Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K
Is the GOP candidate too far removed from average Americans?
By Steve Peoples, The Associated Press
Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.
But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.
The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have painted him repeatedly as out of touch with average people.
Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
His campaign later clarified that Romney was referring to household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income -- the midpoint for the nation -- is just above $50,000.
Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for people making less than $250,000, while Romney wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone.
Romney has not explained how he would keep his plan from growing the nation's deficit.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
I am making about $45,000 a year before taxes. That includes Army retirement, CA state PERS retirement, SS, and I thank GOD
that my wife and I can live a comfortable life with house and car paid for. I served 21 years in the miltary through Korea and Vietnem wars and worked 15 years for my county. I have always considered us to be low-middle class. WOW! if I had a $250,000 income I would consider myself Super rich and would gladly continue to serve my country by paying a little more in taxes.
Wow, if 200 K is middle class then my wife and I have been poverty stricken our entire adult lives. Our best year ever was just under 100 K before taxes and I worked a brutal year to make as much as I did, most of my weeks being 60 hours and more. One more point....I was blue collar all the way.
The people who govern us don't have a clue !!
I'd really like to see you concede the election to Obama, Mitt. You haven't produced your own tax returns for us to review. You've never created or recovered one single job in your whole life. You didn't serve in the military, but you talk big about war. In fact, you are a draft dodger who used a religious quest as an excuse. Your former business is suspect, and what we do know isn't the kind of expertise America needs or wants at the top. Your chief donors are anti-Americans. The Fate of America is far too important to trust to the machinations of a Republican. Go home.
The formula worked under Clinton with balanced budgets and surpluses as a result.
Republicans HATED Clinton for balancing America's budget. Republicans tried to prevent his balanced budgets by trying to cut taxes in 1997 that Clinton bravely VETOED. We never would have saw blanced budgets if Rethugs had got their way. Then in 2000 America 'elected' Bush and his tax cuts shoved America off a cliff into bankruptcy and fiscal recklessness.
High unemployment is the result of Bush tax cuts. Bush gave tax cut incentives to American corporations that outsourced jobs to China.
Debt and deficits are the result of Reagen and Bush tax cuts and fiscal recklessness.
Bush cut taxes and in the following years saw jobs vanish as fast as any point since the GREAT DEPRESSION.
Tax cuts are job killers, NOT job creators. Bush proved that FACT.
Romney promises to increase the military budget, create millions of jobs, save medicare and medicaid, provide a better healthcare plan, and increase our foreign involvement all the while cutting taxes on every person and corporation but he can't tell us how.
As a newly announced candidate I promise to replace every water fountain with soda pop. I'll tell you how after I'm elected. Vote for me!
I guess all working class people are already living in proverty or considered low income, Romney's job is already done before he is elected.
That is how Corporate America justifies 8 digit CEO compensation packages we are all making $250000 a year.
Romney's idea of a range for middle class is strange. Households making 200k-250k assumes husband and wife each make 100k or better. Romney is talking about the top 10-15% not middle class. To make that much they would have no time to raise their children and would leave it to others. .
For a person that is supposed to have business sense and an ability to communicate clearly Romney fails.
Gee, Mitt Romney's concept of "middle income" is much higher than mine. Using the concept of household income for a couple with two children, I would say that middle-income is from $50,000 to about $150,000 in today's economy.
So my response to Stephanopoule's question: "Is $100,000 middle income?" would be YES. As a college professor for over 30 years, my top salary the year before I retired was $78,000 and I always believed that I was middle income.!!!
Repubs can`t spin this story.He`s not only out of touch, he`s not there for anybody but
Even in more expensive areas of the country, $200K to $250K HOUSEHOLD income would be considered UPPER middle class, and in less expensive areas you could consider that WEALTHY.
Household incomes over $250K are part of the top 3% of the wealthy in the US.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Breaking up big banks is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|