Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K

Is the GOP candidate too far removed from average Americans?

By MSN Money Partner Sep 14, 2012 2:25PM

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.

Sep 21, 2012 9:40AM
Wow, if middle income is $200,000-$250,000, those of us making less than $100,000 should not be paying any taxes. We should be getting earned income credit since we are obviously under the poverty level.
Sep 20, 2012 4:34PM
Middle income is $200K? He must be looking at middle income of country club members versus the average working americans. He is SOOOOOO out of touch with regular people with the exceptions of the ones mowing the lawn of his mansion.
Sep 20, 2012 2:57PM

I just wish that one of the candidates would actually have an economic plan.  Everyone is so distracted by the mudrucking that no one has actually asked them what their plans are.  We use to ask where is Obama's birth certificate, well where is Mitt's plan?  He says he has one, but is not ready to disclose it? REALLY?  And Obama hasn't said much either.  It's like everyone getting excited when the European government said they would not let the Euro fail.  HOW?  What's the PLAN MAN?  Just keep printing greenbacks without value?  Empty promises and wishes do not run a country.  I don't have an answer, just sick of the lip service. 

Sep 20, 2012 1:55PM
At least both candidates agree on something...
Sep 19, 2012 11:24PM

One would have to wonder if Romney could lower his standards enough to be able to be President?  How is society going to percieve his exotic personal endeavors and frivolous personal spending?  I really think he is realizing that he would be lowering his standards to be President and be able to lead a predominantly poor nation.  He sees the majority of Americans well beneath him and likely despises our existance, based off his recent comments.  He seems completely out of touch with the majority of Americans.  Why would we want a President with more money than he knows what to do with, but has no real answers for how to fix our economic problems?  Would anyone really want to elect someone President if that person was perceived as rich, spoiled and felt that their sh#*t didn't stink?  Obama has clearly won the 'lesser of two evils' battle.  Seriously, our democracy is broken beyond immediate repair.  No candidate has the 'magic pill' to cure what ails our country.  The reality is that we will all have to take our lumps for years before this economic mess can ever be repaired.  Increasing taxes is not the answer.  Overspending is the problem.  The government is guilty and most Americans are guilty.  We have developed into such a greedy society that it is now consuming us.  Get ready for some serious hardship to come.  'Survival of the fittest' is our future and soon to be predominant path of existence on Earth. 

Sep 19, 2012 7:10PM

Wow. Such a barrage of anti-Obama comments. Seems to be a little lop-sided towards the Mitt side here.


Wait. I understand. It's the 'money' pages of MSM. The 47% wouldn't normally peruse these pages, would they? Must be those making the big bucks checking their portfolios... those who stand at risk for the tax increases Obama is looking for. Well, yeah... I guess if I fell into that category I would be in Romney's camp too. Heaven forbid that whatever wealth I amassed should aid the U.S. Government in feeding the poor, building infrastructure, teaching kids, paying down the debt...


Yeah. I can see Mitt protecting your wealth. If you're lucky, maybe he'll start another war and really make those defense/ military-industrial stocks pay off. Then you won't have to rely on those pesky insider trading tips and junk derivatives to sweeten your pot.


Go Mitt!

Sep 19, 2012 4:30PM
Clueless Romney does not understand the meaning of central tendancy, median, mode, average.  He just makes up crap and now the idiot thinks the middle ground folks make a quarter million a year...not.
Sep 19, 2012 12:23PM

If the government flat out took all the money from the billionaires and millionaires in this country it would still not balance the current budget deficit for one single year. I'm not talking about taxing the rich. I'm talking about if the gov't stole all their $ and everything these people own it would still not balance the budget and we are talking only one year folks. What happens every year thereafter when nobody has any money left? Where are they going to get it? The problem is so far beyond repair & it exposes how stupid people really are when they think taxing the rich will solve everything. What we need to do is drastically cut spending. This will not solve the problem either, but hopefully it gets this country back to the right frame of mind. Its budgeting 101.  If you don't have the $ you don't spend it.  They are going to try and inflate their way out of this & we are all going to suffer. To the people on here worrying about taxing the rich you better focus your efforts on looking out for #1. I would not put any faith in a politician to save you.  They've all done a great job up until now haven't they? Both Romney and Obama are completely irrelevant & it's going to get ugly real soon.

Sep 18, 2012 8:23AM

who ever posted this and or wrote the title of the article shoudl be FIRED! this is deceptive journalism at its worst. or can't the journalist READ!  this is a clear attempt to decieve the public and characteristic of the liberal media. it is the kind of thing that is destroying this Country, you should be deeply ashamed.

Sep 18, 2012 12:34AM
It's not that difficult.  Everyone is taxed (income) at the same rate.  The more you make the more you pay.  Just be happy your not in any European country.  That's why we fought against the British.  Give me a break,  I'm starting to think Romney is sabotaging his own campaign.  Because he has realized he isn't qualified to be or deserves to be the President of the US.

Sep 17, 2012 10:55PM
The dems have always loved other people's money. But now they feel entitled to an even larger peice of it.
Sep 17, 2012 9:45PM
Perhaps all of you liberal weenies wouldn't  like taxes so much if you paid your fair share. 47% pay zero income taxes and 10% of those that pay $0 get a refund. The top 25% pay 87% of the total income taxes. If only those freeloaders would quit whining while the top 25% carry the load.
Sep 17, 2012 5:29PM
So, what do you suppose the Dumbocruds will do when they tax everything from the wealthy and still can not balance their budget?
Sep 17, 2012 1:02PM
Nothing like a deceiving headline to get attention.  The headline does not reflect the text of the story.
Sep 17, 2012 1:00PM

The Truth about Percent Versus Dollars

Everyone wants the rich ($250,000 is not rich) to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes because they don’t think it’s enough. Well, how much is enough? If someone is paying hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in taxes already, why should they pay more? So what if it’s only 10, 12, or even 5% of their income. Why should someone who works harder and sacrifices more, pay more? Its evil, it’s wrong, it’s unfair. Those paying millions are supporting the low lives of the country paying only a few hundred dollars. If that’s 20% of your income, maybe you just need to work harder? The rest of us are tired of supporting you.

Sep 17, 2012 9:41AM
A president has to be the president of all the United States, not just the president of the wealthy areas of the country.

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.

Sep 17, 2012 8:04AM
Steve, it is you who is out of touch.  $250K for a family of four, in many parts of the country, is middle class while that same income in Tyler Texas puts you in the 1%.  The answer here is "it depends" and you should know that and report the facts.  The fact that most of the $250K wage earners are not in places like Tyler is no accident and a $250K income in Manhattan does not make you upper crust by a long shot.
Sep 17, 2012 8:03AM
With the ever widening gap between rich and poor , as the middle class dissapear's...I seriously doubt if the wealthy 2% can continue to gamble on the backs of the poor. No middle class means no stock market...welcome to third world United States,best advice you'll ever hear....get your money out now before the house of cards collapses!
Sep 16, 2012 9:25AM

For those interested in Economic history, read about Marriner Eccles.  He was the Fed Chairman from the 1930s until about 1950.  Eccles was from Utah and had a life much like Romney, and Romney's father and Eccles were acqaintances.  Despite being a multi millionaire, Eccles was a Keynesian.  I am not saying I agree or disagree with Eccles but  bring up his name for those interested.  And to be fair about Ben Bernanke...his father was a pharmacist in a small town in South Carolina.  To pay for college, every year Ben went home and worked as a waiter at a South of the Border restaurant on the Interstate.  He is an authority on the Great Depression and knows that if the poor, working poor, and unemployed have no hope, surely you will  have major, major civill unrest. 

Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. 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 Morningstar Inc.




Quotes delayed at least 15 min
Sponsored by:


There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
Market index data delayed by 15 minutes

[BRIEFING.COM] Equity indices extended this week's losses with a broad-based retreat. The S&P 500 fell 0.6% to end the week lower by 1.1%, while the Russell 2000 (-1.1%) finished with a 0.9% decline since last Friday.

Staying true to the theme observed throughout the week, the energy sector (-1.5%) tumbled out of the gate, thus dragging the broader market down with it. Once again, dollar strength and crude oil weakness contributed to sector's underperformance, but the ... More


There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.