Class, Privilege, and Social Markers

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Boots13

The U. S. Department of Labor describes the working poor as

“individuals who have spent at least twenty-seven weeks in the labor force, but whose income fell below the official poverty threshold.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty threshold is $14,763 for a family of four.

So we are labeled and assigned a social class by our own government, no matter how fluid social class has become. I'm pushing 50 and cant remember a time (in my lifetime) the economy has been so unstable. All the biggies are affected..Tech, Pharm, Oil, Wall Street, Banking, Real Estate, Insurance...nothing seems stable.

Our economy is so unstable that my ideas of Social Class (re: money, assets, income, futures) are rapidly changing as well. Is the instability changing (or at least lending compassion) to our social structures? I hope so.
I don't know where I'm going with this, other than to reiterate that my perception of economic social class in North America is undergoing a huge shift. White Collar is no longer bastardizing our economy, that Blue Collar feels honest to me, and that the Working Poor with its broader base, is no longer thought of as a lazy population. Poverty and deficit has nested in places its never been in my lifetime (Wall Street, Real Estate, Tech, Oil) . Poverty and financial oblivion is a place that any of us are headed, at any time. And as our country continues to corkscrew itself further into economic distress I can tell you that the economic "markers" and expectations (old stereotypes) of social class seem to be changing.

It seems to me that the government is defining an economic threshold here, not a social class.

Melissa

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Melissa

It seems to me that the government is defining an economic threshold here, not a social class.

Melissa

How do you define Social Class?

It is very difficult to put a finger in it in the US.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

How do you define Social Class?

It is very difficult to put a finger in it in the US.

Well, social class, I default back to English definitions which aren't related to income. Plus the English class system has no meaning or equivalent in the US. This is why many people emigrated here, to free themselves from a rigid class system.

For me, in the US, there are no social classes, just income brackets. An individual can move through various income brackets in the course of his or her lifetime. I think people in the US make assumptions and create stereotypes about other people based on what they perceive they own or earn. In England I'm working class because that was the class I was born into. In the US I think I am considered middle class because of my income bracket and education level. I default back to working class because I don't know of any other way to think of myself. However, I guess people would look at me strangely in the US because by US definitions I am middle class. But since I work 60+hours a week I call that "working" class lol. But I do get confused when I see people saying they hate it when the middle classes approripate the identity of the working class. I can't wrap my brain around this statement. What does that mean? I think I am coming at this thread from a totally different angle so I am just going to keep reading.



Melissa

[Waldo]

While I agree that talking about how much money one has, spends or earns is often tacky - particularly so outside of one's closest friends. I also think that this "we mustn't discuss" attitude is part of the problem that lead to this most recent financial downturn.

Our inability to say "I don't have the money to do X" is often fueled by a misunderstanding about what other people really have.

My experience of those who have money is spot on with the adage that they rarely talk about it. Due to the industry I work in I would venture to say that I am on a first name basis with more millionaires than the average person and with most of them you would never know it. Not just because they don't talk about it, but they don't spend like it. They don't drive the latest cars, wear the flashiest clothes, take the most expensive trips.

Their wealth will likely last their lifetime and they'll have a nice large estate to pass down to their heirs.

I also know a good number of very rich folks who will likely wind up with nothing in relatively short order because of bad decisions and a lack of restraint. They DO drive the latest, and often multiple, cars. They wear designer clothing and exensive jewelry and they travel first class all the time. They consume constantly.

How interesting a world it would be if one's salary and net worth were publicly available. I wonder if that would change how we view money, things, wealth. Just a thought.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Well, social class, I default back to English definitions which aren't related to income. Plus the English class system has no meaning or equivalent in the US. This is why many people emigrated here, to free themselves from a rigid class system.

For me, in the US, there are no social classes, just income brackets. An individual can move through various income brackets in the course of his or her lifetime. I think people in the US make assumptions and create stereotypes about other people based on what they perceive they own or earn. In England I'm working class because that was the class I was born into. In the US I think I am considered middle class because of my income bracket and education level. I default back to working class because I don't know of any other way to think of myself. However, I guess people would look at me strangely in the US because by US definitions I am middle class. But since I work 60+hours a week I call that "working" class lol. But I do get confused when I see people saying they hate it when the middle classes approripate the identity of the working class. I can't wrap my brain around this statement. What does that mean? I think I am coming at this thread from a totally different angle so I am just going to keep reading.



Melissa

Makes sense

I think in the US they wanted to be different from England in the beginning and not have the whole "Nobility" thing. So class is more based on money, education and what one does for a living, than on one's ancestral heritage. The US wanted to be a nation where anyone could make it rich and be "accepted" and a part of the "Upper Class".

I agree that it is very confusing and the more I read and study about it, the more I do not get where the lines are.

I do think it is insane that the poverty line in the US is less than $15,000 for a family of 4. I think one person would have severe difficulty with that amount, let alone four.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Makes sense

I think in the US they wanted to be different from England in the beginning and not have the whole "Nobility" thing. So class is more based on money, education and what one does for a living, than on one's ancestral heritage. The US wanted to be a nation where anyone could make it rich and be "accepted" and a part of the "Upper Class".

I agree that it is very confusing and the more I read and study about it, the more I do not get where the lines are.

I do think it is insane that the poverty line in the US is less than $15,000 for a family of 4. I think one person would have severe difficulty with that amount, let alone four.

It's now a whopping $22k, as of 2009: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Makes sense

I think in the US they wanted to be different from England in the beginning and not have the whole "Nobility" thing. So class is more based on money, education and what one does for a living, than on one's ancestral heritage. The US wanted to be a nation where anyone could make it rich and be "accepted" and a part of the "Upper Class".

I agree that it is very confusing and the more I read and study about it, the more I do not get where the lines are.

I do think it is insane that the poverty line in the US is less than $15,000 for a family of 4. I think one person would have severe difficulty with that amount, let alone four.

It's an insanely low amount. I keep thinking about some Senator who did this experiment to show that it was possible to live off minimum wage. He, his wife and two teenagers decided they were going to live on minimum wage for one month to prove it was doable. Urgh. I wish I could remember his name.

I think this notion of class comes into play when we start to lay meanings on top of the income bracket. We start to interpret what that income level says about a person. And this is where the danger lies and where all the assumptions and stereotypes start to accumulate. eg. the assumption that if you are poor you must be lazy. We start to layer income brackets with more and more meanings. Sometimes those meanings are romaticized as Dylan was saying (poor but happy, the noble poor etc) and sometimes they just villify (poor due to laziness, poor therefore uneducated, ignorant). But the meanings and assumptions, for me, don't equal class. I think we tend to lump anything related to income level together and call it class when we need to start separating out some of the issues related to the assumptions and stereotypes.

Anyway, hope I'm making sense

Melissa

[Boots13]

Originally Posted by Melissa

It seems to me that the government is defining an economic threshold here, not a social class.

Melissa

Hi Melissa - sorry I missed your response to my reply. I agree partly with you, in that the Government is defining an economic threshold...but I feel that with that definition comes a determination of class. And in this case, economic class.

But what rips me about our government are the inequalities that come with that determination (or threshold). Even though class is a fluid hierarchy in our society, it is full of inequalities, inconsistencies and contradictions (taxing middle America vs tax loops for big business, big money, old money, etc)

I think North America's class distinctions are complicated because they are fluid (we are not born and forever labeled by a Caste system) but still come with a stigma that my be detrimental to those being labeled. I have that bias as evidenced in my prior post (middle class is hard working, upper class are crooks..etc).

just my opinion on a touchy and complicated subject.

[Martina]

Class is very real. It's not just in our heads. It's who you know, who your parents know. It's the assumptions and categories you were taught as a child. There are things they know exist in the world for them, realities they accept as stable, that i have a hard time even believing in.

There are some things they don't have that my African American friend from Flint, Michigan has. My friend's family never ever disowns or cuts out a family member. They may be in jail. They may be queer (which is not approved of), but they are always welcome home. Their behavior is less important than the fact that they are family. They do not have to prove anything to anyone to be accepted. i have not found that to be true sometimes for people raised in the upper middle classes.

We enact class all the time. It's impossible to think outside of class without doing lots and lots of work. And we injure ourselves and others with assumptions and fears about class. Not necessarily brutally. i know lots of proud working class people. i think that if people are not desperately poor and they fit in with the people around them, they are as likely to be happy as anyone else.

Class does not determine happiness or satisfaction with life. But it is ever-present. It is relentless. Much harder to see outside of than racism, sexism, and homophobia -- although those are tough.

Class is determinative in ways that people constantly underestimate. Two and three generations in the upper middle class does not really turn you into a member of the upper middle class. It takes a long time to learn and unlearn the way of looking at the world that your social class created in you.

My parents came from world that distrusted outsiders. Outsiders were likely to despise you. We were vigilant about that in ways that have much more to do with living in poverty among a less respected class of people than any reality i lived on a daily basis. In fact, i was very privileged in my home town. i lived in a small house in the nicest suburb. i had educated parents doing a job that gave them some recognition -- for a while my dad was the high school basketball coach -- the town's only high school. i was an only child and felt pretty safe. i wandered around the neighborhood and the woods freely (it was the sixties). i had a good good life.

But i have had to tame that reaction to other people "mugging" me that causes my inner city students to get in fights with one another all the time. i have a lot of those same assumptions in my bones -- about the world looking down on me and mine.

i know that my friend whose parents worked their way up to great security and wealth from relatively lower middle class roots -- that their family is riddled with anxiety about losing it all. The people she went to college with -- at an elite college -- were not raised that way.

Class is, IMO, the primary prism through which we see the world.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Martina

Class is determinative in ways that people constantly underestimate. Two and three generations in the upper middle class does not really turn you into a member of the upper middle class. It takes a long time to learn and unlearn the way of looking at the world that your social class created in you.


This so powerfully part of my experience and so much a part of the lens I look through. I sometimes have a good chuckle with the theory of upward mobility.

Often, I think of sayings like ... you can take the girl out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the girl....

Or, you can give the working-poor class immigrant garbage man's daughter an education and upward social mobility, but can't take the immigrant garbage man's working-poor class out of the daughter. I don't know if this always serves me well. I do know, I am stuck with it. Yet, there is more for my family generations to work through.


Class is, IMO, the primary prism through which we see the world.

Yup, the primary prism.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Martina

Class is very real. It's not just in our heads. It's who you know, who your parents know. It's the assumptions and categories you were taught as a child. There are things they know exist in the world for them, realities they accept as stable, that i have a hard time even believing in.

There are some things they don't have that my African American friend from Flint, Michigan has. My friend's family never ever disowns or cuts out a family member. They may be in jail. They may be queer (which is not approved of), but they are always welcome home. Their behavior is less important than the fact that they are family. They do not have to prove anything to anyone to be accepted. i have not found that to be true sometimes for people raised in the upper middle classes.

We enact class all the time. It's impossible to think outside of class without doing lots and lots of work. And we injure ourselves and others with assumptions and fears about class. Not necessarily brutally. i know lots of proud working class people. i think that if people are not desperately poor and they fit in with the people around them, they are as likely to be happy as anyone else.

Class does not determine happiness or satisfaction with life. But it is ever-present. It is relentless. Much harder to see outside of than racism, sexism, and homophobia -- although those are tough.

Class is determinative in ways that people constantly underestimate. Two and three generations in the upper middle class does not really turn you into a member of the upper middle class. It takes a long time to learn and unlearn the way of looking at the world that your social class created in you.

My parents came from world that distrusted outsiders. Outsiders were likely to despise you. We were vigilant about that in ways that have much more to do with living in poverty among a less respected class of people than any reality i lived on a daily basis. In fact, i was very privileged in my home town. i lived in a small house in the nicest suburb. i had educated parents doing a job that gave them some recognition -- for a while my dad was the high school basketball coach -- the town's only high school. i was an only child and felt pretty safe. i wandered around the neighborhood and the woods freely (it was the sixties). i had a good good life.

But i have had to tame that reaction to other people "mugging" me that causes my inner city students to get in fights with one another all the time. i have a lot of those same assumptions in my bones -- about the world looking down on me and mine.

i know that my friend whose parents worked their way up to great security and wealth from relatively lower middle class roots -- that their family is riddled with anxiety about losing it all. The people she went to college with -- at an elite college -- were not raised that way.

Class is, IMO, the primary prism through which we see the world.

As much as I might wish that what you say isn't true...I am inclined to agree with you.

I grew up somewhere below working class. We were that "deserving poor" family that was the recipient of the basket of food from the PTA ladies at Thanksgiving. Yes, my mother worked but haphazardly...because she was more focused on other enterprises that were important to her, but that left us unsupervised and dependent on the salvation army for clothes and the kindness of the parents of friends for normal "kid things" like trips to the movies or other outings.

I lived most of my childhood in a one-bedroom apartment...we lived 6 months without any living room furniture (until we found a rather startling orange couch at the curb one evening)...we were evicted a few times. We didn't own a TV. I never owned new clothes until I could buy them myself. My mother was also "too proud" (her words) to accept the "charity" of food stamps or welfare...so we just did without. Friends whose mothers collected welfare lived much better than we did. I don't say this as a "pity me"...just to illustrate the root of my perspective.

What I did learn, very young, was to work. To work hard, and to work long hours. I got my first babysitting jobs at age 10, my first "real" job at 15. I had a full time job by the time I was 16...and have worked ever since. I have always supported myself (and then my son), without assistance...even from husbands.

I also figured out that education was the only pathway that I could see out of poverty. I worked full time and went to college... getting a BA. That helped. I kept working. Other stuff intervened...and it was 20 years before I could go back to school for my masters. I got my MBA and things changed again, for the better.

I am now a little cog in a medium-sized corporate wheel and I love it. I like my work. I like the appreciation of my boss. I like my teammates. I love that I work from home.

But...here's the deal. I may have advanced degrees and all of the technical credentials for the job, but I will still never be senior mangement. I don't come from the same place those folks come from. I don't see the world the same way. I don't know the things and the people they do. They appreciate my creativity and my work...but they know I am not one of them, just as I know it.

Technically, I am middle class. My income puts me in that quartile. I have a college education. I live in a relatively affluent suburb in a top-rated school district. I drive a newer car. We go on a vacation every year.

I don't feel middle class though. I feel like a poor person with some money.

I tried to find the post and couldn't....but someone posted here about their food issues. Empty cupboards or a bare refrigerator will send me into an emotional tail spin. I will and can budget anywhere...except at the grocery store. I buy the expensive stuff there....fresh berries, dry-aged beef, the really good olive oil. These are the things that hold my old poverty mentality at bay. Doesn't make sense...but it's what's real for me.

The primary difference that I see is that the people I know who grew up middle or upper class appear to feel secure in their place in the world. They, at least appear, to have the sense that things will always be okay. If things go wrong for them, they have backup in family. It's not entitlement exactly....but just a feeling of mastery or rightness. Not sure if I'm putting that well...

What I feel is nothing like that. It comes from having lived on the edge for my entire youth...and of having only myself to depend on ever since. I feel like my survival (and my son's) is dependent on my education, my work, my vigilance. If I falter, we are screwed. I trust my own ability to survive almost anything (short of nuclear war) because I know how to work, how to get along, and how to make a living no matter what comes. That's a weird kind of security of its own....but it's different from the security that comes from growing up with enough.

[Greyson]

Speaking of Class, Privilege and Socail Markers.....


______________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/op...outhat.html?hp

NY Times

July 11, 2010

The Class War We Need

By ROSS DOUTHAT

The rich are different from you and me. They know how to game the system.

That’s one interpretation, at least, of last week’s news that Americans with million-dollar mortgages are defaulting at almost twice the rate of the typical homeowner. It suggests an infuriating scenario in which the average American slaves away to keep Wells Fargo or Bank of America off his back, while fat cats and high fliers cut their losses and sail off to the next investment opportunity.

That isn’t exactly what’s happening, most likely. Just because you have a million-dollar mortgage doesn’t make you a millionaire, and a lot of the fat-cat defaulters probably aren’t that fat anymore. Chances are they’re more like Teresa and Joe Giudice from “The Real Housewives of New Jersey,” tacky reality-TV climbers who recently filed for bankruptcy after their decadent lifestyle turned out to be a debt-enabled fantasy.

Still, watching the Giudices sashay through their onyx-encrusted mansion, and knowing that thousands of similarly profligate homeowners are simply walking away from their debts, it’s easy to succumb to a little class-warrior fantasizing. (Pitchforks, tar, feathers ... that sort of thing.)

The trick is to channel those impulses in a constructive direction. The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Consider the spread that the Giudices currently occupy (pending potential foreclosure proceedings, of course). The first million of its reported $1.7 million price tag is presumably covered by the federal mortgage-interest tax deduction. Intended to boost middle-class homebuyers, this deduction has gradually turned into a huge tax break for the affluent, with most of the benefits flowing to homeowners with cash income over $100,000. In much of the country, it’s a McMansion subsidy, whose costs to the federal Treasury are covered by the tax dollars of Americans who either rent or own more modest homes.

This policy is typical of the way the federal government does business. In case after case, Washington’s web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores. We subsidize drug companies, oil companies, agribusinesses disguised as “family farms” and “clean energy” firms that aren’t energy-efficient at all. We give tax breaks to immensely profitable corporations that don’t need the money and boondoggles that wouldn’t exist without government favoritism.

And we do more of it every day. Take Barack Obama’s initiative to double U.S. exports in the next five years. As The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney points out, it involves the purest sort of corporate welfare: We’re lending money to foreign governments or companies so that they’ll buy from Boeing and Pfizer and Archer Daniels Midland. That’s good news for those companies’ stockholders and C.E.O.’s. But the money to pay for it ultimately comes out of middle-class pocketbooks.

This isn’t just a corporate welfare problem. The same pattern is at work in our entitlement system, which is lurching toward bankruptcy in part because of how much Medicare and Social Security pay to seniors who could get along without assistance. Instead of a safety net that protects the elderly from poverty, we have a system in which the American taxpayer is effectively underwriting cruises and tee times.

All of this ought to be grist for a kind of “small-government egalitarianism,” in the economist Edward Glaeser’s useful phrase, that seeks to shrink government by attacking Washington’s wasteful spending on the well-connected. And sometimes conservative politicians make moves in this direction. President George W. Bush’s Tax Reform Commission proposed sharply reducing the mortgage-interest deduction. House Minority Leader John Boehner, to his great credit, recently floated the possibility of means-testing Social Security. Many Republican senators have been staunch critics of corporate welfare.

In the age of Barack Obama, many rank-and-file conservatives have been more upset about redistribution of a different sort — the kind that takes money from the prosperous and “spreads the wealth” (as Obama put it, in his famous confrontation with Joe the Plumber) down the income ladder.

This kind of spending can be problematic. But conservatives need to recognize that the most pernicious sort of redistribution isn’t from the successful to the poor. It’s from savers to speculators, from outsiders to insiders, and from the industrious middle class to the reckless, unproductive rich.

[AtLast]

Yes, I was listening to some reporting about this over the weekend. Makes one give pause!

Originally Posted by Greyson

Speaking of Class, Privilege and Socail Markers.....


______________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/op...outhat.html?hp

NY Times

July 11, 2010

The Class War We Need

By ROSS DOUTHAT

The rich are different from you and me. They know how to game the system.

That’s one interpretation, at least, of last week’s news that Americans with million-dollar mortgages are defaulting at almost twice the rate of the typical homeowner. It suggests an infuriating scenario in which the average American slaves away to keep Wells Fargo or Bank of America off his back, while fat cats and high fliers cut their losses and sail off to the next investment opportunity.

That isn’t exactly what’s happening, most likely. Just because you have a million-dollar mortgage doesn’t make you a millionaire, and a lot of the fat-cat defaulters probably aren’t that fat anymore. Chances are they’re more like Teresa and Joe Giudice from “The Real Housewives of New Jersey,” tacky reality-TV climbers who recently filed for bankruptcy after their decadent lifestyle turned out to be a debt-enabled fantasy.

Still, watching the Giudices sashay through their onyx-encrusted mansion, and knowing that thousands of similarly profligate homeowners are simply walking away from their debts, it’s easy to succumb to a little class-warrior fantasizing. (Pitchforks, tar, feathers ... that sort of thing.)

The trick is to channel those impulses in a constructive direction. The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Consider the spread that the Giudices currently occupy (pending potential foreclosure proceedings, of course). The first million of its reported $1.7 million price tag is presumably covered by the federal mortgage-interest tax deduction. Intended to boost middle-class homebuyers, this deduction has gradually turned into a huge tax break for the affluent, with most of the benefits flowing to homeowners with cash income over $100,000. In much of the country, it’s a McMansion subsidy, whose costs to the federal Treasury are covered by the tax dollars of Americans who either rent or own more modest homes.

This policy is typical of the way the federal government does business. In case after case, Washington’s web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores. We subsidize drug companies, oil companies, agribusinesses disguised as “family farms” and “clean energy” firms that aren’t energy-efficient at all. We give tax breaks to immensely profitable corporations that don’t need the money and boondoggles that wouldn’t exist without government favoritism.

And we do more of it every day. Take Barack Obama’s initiative to double U.S. exports in the next five years. As The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney points out, it involves the purest sort of corporate welfare: We’re lending money to foreign governments or companies so that they’ll buy from Boeing and Pfizer and Archer Daniels Midland. That’s good news for those companies’ stockholders and C.E.O.’s. But the money to pay for it ultimately comes out of middle-class pocketbooks.

This isn’t just a corporate welfare problem. The same pattern is at work in our entitlement system, which is lurching toward bankruptcy in part because of how much Medicare and Social Security pay to seniors who could get along without assistance. Instead of a safety net that protects the elderly from poverty, we have a system in which the American taxpayer is effectively underwriting cruises and tee times.

All of this ought to be grist for a kind of “small-government egalitarianism,” in the economist Edward Glaeser’s useful phrase, that seeks to shrink government by attacking Washington’s wasteful spending on the well-connected. And sometimes conservative politicians make moves in this direction. President George W. Bush’s Tax Reform Commission proposed sharply reducing the mortgage-interest deduction. House Minority Leader John Boehner, to his great credit, recently floated the possibility of means-testing Social Security. Many Republican senators have been staunch critics of corporate welfare.

In the age of Barack Obama, many rank-and-file conservatives have been more upset about redistribution of a different sort — the kind that takes money from the prosperous and “spreads the wealth” (as Obama put it, in his famous confrontation with Joe the Plumber) down the income ladder.

This kind of spending can be problematic. But conservatives need to recognize that the most pernicious sort of redistribution isn’t from the successful to the poor. It’s from savers to speculators, from outsiders to insiders, and from the industrious middle class to the reckless, unproductive rich.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Yes, I was listening to some reporting about this over the weekend. Makes one give pause!

Anyone see me taking a cruse, or having tea time? Gives me pause alright, like if they do take away medicare and reduce my social security, just how am I going to pay my way in the world, or how am I going to pay for the prescriptions I need, or that next surgery that is coming down the line. Keep your hands off social security and medicare and stop paying for 2 wars. That is the friggen answer.

[asphaltcowboi]

this is just my opinion and my thoughts.
being raised wanting for nothing but expected to work and make something of ourselfs. just balrey got my GED i managed to retire comfertable from a union back breaking job.
i feel class has to do with more with a persons morals then a persons check book.
also touching on the privlages of the rich.. i know right now because our country is struggling financialy many that do have money are being audited and dinged by the IRS in many ways that were never an issue in the past.
just random thought.