheritance tax, were meant to make the rich richer and the median income earners poorer. {looks around} And it worked.

It seemed pretty straightforward to me that the Median income (and the one person who is exactly Median ) should be the center of a Normal Distribution curve and the 68% of the population within the first +/- Standard Deviation would be "The Middle Class". The next standard deviations would be the upper and lower income classes, and the last would be the 1% on one side and the abjectly poor on the other.

But I'm not a politician, so these things seem obvious.

And that's what I thought to but, we may be mistaken. Here's an interesting history lesson on the emergence of the "middle class" and oddly enough it doesn't just have to do with financial status.

https://www.post-gazette.com/local/regi ... 1111200308

It also has social and societal positions to take into account which might be the real reason our gov't can't give us a definition. It's quite obvious that they don't want to define the middle class by income alone which would make the demographic almost non existent. So, they've decided to use the 1820 model which uses your station in life to alter your position in society.

So the question becomes, are they trying to take us back to the 1820's so they can ensure they have a large middle class that's flat assed broke but still has station in life.

[PluggyRug]

It's all Upstairs Downstairs with no Middlestairs.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

It's all Upstairs Downstairs with no Middlestairs.

There's a middlestairs. It's the giant chasm next the staircase, with no handrail to grab before you plummet to your doom.

-J.

[CharlesAnthony]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So the question becomes, are they trying to take us back to the 1820's so they can ensure they have a large middle class that's flat assed broke but still has station in life.

Oh, I get it!
You are an optimist!