Romney to George Stephanopoulos: "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."

[highplainsdem]

Stephanopoulos mentioned this briefly in his blog

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/exclusive-romney-on-debates-obama-will-say-things-that-arent-true/

but the full transcript is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-george-stephanopoulos-and-mitt-romney/

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.

Emphasis added.

[customerserviceguy]

1. There's a goodly number of expensive places in the US

where that income really does qualify as middle income, in terms of housing prices, commuting expenses, and taxes.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Nevertheless median income is around 50,000.

His plan raises taxes on actual middle class Americans while giving the wealthiest an astounding new tax cut on top of the budget busting bush tax cut that caused the deficit problem they claim they are trying to fix.

[rfranklin]

5. That is not a useful measurement...

Upper-middle-class workers typically have post-graduate degrees and work at high-level, white-collar positions. Household income for these workers is often above $100,000. According to the Census bureau, upper-middle-class, or professional class workers, earn enough to be in the top one-third of American incomes.

The next income level is what is commonly called the "5 percent," or the percentage of Americans who make more than $150,000 annually. At the top of the economic ladder is the so-called "1 percent," or households that earn more than $250,000 annually.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/09/13/where-do-you-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system

[highplainsdem]

6. Yes, there are high-income enclaves. But Gallup uses $36,000 - $89,999 to define middle income.

That's household income.

The poll below is out of date, obviously, but it turned up when I searched to see what's generally considered middle income.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155030/romney-edges-obama-battle-middle-income-voters.aspx

Romney is simply demonstrating, once again, that he doesn't really know what middle income is.

And of course if he redefines middle income as households earning up to a quarter million a year, his tax plan would do less damage to that redefined middle class.

If he redefined it to include households earning a million a year, his tax plan would be even better for the middle class.

But he isn't entitled to his own facts about what is "middle income."

[HiPointDem]

9. But not in terms of income. Which is the actual meaning of "middle income".

If it costs $250K to live in richville, usa, that doesn't mean people making $250K in richville are 'middle income'.

That's like saying queen elizabeth is 'middle income' because it costs a lot to live at the palace.

[geckosfeet]

2. So. Stupidly. Out. Of. Touch.

How far removed from reality is this asshole? By any measure, any average or statistic, $200k is not middle income. Is this just a blatant lie? A clear demonstration of a lack of being able to make simple observations? Or a pathological attachment to wealth and the divisions it can create?



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/526
Where Do You Fall on the Income Curve?
American middle class - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[HiPointDem]

11. interesting map. i wondered what that dark rectangle in wyoming was, so i looked it up.

campbell county: coal.

A coal, oil and natural gas boom has lifted Wyoming’s economy into the stratosphere. This is what explains the relatively high median income ($76,863) in Campbell County, home to the rich coal beds of the Powder River Basin. It also explains why the wealthiest people here have seen their income grow 6.9 percent since the recession started.

Wyoming, he says, provides more energy to the rest of the lower 48 than anyplace in the world. Ironically, it was the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that set off the boom for Wyoming’s low-sulfur coals. It is, of course, not low in carbon.

Today, fast-growing Asian economies sustain the growth. “China’s consistent demand has pretty much kept Wyoming out of the recession,” says Samuel Western, a writer who specializes in Wyoming economic history.

“Wyoming has gone from being one of the poorest states in the nation to one of the wealthiest,” says Western. “There’s a collective memory in this state of what it was like to live without. And man, that is a very powerful dynamic,” so he does not begrudge his neighbors the success. “I am grateful to see Wyoming prosper so much. Damn, Wyoming’s been poor for a long time.”

Wyoming is also overwhelmingly conservative and highly suspicious of the federal government. Sen. Mike Enzi, once mayor of Gillette, has been a good friend to the mining companies. But the natural resources that fuel the state’s boom times are often extracted from federal land, and taxes on the collectively held resources pay for the new social services. In the end, the earth’s atmosphere will pay for Wyoming’s carbon boom. Politicians in Washington have yet to reckon with the cost.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/five_places_where_the_rich_got_richer/slide_show/2

[highplainsdem]

12. +1,000

[reformist2]

14. The ironic thing about that map and Romney.... the dark green areas aren't voting for him!

[randome]

4. He can't even speak properly.

Why not say "Middle income is 250,000 and less." ? It's a stupid contention but at least it makes grammatical sense.

And now he wants us to believe that his only quibble with Obama is the cut-off point?

Oh, I can't wait for the first debate.

[JHB]

10. He holds Obama to very high grammatical standards.

His whole campaign theme revolves around "that" instead of "those".

[BeyondGeography]

7. Mitt's lying again; the first $250K of income will not be subject to a tax increase

He's just trying to wind people up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The point is that Mitt's "plan" can only be made to work by raising taxes on those over $100,000

A pro-Romney analyst, Martin Feldstein, worked out he'd have to eliminate all deductions for everyone over $100,000. From the transcript:

...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.

That's why he's asking if $100,000 is the top of the 'middle class' section. Romney's numbers and definitions don't add up.

[JHB]

8. A reminder of the burden on "middle income" people: 1955 income tax rates, adjusted for inflation

Please note two separate things: the actual tax rates and the incomes that mark the breaks between brackets.

Romney's people are decrying a top rate less than half of the 1955 rate as "socialism." Since apparently we were "socialist" in 1955 (and super-socialist at that), what were the Soviets? Was Eisenhower (and VP Richard Nixon) a socialist? What sort of people back then called him that? (hint: demagogues and ranting cranks)

Once can argue about the advisability of a 91% rate (though remember there were plenty of loopholes to cut that rate in practice), so also take a look at the inflation-adjusted tax brackets:

First, there were 24 of them back then compared to 6 today.

Second, 16 of those 24 (two thirds!) affect incomes over the equivalent of $250,000. So the question "is $250K rich?" is a pile of historically ignorant crap. The correct answer is "more than some, less than others" and the historical bracket breakpoints reflected that.

[quaker bill]

13. A subtle bit of wording

"Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest."

He is talking about reducing the middle. To keep the "share of" the same, he is also reducing the taxes on the wealthiest, probably by a far larger $ amount because there are fewer of them.

[highplainsdem]

18. Very good point.

[tjdee]

15. That's why they MUST define "middle class".

If Rmoney truly thinks he is not raising tax on middle class incomes, it must be pointed out that he thinks $200K is middle class.

[tjdee]

17. Did I just see that median income is around FIFTY THOUSAND?

Yeah.

[HopeHoops]

19. He's admitting that raising the tax rate on income over $250K doesn't impact the middle class!

I disagree with the range he chose ($40K-$80K is more like it), but by the numbers he just threw out, Obama's plan doesn't raise taxes on the middle class! Doesn't he read anything?