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.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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

96% of americans dont make $200K. a middle class = THE MIDDLE

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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.

Rich? No, definitely not rich. But definitely the high end of the middle class.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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.

If I had to guess, I would bet that the majority of people that frequent your bulletin board earn a combined income of less the 74k and I think for the most part they are middle class. I certainly don't believe that 250k is middle class.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

96% of americans dont make $200K. a middle class = THE MIDDLE

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

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

Hmm, I guess you'll have to tell my brother, who just bought his second house for $400k and earns just about that sum, that he doesn't own his home.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

If I had to guess, I would bet that the majority of people that frequent your bulletin board earn a combined income of less the 74k and I think for the most part they are middle class. I certainly don't believe that 250k is middle class.

That could be true. and my numbers could be off. I really don't care because I think of the term as silly and meaningless.

If we want to talk about the real math that's fine.. but the term "middle class" is so completely subjective and silly that I just don't see a point behind the discussion.

If we go by people that self-identify as "middle class" the range is probably $40k to $300k per household of 3-5 people. Again, it's just too simplistic a term to try to explain more complex situations than it can possibly cover.

[Rain Man]

I would define a household as being out of the "middle class" if they meet either one of the following requirements:

1. they are not worried about retirement and anticipate being comfortable in retirement.

2. they don't need to work.

On Item #1, I would guess that starts being applicable at around $200,000 a year, and even that depends on the age of the person. A young person earning $200,000 a year may be much better positioned than a 63 year-old making that amount. On Item #2, income is irrelevant because it's more about wealth.

As mentioned in another thread, though, I think "middle class" shouldn't even be used any more. I think we should base our perceptions of affluence or lack thereof on quality of life and not income.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I would define a household as being out of the "middle class" if they meet either one of the following requirements:

1. they are not worried about retirement and anticipate being comfortable in retirement.

2. they don't need to work.

On Item #1, I would guess that starts being applicable at around $200,000 a year. On Item #2, income is irrelevant because it's more about wealth.

As mentioned in another thread, though, I think "middle class" shouldn't even be used any more. I think we should base our perceptions of affluence or lack thereof on quality of life and not income.

And here we have a post that makes perfect sense.

[Saulbadguy]

And a ton of poor hayseeds are going to vote for him. Makes sense.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

And here we have a post that makes perfect sense.

However that's swapping out one subjective term for another.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

That could be true. and my numbers could be off. I really don't care because I think of the term as silly and meaningless.

If we want to talk about the real math that's fine.. but the term "middle class" is so completely subjective and silly that I just don't see a point behind the discussion.

If we go by people that self-identify as "middle class" the range is probably $40k to $300k per household of 3-5 people. Again, it's just too simplistic a term to try to explain more complex situations than it can possibly cover.

$300k? LOL

If you're pulling 300k, you're living in at least an $800k house driving a Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, etc., have kids in private school and so on.

NOT middle class by a LONG shot.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

$300k? LOL

If you're pulling 300k, you're living in at least an $800k house driving a Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, etc., have kids in private school and so on.

NOT middle class by a LONG shot.

That's what they self identify as. Don't blame me blame the silly term that nearly everyone thinks applies to them.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

However that's swapping out one subjective term for another.

true but it is much more clearly subjective, where most people think Middle Class is some magically objectively defined term when it is not even close.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I would define a household as being out of the "middle class" if they meet either one of the following requirements:

1. they are not worried about retirement and anticipate being comfortable in retirement.

2. they don't need to work.

On Item #1, I would guess that starts being applicable at around $200,000 a year, and even that depends on the age of the person. A young person earning $200,000 a year may be much better positioned than a 63 year-old making that amount. On Item #2, income is irrelevant because it's more about wealth.

As mentioned in another thread, though, I think "middle class" shouldn't even be used any more. I think we should base our perceptions of affluence or lack thereof on quality of life and not income.

Its kind of like test scores in school. They have to have some way to identify success.

I agree middle class is a over used term that means something different to a lot of people. But GEEEZZ That figure that romney has in his head is not "middle class". It's like wanting to bet $10K in a televised public debate.

But, the point of the thread was to see how many agree with romney, If you are making $200K-250K are you "middle class"?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

That's not what they self identify as. Don't blame me blame the silly term that nearly everyone thinks applies to them.

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?