Romney: "Middle Income" Means $200,000 - $250,000

Superfreak said:
yes, because clearly he was talking about the actual median income figure and not a middle income range.
Click to expand...


That's awesome. He said "middle income." I didn't. He said it. Voluntarily. Those are his words. There isn't any plausible range of "middle income" that includes $200-$250 k. The lower bound for the top 5% of household income is about $185,000. If you're in the top 5% of all income earners, you aren't middle income by any reasonable definition.
 
Superfreak said:
and Obama says he wants to tax the rich, but preserve the cuts for those making $250 or less. Wow... thanks for the breaking news.
Click to expand...

Obama thinks that if you make $249,000 you aren't rich! He's so out of touch... <- for the sarcasmically limited (ie Democrats), this is sarcasm, please take it as such.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
That's awesome. He said "middle income." I didn't. He said it. Voluntarily. Those are his words. There isn't any plausible range of "middle income" that includes $200-$250 k. The lower bound for the top 5% of household income is about $185,000. If you're in the top 5% of all income earners, you aren't middle income by any reasonable definition.
Click to expand...

That's awesome, he was giving the top range of $200-250k and then he said 'and less'. He was defining the area of where he would raise taxes and where he would not. You are simply being a douche bag as usual in your vain attempts at gotchas. When back in reality, Romney is essentially saying that he agrees with Obama that taxes should not be raised on those making under $250... though he left room to take that down to $200.
 
Damocles said:
Obama thinks that if you make $249,000 you aren't rich! He's so out of touch... <- for the sarcasmically limited (ie Democrats), this is sarcasm, please take it as such.
Click to expand...

LMAO... He is obviously out of touch with people if he thinks making $249k isn't rich. What an idiot.
 
And looking at the full context shows he really doesn't understand what he's talking about:

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.
Click to expand...

So, $200,000 - $250,000 is "middle income" and he'll reduce taxes on these middle income earners, but the wealthiest, which he construes at the top 5% and which includes household incomes of $186,000 or more (i.e. all people earning more $200,000 - $250,000) will pay the same amount.

In short, wealthy middle income people in the top 5% will pay less or the same amount.
 
Superfreak said:
That's awesome, he was giving the top range of $200-250k and then he said 'and less'. He was defining the area of where he would raise taxes and where he would not. You are simply being a douche bag as usual in your vain attempts at gotchas. When back in reality, Romney is essentially saying that he agrees with Obama that taxes should not be raised on those making under $250... though he left room to take that down to $200.
Click to expand...


Again, I seem to have stepped through the looking glass where the things people say have no meaning:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear to me what he said, SF.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Again, I seem to have stepped through the looking glass where the things people say have no meaning:
It seems pretty clear to me what he said, SF.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, he was setting the top end of the range at $200-250 and then he said and less, to indicate it fell from that top. But I understand how you must continue flailing away at your attempted gotcha. Keep going Polly... you'll get your cracker today if you keep on trying...
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
And looking at the full context shows he really doesn't understand what he's talking about:



So, $200,000 - $250,000 is "middle income" and he'll reduce taxes on these middle income earners, but the wealthiest, which he construes at the top 5% and which includes household incomes of $186,000 or more (i.e. all people earning more $200,000 - $250,000) will pay the same amount.

In short, wealthy middle income people in the top 5% will pay less or the same amount.
Click to expand...


I'm more interested in hearing a coherent response to this one. It makes no fucking sense unless Romney just has not clue what he's talking about. $200-$250k is the top 5%!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ahhh more spin. Romney was saying that the top end of "middle class" was $200,000 to $250,000". I don't disagree with that. Obama has said virtually the same thing.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Who cares? We are talking about the guy who wrote a book falsely stating that the President of the United States went on an apology tour.

This comment should show up in ads. Clobber him with it. And I have the world's tiniest violin for anyone crying over it.
 
Darla said:
Maybe. Who cares? We are talking about the guy who wrote a book falsely stating that the President of the United States went on an apology tour.

This comment should show up in ads. Clobber him with it. And I have the world's tiniest violin for anyone crying over it.
Click to expand...

He also accused Obama of trying o make the 99% jealous of him and believes tax cuts should be talked about behind closed doors!
 
christiefan915 said:
What percentage of Americans make $200K a year combined?
Click to expand...
about 2 to 3% but where is the line for middle class? Is it simply a statistical measure that if you make more than the median household income your not middle class? I'd argue that it's the people who's household incomes are between $100,000 and $500,000 are the ones who get hosed the most by our current tax system. Now considering that State tax rates will be around 5% and local tax rates around 2% (and those are low ball numbers) a person making $250,000 per year would pay around 40% in taxes. These also tend to be the most productive people in our culture, the professionals, entrepreneurs, business managers, technologists, etc, the real job creators.

Now you go up to the guys who make the big money. Their income is derived mostly from investment and not productive work. They are the quintessential middlemen and they make far more money yet because their income is derived from investment and not productive work, they pay around 15 to 19% in total tax obligations.

So to my way of thinking it's the people who make between $100,000 and $500,000/year who get hosed the most by our current system. They do the most productive work but make far less than the super wealthy investment class who perform little productive work and pay more to support our nation than the super wealthy investment class. This isn't right.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
about 2 to 3% but where is the line for middle class? Is it simply a statistical measure that if you make more than the median household income your not middle class? I'd argue that it's the people who's household incomes are between $100,000 and $500,000 are the ones who get hosed the most by our current tax system. Now considering that State tax rates will be around 5% and local tax rates around 2% (and those are low ball numbers) a person making $250,000 per year would pay around 40% in taxes. These also tend to be the most productive people in our culture, the professionals, entrepreneurs, business managers, technologists, etc, the real job creators.

Now you go up to the guys who make the big money. Their income is derived mostly from investment and not productive work. They are the quintessential middlemen and they make far more money yet because their income is derived from investment and not productive work, they pay around 15 to 19% in total tax obligations.

So to my way of thinking it's the people who make between $100,000 and $500,000/year who get hosed the most by our current system. They do the most productive work but make far less than the super wealthy investment class who perform little productive work and pay more to support our nation than the super wealthy investment class. This isn't right.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be wrong...

For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000. Those numbers are from 2008, and have probably fallen 5 to 7 percent since then, on account of the recession. Median income for a single-parent, two-child family is about $25,000.
Click to expand...

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/slideshows/how-to-gauge-your-middle-class-status/2

That was 4 years ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm

For American households in the middle of the pay scale, income fell to $49,445 last year, when adjusted for inflation, a level not seen since 1996.

And over the 10-year period, their income is down 7%.

"Economists talk about the lost decade in Japan. Well, with these 2010 data, we can confirm the lost decade for the American middle class," said Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Rising costs for middle class

Sure, it's fair to say Americans at all levels of income, from rich to poor, were hit hard in the decade that started with the dot-com boom and bust, and ended with the Great Recession.

But according to the census data, those losses disproportionately hit the lowest 60% of Americans, while the richest 40% actually gained wealth, relative to the entire U.S. economy.

Much of that trend can be explained by massive losses in the housing sector, the period of high unemployment that ensued, and rising prices that flew in the face of the American family's heightened financial struggles.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top