Apparently multi-multi-millionaire Republican president nominee Mitt Romney has a slightly “different” view of what income level constitutes “middle income” Americans (emphasis added).
Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.
But how does he define “middle-income”? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.
Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
According to the United States Census Bureau, the median household income (the midpoint for the nation) is just over $50,000 per year.
So when Mitt Romney talks about not raising taxes on “middle income” Americans, he’s really referring to folks that constitute the top four percent of income earners in the United States.
The rest of us? We’re screwed if Mitt Romney gets elected president.
The problem here is really that “middle income” is different for different parts of the country. We paid $300 per square foot for our house in Philly, but one third of that here in Wisconsin, where the highest prices are probably $250 per square foot. Middle income is effected by that. In Philly I daresay $200K is in the range of middle income. Even here I would call it high middle income. And “middle income” is surely and always a range. But the point about Romney holds, that he is tone-deaf in how he expresses things.
Steven, that’s a fair point, and I suppose it’s a valid point if you break things down to a micro level like you did.
Steven,
The statistical definition of median implies an average amount derived from a varying sequence. I believe the census bureau figure is the most correct and does take into account regional differences like the one you provide. In Philly middle income may be higher than Wisconsin, but the national average would still fall into the $50,000 range taking into account average income which is lower than ours – roughly $35-40,000, distributed primarily South and West.
What is really interesting, however, are the politics of income. States with the highest income average are blue – $50,000 and up. Below that number states are purple and red. And there’s more of those states than blue states. Romney’s agenda benefits no one but the wealthy elite, but it hits red and purple states the hardest – those likeliest to vote for him. It’s extraordinary, really.
How are “the rest of us” screwed? You think Mitt is going to raise taxes? Ha! The truth is if you put the squeeze on the other guy, it’s probably going to come back and bite you. Want to raise taxes on evil corporations? Well let me tell ya, brick and steel can’t pay taxes, but consumers will.
Corporations pay taxes on assets and on gross income–no matter who the treasurer or CEO is. The Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United ruling gave them “inalienable” rights, like people, and called their money “free speech.” But corporations don’t have to tell you who their investors are, so that opens up unlimited amounts of money from around the world for investments in anything…including our politicians via PAC donations.