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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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] 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
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'