Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
It is from an economic standpoint. Technically, they are "in the middle" and it's a good thing to have a large portion of the country have expendable income.
However, it becomes a bad thing when politicians refer to the middle-class as the receiver of benefits and people think it applies to them when it doesn't. What the middle class IS and what it is interpreted to be are two different things. Economically, it's those that fall in the middle and if there is a significant enough number of people under 200k that they fall into the middle as well, it's a good sign. But politically, when people hear "middle-class" they think of the lower-end, the people that are struggling to get/keep their heads above water. So they vote with the party claiming to benefit the middle-class, without considering what that actually means, which is not necessarily a good thing.
|
I do find it amusing that it works on the other end as well. A lot of people that make less than 44k also consider themselves middle class, and that Trudeau's tax cut leaves them out.
It really is the greatest politic-term ever. It's so vague, yet it's positive and everyone thinks they're part of it. Pandering to the "middle class" is probably like 95% of the population (whether they're actually middle class or not).