Defining Weatlhy: Working Class, Poor Class, Etc.

An article in the Washington Journal entitled, "Wealth-Less Effect: Earning Well, Feeling Otherwise," by Gary Fields explains that those people making $250,000 aren't necessarily "wealthy," and that Obama's tax increases are putting the pinch on them. One family mentioned in the article was living in a 2500 square foot home, driving around in a 10 year old Infinity, and had to reduce vacations and other luxuries.

I don't know how to define "wealthy," but I personally think it boils down to perspective. I personally make less then 20K a year, and I am a Navy veteran with a B.A. I'm not lazy, and I do work 40 hours a week. I live in a small apartment and drive around in a 10 year old Buick. In fact, I have it a lot better then most in my situation. I can pay my utilities, and I'm not living in a rat hole, though my AC recently went out, so I'm waiting for the lanlord to fix it, and the wiring in the house is a bit off. I don't have cable, and I certainly don't take vacations. I don't own a boat, or a second car, nor do I buy new clothes. In fact, I've bought new clothes probably three times in the last two years.

Some of the folks I work with feel as though I am wealthy. Some of them earn less then I do, and at every level, there is a desire for those above them to somehow relinquish their so-deemed luxaries, at least to a minimal extent, so that those less fortunate may prosper a bit more. Relatively, I'm pretty poor compared to those at that income level where the Obama taxes take place. On the same token, I'm pretty affluent compared to someone living in Project housing making $340 a month on TANF because she didn't complete a GED due to societal, parental, and other environmental influences. In some cases, the mere fact that I even have a job has created discontent with my fellow citizens who've experienced job lay-offs and who've found it difficult to secure new employment. I often hear, "You're so lucky to have a job." I've even encountered beggers who see me driving my shiney 10 year old vehicle, and assume I have "a few dollars to spare." I assure you, I do, but feel no obligation to every stranger I see in need. I too would be destitute if I relinqueshed my earnings to every needy person I met.

Where those who make over a certain amount have faced economic difficulties that have stretched their dollars, those of us at the bottom are struggling to ensure we have a place to live and can afford to pay for child care and food for the family. That's the bottom line, in my opinion. How do we resolve such an issue without putting too much burden on those who've managed to earn their way into higher income brackets? The easy answer is to tax them, as they can clearly afford to feed themselves, house themselves and provide transportation for themselves, but it's not working well, or at least as far as I can see. For now, many Americans are upset about this fact. The taxation has been deemed a "redistribution of wealth."

What I propose, though, is that those of us at the bottom aren't scum, especially those of us working honestly to earn a wage. Those of us who work full-time jobs and struggle to not become evicted are the one's who are the minor consumers, as well as the back-bone of the industry. Without low-wage earners, people in top places would be in a lot of trouble financially. Perhaps if we were paid more sufficiently, we wouldn't pose a threat to taxation.

So, going back to the tax issue and the economic stimulus plan, how do we resolve this conundrum of redistribution of wealth? Do we impose some sort of wage-cap, above minimum wage? Where I live, many educated people are earning less then 30K/year. Many of us are earning even less then that. When minimum wage went up, our pay didn't go up. The gap from minimum wage to our wages decreased too, and when the cost of basic living necesseties keeps rising, that gap is just as significant for us as the problem of increased taxes for those who are perhaps middle-class yet deemed "wealthy."

Or, perhaps, should that $250,000 income gap have been increased? At what point do we asses the tax bracket in such a way that the economy is stimulated enough to help those who are working honestly but are struggling to survive in the United States? Furthermore, if we don't tax the so-called wealthy, then how do we ensure those with necessary employment don't struggle so much that they can no longer afford to work? After all, why show up for work when that employment no longer pays rent and childcare, gasoline, and food? Do we simply assume it's everyone's fault for earning less then 20 or 30K a year and let them suffer, despite the fact that those people fill necessary roles in society, so much so that should they end up homeless or jobless due to lay-offs that the economy and society suffers exponentially?

I think, perhaps, I do understand why many families are upset at the notion of imposing more taxes on certain income levels. As I mentioned, wealth is relative, and the notion of redistributing it seems unfair at any level. I'd be hard-pressed to want to take a pay-cut so that people in poverty can have more of a chance, because I feel financially pressed at times myself. Again, though, as a nation of wealth, what we aim to improve, is a decrease of poverty. Opening opportunity to the poor is paramount in our efforts to reduce the income gaps in our nation. Furthermore, we need to reward hard-workers without allowing meaningful employment to become a burden.

In conclusion, I don't purport to say that because I cannot fathom even making $50K a year, let alone $250 that those people deserve steeper taxes. I simply propose that rather then complaining, we ask ourselves, what IS the solution?