Most people just assert its existence. I don't think it exists. There is a middle, but it's not squeezed. We need to do some form of exercise similar to the one above.
I think logically, the first thing is to define who is the middle, and who is not, and then the exercise could help to support that conclusion (or not).
It might help to identify a cohort, if not bang in the middle, then somewhere between the middle and high, who potentially are being squeezed more than the absolute middle. Or maybe it will show that the top 20% of earners (aside- who are they?) are the ones squeezed the most.
Are we really saying that a couple on combined 60k should be classed as a "high earner"? Or a single person on 45k? I suspect not.
So for the moment (adjust figures as needed) let's say that a high earner is:
Couple with combined income of at least
72k (2 times the average income)
Single with income of at least
55k (1.5 times the average income)
Also, consider the cumulative impact of someone hit by most of these, some of which in and of themselves might be only an impact of €50 - €100 a year... but if you are hit with half a dozen of them? And these are only the ones directly attributable back to government...
USC, property tax, water charges, decrease in bands, reduction in credits, increase in VAT...
Also, health insurance increases (directly related to government policy i.e. levy increase and reduction in tax credit), and levies on insurance policies.
Medical expenses relief was reduced from marginal rate 41% to 20%.
Tax credits for service charges - withdrawn.
Removal of dental PRSI cover.
All taxpayers suffered but for non medical card holding, property owners on the highest tax rate it felt like death by a thousand cuts.
I think there have also been increases since the bailout in the government levies on petrol, carbon tax, renewable levy on home energy bills - all cloaked in green rhetoric but it still makes a dent in the wallet.
If we're looking at the non high earners, what cumulative dent did the bailout and austerity measures make in their income? 10%? 15%?
All this in a time of at best static wages and no significant increases in state benefits to workers.
Is that not a squeeze?