ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues Romey says an average middle class income is $200,000 - $250,000 true or not? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=263659)

BigRedChief 09-14-2012 05:30 PM

Romey says an average middle class income is $200,000 - $250,000 true or not?
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-mitt-romney/

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know Democrats are going to be wanting to get much more detail from you on how youíre going to pay for your tax cuts. Weíve heard that at the Democratic Convention. President Clinton said your math doesnít work. I know you dispute what President Clinton said and what the Democrats that say that youíre going to have a $2,000 tax hike on middleclass families. I know you dispute that. You cite your own studies. But one of the studies you cite by Martin Feldstein at Harvard shows that to make your math work, it could work, if you eliminate the home mortgage, charity, and state and local tax deductions for everyone earning over $100,000. Is that what you propose?

MITT ROMNEY: No, thatís not what I propose. And, of course, part of my plan is to stimulate economic growth. The biggest source of getting the country to a balanced budget is not by raising taxes or by cutting spending. Itís by encouraging the growth of the economy. So my tax plan is to encourage investment in growth in America, more jobs, that means more people paying taxes. So thatís a big component of what allows us to get to a balanced budget.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But his study, which youíve cited, says it can only work if you take away those deductions for everyone earning more than $100,000.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, it doesnít necessarily show the same growth that weíre anticipating. And I havenít seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our ratesĖ

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you cited the study, though.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, donít reduceĖ or excuse me, donít raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, donít reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. Thatís principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

Dayze 09-14-2012 05:32 PM

Lol. Jfc

KC native 09-14-2012 05:32 PM

Out of touch. He is now uber kerry.

And before the dumbasses show up, median family income for the commonly accepted idea of middle class is somewhere around 53k

BucEyedPea 09-14-2012 06:36 PM

Are those figures for DINKS, only?

BigRedChief 09-14-2012 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 8910609)
Are those figures for DINKS, only?

No, these are Republican ideas of normal. Doesnt everybody make $250,000?

BigRedChief 09-14-2012 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC native (Post 8910490)
Out of touch. He is now uber kerry.

And before the dumbasses show up, median family income for the commonly accepted idea of middle class is somewhere around 53k

And 96% of all Americans make less than $200K. I guess he was talking about the top 4% middle class?

Lightrise 09-14-2012 07:06 PM

Romney's statement not only absurd, but it is incompetent. No other statement to date is more of a disqualifier to lead. Astonishing.

AustinChief 09-14-2012 07:14 PM

While his number is high, at best it would apply to UPPER middle class.. the rest of you need to get you figures straight. His number was for HOUSEHOLD income.

We discussed this in another thread... there is NO solid definition of middle class, so we are all going to have different ideas.

Personally my range for household income would be ~$75k to ~$250k for the entire range of "middle class."

Romney's range is far too narrow for the entirety of middle class, It is also at the extreme top end BUT it certainly isn't UPPER class.

If he had simply stated "upper middle class" there would be nothing to complain about... of course I doubt that would stop some of you anyway.

EDIT: to be clear.. the entire concept is flawed in today's world.. go back to 1950 if you want to focus on this dumb ass rhetoric (this goes for all politicians and pundits) and if you want to try to be slightly more accurate, you'd need to add in some type of "credit" for stay at home moms. Otherwise you could have two parents that work and spend an assload on daycare and it skews the figures.

Cannibal 09-14-2012 07:17 PM

So someone who makes 74k is poor?

AustinChief 09-14-2012 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannibal (Post 8910671)
So someone who makes 74k is poor?

As I stated.. the entire lower/middle/upper model is crap in today's world. ESPECIALLY if you base it simply on salary.

But yes, if the entire household income for a family of 10 living in New York City is $74k.. they are POOR. Poor as shit to be exact.

See the problem?

Of course, I think it is usually based around a hypothetical family of 4. And a family of 4 living off $74k isn't exactly doing well these days. I'm sure they could get by in Missouri and Texas but good luck on either coast.

Cannibal 09-14-2012 07:25 PM

But if a family of 3 in the midwest makes 74k?

AustinChief 09-14-2012 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannibal (Post 8910681)
But if a family of 3 in the midwest makes 74k?

Depends on cost of living.. not in Chicago... but it is getting close to the borderline but likely lower middle. Again, that's why the model is crap.

If you have a husband and wife each earning $37k and they have 3 kids.,.. you are really pushing it close to dropping out of the middle class depending HEAVILY on where you live and cost of living. Of course if the wife doesn't work then that changes everything significantly and you'd need to add her work at home into the equation somehow. If both parents work full time the child care expenses are going to eat up a ton.
So if it's a husband earning $74k then yeah it's probably a SOLID middle class family. If it's a husband earning $50k and a wife working part time for $24k then probably still middle. Loads of factors involved which is why I made the range so large.

Rain Man was right in another thread. We need to stop looking at ONLY salary and look at bigger issues like quality of life.

DaneMcCloud 09-14-2012 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief (Post 8910667)
While his number is high, at best it would apply to UPPER middle class.. the rest of you need to get you figures straight. His number was for HOUSEHOLD income.

We discussed this in another thread... there is NO solid definition of middle class, so we are all going to have different ideas.

Personally my range for household income would be ~$75k to ~$250k for the entire range of "middle class."

Romney's range is far too narrow for the entirety of middle class, It is also at the extreme top end BUT it certainly isn't UPPER class.

If he had simply stated "upper middle class" there would be nothing to complain about... of course I doubt that would stop some of you anyway.

EDIT: to be clear.. the entire concept is flawed in today's world.. go back to 1950 if you want to focus on this dumb ass rhetoric (this goes for all politicians and pundits) and if you want to try to be slightly more accurate, you'd need to add in some type of "credit" for stay at home moms. Otherwise you could have two parents that work and spend an assload on daycare and it skews the figures.


Dude, $75k a year for a family is the top end of middle class.

If you're pulling down more than a $100k a year for a family of four, in most cities, you're living very comfortably in a $325-$400k home in a nice neighborhood. You're not struggling and living paycheck to paycheck, which IMO, is the definition of the middle class.

Cannibal 09-14-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8910689)
Dude, $75k a year for a family is the top end of middle class.

If you're pulling down more than a $100k a year for a family of four, in most cities, you're living very comfortably in a $325-$400k home in a nice neighborhood. You're not struggling and living paycheck to paycheck, which IMO, is the definition of the middle class.

A family making 100k is not living in 400k house. That is simply not reality.

AustinChief 09-14-2012 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8910689)
Dude, $75k a year for a family is the top end of middle class.

If you're pulling down more than a $100k a year for a family of four, in most cities, you're living very comfortably in a $325-$400k home in a nice neighborhood. You're not struggling and living paycheck to paycheck, which IMO, is the definition of the middle class.

So says YOU. The entire model is fine for 1950s thinking. In today's world it is a complete waste of time and energy to try to shove things into a model that simply makes NO sense in reality. It represents NOTHING of value.

And it's fine for you to have your definition of middle class, it seems everyone has a different one.

BUT.. you are saying that $100k for a family of four with BOTH parents working for $50k each is RICH? That's a joke. I can't imagine anyone in that situation would feel very rich. Not a chance in ANY city outside of some complete rural area with DIRT CHEAP cost of living.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.