Romney Thinks 250K Is "Middle Class"

Depending on where you live $250k is middle class, but not upper middle class. When I hear of $250k a year describing middle class, I think of someplace like Kansas.

Heh ... I'm starting to think you might just be a brilliant satirist.

If so, well done. I mean that. You had me fooled.
 
Last edited:
But the dollar is just the medium of exchange. It's not representative of any specific value except the amount of time you require to earn it.

The average American working the average job can buy far more today - has a far higher standard of living - than someone living in 1973.

Exactly. Things cost more units of the medium of exchange, but people also earn more units of the medium.

Conservatarians of a certain age must wake up in the morning, notice they:
1) live in a house twice the size of the one they grew up in.
2) with multiple more televisions
3) more cars in the driveway, all getting better mileage than their first one.
4) a multitude of new gadgets
5) a vacation by plane in the works, something virtually unknown to the middle class.

Then drive to work, earn 6 times on average what they did in 1970....

And think "Man, I was so much better off when a loaf of bread was under a dollar and gas was 40 cents!

so appurtenances do count as wealth? glad to hear it.....
 
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.

Full Transcript: George Stephanopoulos and Mitt Romney - ABC News

At the point where people are the very top of the income distribution are considered "middle class", either you're way out of touch or the word "middle" has been stretched so far as to be meaningless.

As a class warfare specialist..

Why havent you broken down the middle.....Low, middle and upper middle......

Because it ruins the meme
 
Really? OKC is the 8th largest city in the US with a 2010 metro area population of 1.2M. That's a lot of "nobody". Our unemployment rate is well below the national average at 4.2%. We have a number of large employers such as Devon, Chesapeake, Sandridge and Continental Resources. Other large employers in OKC include McKesson Corp, Tinker Air Force Base, American Fidelity, AT&T, AAA, Bank of America, The Boeing Company, Braum's, Dell, The Hertz Corporation, Farmer's Insurance, Integris Health, The Hartford, JP Morgan Chase, Mercy Heath System, Sprint/Nextel, Williams-Sonoma, Xerox, United Parcel Service and Cox. In 2008, Forbes magazine named Oklahoma City the most "recession proof city in America". The magazine reported that the city had falling unemployment, one of the strongest housing markets in the country and solid growth in energy, agriculture and manufacturing. I could go on and on, but for you elitest who regard the middle of the country as "fly over", nothing would change your mind.

Oh yeah, your analogy of a Bentley and a Toyota won't hold water. Two totally different cars that have different value no matter where you buy them. The exact same house built for $250k in OKC would cost vastly more on the east and west cost. Same materials, same design, different economies. People stupid enough to live in places with that high of a cost of living deserve what they get.....less bang for their buck.

Oklahoma City is 43rd in the population, not 8th (it's 8th in land area, behind prize destinations like Sitka, AK, population 9k). And the reality is that most people don't want to live in "fly over country", as you describe it. If you gave people the choice between Oklahoma City and NYC, 80%+ are going to choose NYC. That doesn't mean Oklahoma City is a bad place, just that it's less in demand. That demand is reflected in housing prices. And you don't seem to agree with your claim that they should get "less bang for their buck", since you're claiming we should be subsiding their lifestyle choices by giving them a tax preference.

I did? I'd like to see that quote. :lol:

That's the implication of your statement that their choice to live in NYC makes them "middle class" and therefore should pay less in taxes.
 
Exactly. Things cost more units of the medium of exchange, but people also earn more units of the medium.

Conservatarians of a certain age must wake up in the morning, notice they:
1) live in a house twice the size of the one they grew up in.
2) with multiple more televisions
3) more cars in the driveway, all getting better mileage than their first one.
4) a multitude of new gadgets
5) a vacation by plane in the works, something virtually unknown to the middle class.

Then drive to work, earn 6 times on average what they did in 1970....

And think "Man, I was so much better off when a loaf of bread was under a dollar and gas was 40 cents!

so appurtenances do count as wealth? glad to hear it.....
No, they indicate standard of living and are a fair measure of a person's access to disposable income.

We have a far higher SoL and far more disposable income than we did in 1970 - despite an increase in the price of bread and oil.
 
Depends on where you live? If you live someplace where $250,000.00 a year is your salary, you live someplace rich.
 
Conservatarians of a certain age must wake up in the morning, notice they:
1) live in a house twice the size of the one they grew up in.
2) with multiple more televisions
3) more cars in the driveway, all getting better mileage than their first one.
4) a multitude of new gadgets
5) a vacation by plane in the works, something virtually unknown to the middle class.

Then drive to work, earn 6 times on average what they did in 1970....

And think "Man, I was so much better off when a loaf of bread was under a dollar and gas was 40 cents!

so appurtenances do count as wealth? glad to hear it.....
No, they indicate standard of living and are a fair measure of a person's access to disposable income.

but its not 'wealth'......:rolleyes:


We have a far higher SoL and far more disposable income than we did in 1970 - despite an increase in the price of bread and oil.

wow, hey did you watch the dem convention, because all I heard was a lot of how poor folks are and how rigged the system was and is.
 
[
but its not 'wealth'......:rolleyes:

No, its not wealth. You can't pass your television on to your children and they won't want your cell phone


wow, hey did you watch the dem convention, because all I heard was a lot of how poor folks are and how rigged the system was and is.

The system is rigged in many way and folks are more poor in comparison to the top 1% than at any time in the past 30 years. That doesn't mean the SoL hasn't increased.
 
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.

Full Transcript: George Stephanopoulos and Mitt Romney - ABC News

At the point where people are the very top of the income distribution are considered "middle class", either you're way out of touch or the word "middle" has been stretched so far as to be meaningless.

That estimate might be a little optimistic, but the median income for a family of four in Maryland is $102,002, in Massachusetts $100,228 and in New Jersey $102,552, meaning that half of all four person households in these states earn more than these amounts and the upper limit of the middle class there is probably not too far below $200,000.

The question is, would you rather follow Obama's advice to get used to stagnant incomes, high unemployment and soaring debt or Romney's guidance to get the debt under control, get people back to work and get the incomes of middle class families moving up to $200,000? I like Romney's can do attitude much better than Obama's defeatism.
 
if 250K is not considered middle class...then why does obama want to go back to the 250K tax rates pre bush...given he promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class?
 
Romney is right. It may be the upper range of what is considered "middle class" but it still is. Especially if you live in Los Angeles, San Franciso, New York, Boston, Chicago, Miami, etc......It may be considered a "rich" income in Omaha.....

Instead of struggling to STRETCH the truth and show Romney isn't wrong, why not admit it? This is a NON ISSUE. So he sets "middle income" too high, perhaps he will be sympathetic to the poor in America, most of the US IS, by this definition.

Romney needs fewer apologists and more ISSUE oriented supporters. UNEMPLOYMENT anyone?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top