Published on April 10, 2026
“The government will provide 100,000 won per person in high oil price relief funds to those in the bottom 70 percent of income earners.”
Reading Budget Minister Park Hong-keun’s supplementary budget announcement on March 31, one phrase stood out as oddly jarring: “bottom 70 percent.” Regardless of whether the eligibility threshold is appropriate, attaching the label “bottom” to such a large share of the population feels awkward. The expression began to gain currency during the Moon Jae-in administration, when emergency relief payments were distributed using similar criteria. As such programs became more frequent, the terminology appears to have entered official government language without much hesitation.
According to government estimates, the “bottom 70 percent” referenced 32.56 million people. If this group is considered the lower tier, the remainder would presumably be the upper tier. Yet this binary framing leaves something out: the middle. A significant portion of those classified within the bottom 70 percent are, in fact, members of the middle class.
In the past, policymakers often used expressions such as “households earning less than 150 percent of the median income.” , the 70 percent threshold reaches well into the upper range of the middle class. For a four-person household, this can approach an annual income of 100 million won (about $67,500). After taxes and living expenses, such families may not feel affluent, but they are typically diligent taxpayers raising children and saving to buy homes. Even with financial support, being labeled as part of the “bottom” may feel uncomfortable.
This is not merely a matter of semantics. It reflects the fading visibility of what might be called the “forgotten middle class.” In the past, policymakers recognized the middle class as a core constituency, believing that a broad and stable middle was essential for both economic vitality and social cohesion. Over time, however, the middle class has become less visible in policy discussions. Today, the population is often framed simply as either lower or upper-income groups.
This pattern has been evident in real estate policy. Recent government measures have largely focused on curbing housing prices in affluent districts such as Gangnam or expanding public rental housing. One former official noted that while many speak of “K-shaped polarization” and focus on rising apartment prices in wealthy areas, the real center of housing stability lies in the middle segment, which receives little attention. Meanwhile, housing prices for mid-range apartments and jeonse leases, which are primarily used -income households, have continued to rise together.
Policies such as land transaction permit systems, which effectively require owner occupancy, have reduced the availability of rental units. As a result, demand has shifted toward relatively affordable housing with fewer lending restrictions, pushing prices higher. For genuine market stability, the government needs to send a clear signal that it will steadily supply housing at prices accessible to the middle class. Yet recent policies have paid less attention to supply.
Some may argue that widening economic inequality inevitably shapes policy priorities. If so, consistency is still necessary. The middle class is treated as part of the “bottom” when receiving benefits, but as part of the “top” when paying taxes. Last year, Korea collected 68.4 trillion won in earned income tax, a 12.1 percent increase from the previous year, even as corporate and value-added tax revenues stagnated or declined. This has fueled dissatisfaction among salaried middle-income workers, who see their nominal wages rise while tax brackets remain largely unchanged for nearly two decades, effectively resulting in what some call a “stealth tax increase.”
Calls have emerged to introduce an inflation-indexed tax system that would adjust brackets in line with rising prices. However, a senior fiscal official recently dismissed the idea, citing concerns that raising the threshold could increase the number of tax-exempt workers. Already, about one in three workers pays no income tax.
As of 2024, Korea’s share of tax-exempt workers stood at 32.5 percent, higher than in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Lowering the exemption threshold and requiring even small contributions would align with fiscal principles, but such measures carry political risks. At the same time, adjusting tax brackets could reduce the burden on high-income earners, inviting criticism of tax cuts for the wealthy. Middle-class taxpayers thus find themselves squeezed between non-taxpayers and the affluent.
A decade ago, a slogan displayed in government buildings read, “Support the working class, strengthen the middle class.” That direction remains relevant in an era of widening inequality. Without it, the phrase “bottom 70 percent” may give way to “bottom 80 percent” or even “bottom 90 percent,” reflecting a society where the middle continues to shrink.
Related News
- US Sanctions Force Lukoil to Exit Foreign Assets in Multibillion-Dollar Deal
- Raquel Welch Races Around the Rink in Kansas City Bomber
- ‘Scariest batter in India’: Langer’s prophecy on Mukul Choudhary comes true
- Her Murder Had Been Cold for Decades. Five Gen Zers Attempted to Solve It. It Took Them Somewhere the Detectives Never Imagined.
- BTS battle torrential rain to kick off $1bn world tour
- Mediterranean sharks are vanishing in a legal void