Romey says an average middle class income is $200,000 - $250,000 true or not?

[BigRedChief]

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 you’re going to pay for your tax cuts. We’ve heard that at the Democratic Convention. President Clinton said your math doesn’t work. I know you dispute what President Clinton said and what the Democrats that say that you’re 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, that’s 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. It’s 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 that’s a big component of what allows us to get to a balanced budget.

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

MITT ROMNEY: Well, it doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our rates–

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, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s 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.

[AustinChief]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...181052583.html

So basically ... middle class stops at $250k per household for Romney.. almost the same number Obama uses. His statement certainly could have been clearer. I'd have to see the actual video to judge but it sounds like he is saying no $100k isn't the limit it's 200 or 250k and less.

Sooo. non-story.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Whatever it takes to create class division is good

In with insight!

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

He came out later and said he meant HOUSEHOLD income.

Yeah, there really isn't much of a story here

I agree.

Sorry BRC for ruining your thread.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So then, it's a matter of semantics? What do call a family of four that owns a home and two cars, takes a vacation once every few years but has little to no savings?

In my opinion, what you describe here, is the very definition of "middle class". They're certainly not "upper" middle class, or "rich".

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...181052583.html

So basically ... middle class stops at $250k per household for Romney.. almost the same number Obama uses. His statement certainly could have been clearer. I'd have to see the actual video to judge but it sounds like he is saying no $100k isn't the limit it's 200 or 250k and less.

Sooo. non-story.

I'd be willing to bet that those families of four earning $75k per household don't view those earning $200k or more as being in the same class - financially or socially.

Regardless of which nitwit politician claims it to be so.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

My spending standard?

On the contrary: I think that tens of millions more Americans live beyond their means than below it.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. I am referring to the spending standards to which you are referring in your posts. I know that tens of millions of Americans live beyond their means. However, many people still live below their means.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

In my opinion, what you describe here, is the very definition of "middle class". They're certainly not "upper" middle class, or "rich".

yep.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

In my opinion, what you describe here, is the very definition of "middle class". They're certainly not "upper" middle class, or "rich".

That's what I believe as well. But as Rainman and AC have pointed out, tying those things to income is tenuous at best because the cost of living varies greatly from state to state and city to city.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'd be willing to bet that those families of four earning $75k per household don't view those earning $200k or more as being in the same class - financially or socially.

Regardless of which nitwit politician claims it to be so.

Of course they don't .. everyone thinks that anyone significantly over or below is in the next corresponding class. It's silly.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

If we want to talk MEDIAN income levels and such then yes.. but we all know that the TERM middle class is a loaded one that has a meaning outside of the ACTUAL math.

There was study done awhile back that basically showed that almost everyone thinks THEY are middle class and anyone significantly above or below them is lower or upper class. the term is just useless when used in such a simplistic way.

Romney, Obama and the media paint it in jingoistic terms that make no real sense.

At it's narrowest, the middle class would comprise the middle 1/3 of households. Some might argue that it should include those from the second and third quartiles. To suggest that a family earning in the 90% percentile is somehow middle class demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of any sort of statistics.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

At it's narrowest, the middle class would comprise the middle 1/3 of households. Some might argue that it should include those from the second and third quartiles. To suggest that a family earning in the 90% percentile is somehow middle class demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of any sort of statistics.

And to make this assertion shows a complete lack of understanding of sociology and psychology and lexicography(?).

You are trying to equate the term and it's accepted use and meaning to individuals with the actual math. Don't. No one else thinks of the term that way. The term "middle class" has a meaning in American culture that has almost ZERO to do with the actual numbers. Saying otherwise is simply wrong. You can however say what it "should" mean... but again, since you'll be hard pressed to find people who see it that way, you're on your own.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...181052583.html

So basically ... middle class stops at $250k per household for Romney.. almost the same number Obama uses. His statement certainly could have been clearer. I'd have to see the actual video to judge but it sounds like he is saying no $100k isn't the limit it's 200 or 250k and less.

Sooo. non-story.

yeah, shit hit the fan and he goes, no, no, no I mean total household income, just like the other guy. I'm not buying it. CYA Romeny

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

yeah, shit hit the fan and he goes, no, no, no I mean total household income, just like the other guy. I'm not buying it. CYA Romeny

Umm no.. most people speak in terms of household income in this context. That's on YOU if you want to see it otherwise... but it isn't the standard for this type of discussion. You could REALLY stretch your dislike of Romney and say it was 50/50 that he meant individual income.. but that's about as far as any reasonable person could go.

As I said, it's really not a story... but this thread has been great for the discussion of the overall concept of "middle class"!!

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Whatever it takes to create class division is good

you mindless imbecile.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'd be willing to bet that those families of four earning $75k per household don't view those earning $200k or more as being in the same class - financially or socially.

Regardless of which nitwit politician claims it to be so.

This hearkens back to those statistics we read where people always say they'd be "comfortable" if they made 20% more money, regardless of what their income is. I wonder if it means that people view anyone making 20% more than them as being in a different class.