Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less
BOSTON (AP) - 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 repeatedly painted him 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 in 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 referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income - the midpoint for the nation - is just over $50,000.
Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those 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.
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 repeatedly painted him 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 in 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 referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income - the midpoint for the nation - is just over $50,000.
Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those 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.
250K??? Thats middle class? I damn poor then! if I had 250K I'd be rich!
Tha being said... who wants donate a dollar to my payal account?
By the way... its not a liberal thing nor democrat. For that natter not even republican. There poor in each class
Obama says up to $250k but he did not say that $100k was not...see the difference? Romney Clearly said NO to $100k...that's the point everyone is trying to make....
If $250,000 is "middle class" then I'm working poor on the edge of poverty.
Liberals won't debate, they can't. The reason? The facts are not on their side. They read what they want to read and they believe what they want to believe. No amout of reasoning will change their minds. They have tunnel vision and see the world through rose colored glasses while wearing liberal blinders. Truth means nothing to a liberal mind. No amount of logic will sway a liberal opinion. All you have to do is look at the situation this country is in under this administration. Unemployment has been over 8% for 42 straight months, we have the smallest work force in over 30 years, th8is president has increased the nations debt an unbelieveable $6 trillion in only four years, gas prices were not only at record Labor Day highs they have been in the mid $3 a gallon range for nearly three years, the price of food is through the roof, record numbers of Americans are on food stamps, nearly half 0of all American families receive some kind of government assistance, it was just announced that the government is going to print more money, ("quantitative easing") never mind the fact that the Obama administration has all ready done that twice andf it has failed. Today following the announcement of QE3 oil went over $100 a barell, why? Because our dollar just lost more of it's value against world currency. And after all of this liberals will vote for Obama because Romney is rich. Astounding. Stop trying to debate liberals, instead in lieu of the fact that they don't know what a "shellacking" is or what it means lets give them the biggest thrashing of their lives this November. Â
@ByeByeBarry The old GOP line is stop blaming Bush and all those GOP congressman or how the dems held the house for the last two years of Bush.
Here is a fact-the economy went down the toilet in 2008 before the election. 750,000 jobs a month  going out the door, the auto industry near death and people like you want to beleave that this started in 1/09. It was the GOP president that gave away a surplus, gave two tax cuts, a multi billion dollar prescription program and went off and started 2 wars, one that was the BUSH/CHENEY lie!
Â
You want to keep bring up oil prices-it is a free market and the government does not controll prices.
You say truth does not matter to the liberals, well your full of BS. Your people have built thier whole platform on lie after lie. Your people disrepects the constitution with this anti womens rights and supressing votes, anti gay, anti muslim. This new GOP is nothing but a bunch of pathethis desparate
idiots whom do not deserve the title of american patriots!
Â
By by way-yea, this is a rant!
Once again, the reading comprehension of most here rates an 'F'.
Either that or it's selective reasoning. What he said was 200,000-250,000 or 'LESS'.
Â
I'm pretty darned conservative, and I don't want a tax cut. I want EVERYONE to pay the same rate.
If ya make a buck, the government gets 15 cents. If ya take a buck, ya only get 85 cents.
Â
Why is this concept so damn hard to comprehend?
Lot of critics here but from what I'm reading his description of middle income is similar to Obama's (i.e. $250,000 or less). Â The difference is Obama wants to raise taxes for those above $250k and Romney wants to keep taxes the same. Â Granted his response was inaccurate as $100,000 would be defined as middle income according to him and Obama. Â
I guess in Romney's world, $100,000 is folding money. The more I see or hear this guy the more  I think,  I'm in the twilight zone!
 @snoopy84 "Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
Â
That's different , I guess...
Â
Â
@Sid Vishess Good try Sid. Here is the difference, Obama draws the tax line at 250K not the middle class. Give one line, one quote, one of your famous web links that shows Obama defining  the middle class at 250K.
Romney's play here is to not tax those making that much money by trying to define them as middle class.
Â
Even you Sid should see this typical Romney BS.
@Sid Vishess @Sid Ok Sid, I looked at the link-nothing about middle class. The topic was loop holes for milloniares extending down to 250-200K tax bracket. You are still yanking a chain that has nothing on it. If you want to debate the fairness of closing loops down to that tax bracket, then you have a good link.
 @snoopy84  @Sid http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-16/news/30164214_1_tax-rate-tax-deductions-gains
 @snoopy84  @Sid And don't forget, anyone making OVER $250K per year is a millionaire! Those guys is so smart!
 @Sid Vishess Exactly.  This is why I hate debating politics so much.  People just read what they want and attack without actually comprehending what is being said and then entering into and educated debate.
 @Cupid Stunt  @snoopy84 yes.  statistics prove it out.
 @snoopy84 Seriously? Â
 @snoopy84  @Sid  @jb_22 You want me to link this KOMO story? Try the fourth paragraph.Â
Â
""Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."Â
Â
Yeah, you are sooo much smarter.
@Sid Vishess @jb_22 Flower it up all you want Sid, it still comes out the same, people on the left are smarter. The Idea that Romney is your guy only proves that out every day.
 @jb_22 The Left will remind you that they are the superior intellect and the joy is in pointing out that their delusions of mediocrity.
Can this guy even count to 11 with his shoes on?
"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 referencing household income, not individual income. The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income - the midpoint for the nation - is just over $50,000.
Â
What world does he live in? He must be down the Rabbit Hole & into Wonderland. He obviously has NO CLUE whatsoever what Americans are living with & doing - he has his $$$ and doesn't seem to give a rat's butt about anybody else. But all his money will NOT buy him the Presidency. He can claim he's "just regular folks", like everybody else" byut that is NOT the case, and it never will be.
 @LocalLady There is no question that Romney doesn't understand what the average American household goes through financially. Romney has sent the IRS larger checks for estimated taxes each year than what the average family makes.Â
The larger issue here is that Romney's entire tax reform plan is about lowering rates for everyone (lower than current Bush tax rates) but eliminating the deductions and loopholes for top income earners. Basically his claim is that the tax burden on upper income people will stay the same despite lowering of their rates.Â
Â
When asked for just one example of one of these deductions or loopholes that will be eliminated for top income earners, he refuses to answer beyond saying that that is something for Congress to work out.
Â
Hello? Congress can't agree to anything!Â
Â
His plan, like most of his other plans, have no substance and there are no specifics.Â
Â
So even if I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and hear about his plan, I can't, because he won't reveal any details. It's not the way to run a campaign.Â
I was thinking the same thing about Obama as well. I believe the debates will be key turning points in this election if we can get one (or heaven forbid, BOTH) of them to actually quit dancing around and speak in specifics.
 @Snarklepuss Obama has been pretty clear that he wants to go back to the Clinton level rates for those above 250k household income, but leave the current rates for everyone else.
Â
What's going to happen (IMO) is that the Republicans will refuse to go along with Obama's plan, claiming that raising taxes on the rich will hurt jobs.
Â
So Obama will most likely allow all the tax cuts to expire for everyone. Then he will go to Congress and demand that taxes be lowered on families making less than 250k. If the Republicans don't go along, he can then claim that Republicans were voting against a tax cut.
Â
Â
 @caphillkid  @Snarklepuss "Then he will go to Congress and demand that taxes be lowered on families making less than 250k."
I do hope you meant "individuals making less than 250k."...<G>
The thing is, if the Republicans DID go along, they lose their "we must protect the rich" facade.
Of course, they will try to amend the bill to include the rich and force the Dems to vote against that amendment - and the Dems will gladly oblige, and pass the original bill.
Â
Romney and Obama got it real sweet, don't they? They only have to debate each other. Two sides of the same coin, which neither one owns. I'd give a lot to have either one try to debate me on tv once.
Mitt Romney is out of touch; a household income of less than what classifies a family as middle-income. He says his guideline is $200,000 to $250,000 or less. Does he mean once a middle-income family reaches $250,001 they join the 2%ers? Or does he mean that they loop back to $200,000 and start over? His double-talk is very confusing.
Â
And claiming no tax increases may be misnomer, whose to say that he won't change the tax code and eliminate the tax deductions enjoyed by the middle-income wage earners; deductions such as mortgage interest and child deductions that would raise taxes on the middle without actually signing into law a tax increase. And what are the folks that earn a wage starting at next to nothing (minimum wage) to $199,999? Do they not count in Mitt's income statistic?
Â
No sir, in all my 60 years I have never heard of a presidential candidate that had so little in common with those he wants to preside over. Looks like Romney is out to destroy America and turn it into easy pickings for Mormon indoctrination.
Kind of reminds me of the time Reagan cut hundreds-of-thousands from the 'poverty-level' list, by announcing a lower threshold for poverty-level. It did nothing whatsoever to assist people who were struggling (in fact, many probably lost what few resources they'd had available), but it sure made the statistics look great. My houshold income falls far short of their criteria for 'middle class' ... just wandering in a mythical, unnamed wilderness.
 @glynes Don't worry am told by the far right wing Mitt has a plan for all of us. Of course his plan for those of us that do not qualify as middle-income probably includes our own pair of magical whitie-tighties.
Wow, I really hope those of you who think this guy is qualified think twice. I do not know anyone who makes even $100,000 per year individually, and I am definitely middle class and doing ok. That would mean I dont know any combined income of two people in a family that make $200,000 - $250,000. That means everyone i know is lower class.
Â
This guy is an absolute idiot who is completely disconnected from society
@northwestsurfer You mean Obama right! Since both of them think under $250,000 is middle class.
 @justsayin Obama said below $200,00 to $250,000.
Because Obama said it, it must be correct... Â
@justsayin nope. I am referring to Mitt Romney
He is even more clueless than I thought....
??? Is $100,000 Middle income? No he says... $200,000-$250,000 or less is middle income. What does he mean by less? $100,000 is less than $200,000-$20,000, yet he says $100,000 is not middle income....
 @Rod He very poorly phrased himself, which yet again, is why he would be a poor president. He needs to speak more carefully.Â
 @quidproquo  @Rod Mitt meant every word he said; it is just that we didn't understand his message because it was coded and had been sent to him from the planet Kolob.
Just when you thought he couldn't be anymore out of touch with the average American, he goes and jams his foot in his mouth again. He better be careful, he's going to end up with an epic case of athlete's tongue if he keeps this up.
Obama believes the same EXACT thing, wheres the outrage?
@mmstrouble citation please
 @northwestsurfer  @mmstrouble SMH
@northwestsurfer 4th paragraph of the article.
Yah, if the middle class has 8 working members the math is fine..
Romney clearly stated that 100k is not middle income, so I guess that makes it low. Way to make most of the country feel good about themselves.
Â
Questions with no real definition that applies to everyone in all parts of this great nation.
Â
What is Middle Class?
Â
What is a reasonable Health Care Plan meaning what does it cover and what should it cost?
Â
IF you can answer those to everyone's satisfaction then that is the day men will understand women 100%!
Here's is a little question. Â If we continue to cut taxes how can we expect to payoff the national debt? Â Seem counter productive to me. Â
@DeadRabitz If you cut taxes, employers will be able to hire more employees because they have the extra income to hire. Right now there are so many fees and taxes that employers have to cut. What needs to happen is less government spending, and less government. The bigger an entity the less effieciency. That is why you see corruption.
 @justsayin  @DeadRabitz Really?  You know we currently have the lowest taxes in decades.  So where are the jobs? Employers will NOT hire any new workers if there isn't enough demand for their product or service.  The taxes don't enter into the equation.  That is just republican nonsense. Â
 @DeadRabitz Maybe spending cuts and entitlements could be reformed? Even if we tax everybody to the bejezus, the Government would STILL manage to outspend their income.
Â
I call it, "The Mrs. Vishess Syndrome."
 @Sid Vishess They need to be reformed and some completely cut out.  I like these social programs as a safety net however it has come to the point where the government has robbed from peter to pay paul.  I think we need to relieve the government of these programs.  They should be turned over to the private sector and regulated by the government not run by it. Â
 @Sid Vishess I hope Mrs. Vishess doesn't read that, you may end up sleeping on the couch.
 Wow, @Sid Vishess , that is the most optimistic comment I've ever seen you make.
 @alaska_dreamin I think that we would solve our debt problem, feed all the poor, home the homeless and achieve peace in the Middle East sooner than Mrs. Vishess read a news-site, not to mention the comments section.
 @DeadRabitz Some how we will cut the debt by *magic!* since it isn't mathematically possible even if you cut all social programs.Â
 @quidproquo I think one way we can work this out is to remove social security, medicare and medi-cade to the private sector and have them regulated by the government and not run by the government.  Then we start to end the bulk of the entitlement programs.
 @left-center  @DeadRabitz I have seem poverty in countries that would make the poor in America thank God that they are poor in America.  I have seen poverty in China, Central America, Iraq, and Egypt just o name a few.  Your posts smack of someone who is incredibly naive and completely without sense. Â
Â
Oh and your sister has missed the point of the contractors in the war zones. Â They can send her to Iraq for a pittance and make her do what they want as I assume she is a soldier. Â However you have to pay good money to get civilians there. Â Secondly, the point of contractors is to free the soldiers up to do the fighting otherwise we would need a much larger fighting force. Â But that is only my 15 years of Army experience and multiple deployments so how much could I really know.
@DeadRabitz Oh so clever you are with your insults. You do not need to go to a 3rd world country to know poverty and strife, it is here in the US, that said, I have seen actual 3rd world poverty in Central America and honestly I really cannot tell the difference.
 @quidproquo Then you have never seen a third world country.  You don't know what real poverty looks like.  Your statement is as stupid as it is ignorant.Â
 @left-center  @DeadRabitz Oh I know, My sister is in the sandbox now and she hates defense contractors more than anything.  Talk to any of the actual troops, tis what they want.  Over paid and lazy are the words i've heard most troops use.
 @DeadRabitz  @quidproquo And by the way those defense overruns account for $300 Billion of the Pentagons $600 Billion annual budget.
 @DeadRabitz  @quidproquo Why not go to the Pentagon and tell the budgeting department to either reign in their defense contractors that are 40 and 50% over budget or we'll just cut out the contractors overspending from your $600 Biliion budget ourselves?
 @quidproquo  @DeadRabitz You are in a 3rd world country already. Our youth ranks 37th in industrial nations in math ans science, we have 40 million citizens that live in poverty, our infrastructure is in near total disrepair, roads and bridges with some regularly fail and become unusable, our food has been poisoned by insecticide, tainted water and other contaminates. Our Nation has just faced one of the worst droughts since the 1930s dust bowl and millions of acres of food crops have been destroyed which will have repercussions on meat products. We are constantly being scammed by gasoline commodity speculators, and what is worse is there is a 50/50 chance that our Nation will soon be run by a fool that would love to be a king and take what little we have left and give it to his fat cat chums.
 @DeadRabitz If I wanted that i'd move to a 3rd world country.