Romney Thinks 250K Is "Middle Class"

[Polk]

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.....

It is an upper class income. 250k a year places a household in the top 1.5% of the income distribution. If that's middle class, then someone at 2% from the very bottom does as well. That means a household who's annual income is 3k a year is also middle class.

Your exercise is pedantry is duly noted.

I'm sorry that you find math objectionable.

 

[Zander]

It is an upper class income. 250k a year places a household in the top 1.5% of the income distribution. If that's middle class, then someone at 2% from the very bottom does as well. That means a household who's annual income is 3k a year is also middle class.

Your exercise is pedantry is duly noted.

I'm sorry that you find math objectionable.

I like math, it's the political silliness that accompanies it that I find so dull.

 

[Polk]

He has NO idea what most Americans have lived like all his life

Says the person locked away in a basement somewhere totally disconnected from reality.

Please, tell me what hardships Romney has faced in his life. And no, his car elevator getting stuck doesn't count.

 

[Polk]

Your exercise is pedantry is duly noted.

I'm sorry that you find math objectionable.

I like math, it's the political silliness that accompanies it that I find so dull.

But this isn't silly. At point where middle is defined as the 2nd to the 98th percentiles, you've robbed the word of all meaning.

 

[8537]

Please continue .....

I have four 25 cent pieces in my pocket from 1973. How much will those buy today?

In January of 1973 that $1.00 would have bought you about a 20 gallons of crude oil. Today that $1.00 will get you about 1/2 of a gallon. That's what inflation does bub, eats away your purchasing power.

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.

 

[Polk]

I have four 25 cent pieces in my pocket from 1973. How much will those buy today?

In January of 1973 that $1.00 would have bought you about a 20 gallons of crude oil. Today that $1.00 will get you about 1/2 of a gallon. That's what inflation does bub, eats away your purchasing power.

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.

 

[Polk]

And if we take a really broad of view of "middle class" at the bottom end and say it includes everyone in the bottom part of the distribution that's not below the poverty line, that still would result in the top of "middle class" incomes being 90k a year.

 

[8537]

In January of 1973 that $1.00 would have bought you about a 20 gallons of crude oil. Today that $1.00 will get you about 1/2 of a gallon. That's what inflation does bub, eats away your purchasing power.

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!

 

[Warrior102]

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.

George Stephanaplouos. The Greek (you know how they are!) gay guy?

He's only worth $8 million.

Who is he to speak on the woes of the middle class?

 

[xsited1]

And if we take a really broad of view of "middle class" at the bottom end and say it includes everyone in the bottom part of the distribution that's not below the poverty line, that still would result in the top of "middle class" incomes being 90k a year.

Well, no. Again, it depends on factors such as family size and geographical location. I certainly wouldn't say middle class extends to $250k at this time in the US as Romney has said, but it can exceed $100k.

Usually definitions for 'poverty' and 'middle class' are created for political purposes. If you're a Democrat, the upper-end poverty number is higher and the upper-end middle class number is lower than the definitions given by a Republican.

 

[Polk]

And if we take a really broad of view of "middle class" at the bottom end and say it includes everyone in the bottom part of the distribution that's not below the poverty line, that still would result in the top of "middle class" incomes being 90k a year.

Well, no. Again, it depends on factors such as family size and geographical location. I certainly wouldn't say middle class extends to $250k at this time in the US as Romney has said, but it can exceed $100k.

Usually definitions for 'poverty' and 'middle class' are created for political purposes. If you're a Democrat, the upper-end poverty number is higher and the upper-end middle class number is lower than the definitions given by a Republican.

Family size and geographic location are lifestyle choices. 200k is 200k everywhere in America. That you choose to spend more of it on a house, while others choose to spend more of it on other things isn't significant.

I'm not inventing a definition of poverty. I'm talking about the standard number used for calculating federal benefits, and basing income on federal statistics.

 

[Politico]

Another fail. Romney didn't make up that number. It's one of the markers used when making tax policy.

 

[kwc57]

And if we take a really broad of view of "middle class" at the bottom end and say it includes everyone in the bottom part of the distribution that's not below the poverty line, that still would result in the top of "middle class" incomes being 90k a year.

Well, no. Again, it depends on factors such as family size and geographical location. I certainly wouldn't say middle class extends to $250k at this time in the US as Romney has said, but it can exceed $100k.

Usually definitions for 'poverty' and 'middle class' are created for political purposes. If you're a Democrat, the upper-end poverty number is higher and the upper-end middle class number is lower than the definitions given by a Republican.

Family size and geographic location are lifestyle choices. 200k is 200k everywhere in America. That you choose to spend more of it on a house, while others choose to spend more of it on other things isn't significant.

I'm not inventing a definition of poverty. I'm talking about the standard number used for calculating federal benefits, and basing income on federal statistics.

Actually, that isn't true. $200k is $200k if it is being spent in the same place. Spent in different places, your mileage will vary. I own a very nice 2800 sq ft house in OKC that cost me $239k in 2001. That same house on the west or east coast would have cost at least a million. A company my brother used to work for didn't fire people very often. They transferred them to California instead without a raise in pay. They would quit because they couldn't afford the cost of living increase on the same salary.

 

[Liberal]

Shit.

I wish I was "middle class".

 

[Polk]

Well, no. Again, it depends on factors such as family size and geographical location. I certainly wouldn't say middle class extends to $250k at this time in the US as Romney has said, but it can exceed $100k.

Usually definitions for 'poverty' and 'middle class' are created for political purposes. If you're a Democrat, the upper-end poverty number is higher and the upper-end middle class number is lower than the definitions given by a Republican.

Family size and geographic location are lifestyle choices. 200k is 200k everywhere in America. That you choose to spend more of it on a house, while others choose to spend more of it on other things isn't significant.

I'm not inventing a definition of poverty. I'm talking about the standard number used for calculating federal benefits, and basing income on federal statistics.

Actually, that isn't true. $200k is $200k if it is being spent in the same place. Spent in different places, your mileage will vary. I own a very nice 2800 sq ft house in OKC that cost me $239k in 2001. That same house on the west or east coast would have cost at least a million. A company my brother used to work for didn't fire people very often. They transferred them to California instead without a raise in pay. They would quit because they couldn't afford the cost of living increase on the same salary.

It's absolutely true. Your house in OKC is cheaper because no one (comparatively speaking) wants to live in OKC. It's a lifestyle choice you made. Just like people in NYC make the choice to live there. You wouldn't make the same argument about a Bentley costing more than a Toyota, so why make the same argument about housing?

 

[Polk]

Shit.

I wish I was "middle class".

I focused on the part that was getting a lot of attention, but honestly, the more shocking part is that he implies 100k a year (which is more than roughly 95% of the population makes) is poor.

 

[kwc57]

Family size and geographic location are lifestyle choices. 200k is 200k everywhere in America. That you choose to spend more of it on a house, while others choose to spend more of it on other things isn't significant.

I'm not inventing a definition of poverty. I'm talking about the standard number used for calculating federal benefits, and basing income on federal statistics.

Actually, that isn't true. $200k is $200k if it is being spent in the same place. Spent in different places, your mileage will vary. I own a very nice 2800 sq ft house in OKC that cost me $239k in 2001. That same house on the west or east coast would have cost at least a million. A company my brother used to work for didn't fire people very often. They transferred them to California instead without a raise in pay. They would quit because they couldn't afford the cost of living increase on the same salary.

It's absolutely true. Your house in OKC is cheaper because no one (comparatively speaking) wants to live in OKC. It's a lifestyle choice you made. Just like people in NYC make the choice to live there. You wouldn't make the same argument about a Bentley costing more than a Toyota, so why make the same argument about housing?

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.

 

[Polk]

Actually, that isn't true. $200k is $200k if it is being spent in the same place. Spent in different places, your mileage will vary. I own a very nice 2800 sq ft house in OKC that cost me $239k in 2001. That same house on the west or east coast would have cost at least a million. A company my brother used to work for didn't fire people very often. They transferred them to California instead without a raise in pay. They would quit because they couldn't afford the cost of living increase on the same salary.

It's absolutely true. Your house in OKC is cheaper because no one (comparatively speaking) wants to live in OKC. It's a lifestyle choice you made. Just like people in NYC make the choice to live there. You wouldn't make the same argument about a Bentley costing more than a Toyota, so why make the same argument about housing?

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.

 

[kwc57]

It's absolutely true. Your house in OKC is cheaper because no one (comparatively speaking) wants to live in OKC. It's a lifestyle choice you made. Just like people in NYC make the choice to live there. You wouldn't make the same argument about a Bentley costing more than a Toyota, so why make the same argument about housing?

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.

 

[Trajan]

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.

wasn't 250K ( joint, 200K individual) the benchmark obama used as to the present tax structure staying in effect or not?