I think he think 100k a year is not middle class though, I am glad to know that 80% of families in this country are poor people. Here I was thinking I was middle classes.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/ Enter your income, and find your percentile. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the data, but it gives a clearer idea than your imagination does. Guess what percentile $200,000/yr is: Spoiler 94%
I do think Mitt's pretty clueless about how most of us live in this country ... but upon re-reading, I think he may have just phrased this awkwardly.
So 250K to 0 is the "middle" income bracket? Ummm... ooooooooook. Old chart, but close enough. Spoiler
So according to this the literal middle class (33-66 percentile) makes 27k-69k. Better start raising taxes on those yacht-owning $70k+ households.
I'm not a huge fan of class warfare. It's a bastardized version of pursuing equality that becomes counterproductive. It's petty for legislation to be driven by the rich's lust for power, or the poor's envy of wealth. But to answer your question, I don't know how you define the middle class.
This is dishonest. It's ad hominem to suggest that people who criticize the wealth structure in this country are engaging in 'warfare' because they're 'envious.' That's simply not true, and you saying that seems like an all-too-handy way to quickly dismiss every such criticism as invalid.
I heard, from an undisclosed source, that Democrat households make $6-10k more than Republican households on a per earner basis. You hippies who whine about the rich need to look in the mirror first. Take your bull****, and shove it up your ass.
So let me get this straight, because the average Democrat makes a little more than average Republican, that makes it hippocritical to dislike the 1% of the them who make more than everyone else combined, yet pay next to nothing in taxes. Great reasoning.
Mitt is politically inept and a phony. No wonder true conservatives don't even like him. They hate Obama more do they put up with this guy. A few more gaffes and they might just throw him under the bus and restart again for 2016.
This entire topic is just a crock. The masses have clammored to have "the wealthy" pay more taxes to take some of the burden off the rest of us. I grant you, there is merit to that desire. The question then becomes how to define "the wealthy". When most people think of wealthy, images of caviar, country clubs and limos are conjured up. Is a family making $250,000 a year comfortable? Of course. It is a hard sell to suggest that that same family is wealthy, especially in the large population centers of the northeast and the west coast. As others have pointed out, the metric Romney used is the same as that used by the President.
Come on now, you can tell us that basso is your undisclosed source on this one. It won't make us think any less of this gem of a post.
IIRC, the $250K figure for Obama refers to married couples filing their taxes jointly. It would be $125K for individuals. Romey's comments seem to refer to individual taxes which would make his number twice that of Obama's.
This way of designating middle class seems fairly bad to me. Because it doesn't take into account the pay distribution of the population. I've always thought of the middle class more like a concept than a particular percentage. They are people who are not struggling to make ends meet, as in they make enough money for both necessities and some luxury goods. But they don't make so much they that they can have their money work for them like the truly wealthy people. I think this sort of thing may work with the US right now, as there is still a sizable middle-class in our country. But we're most certainly becoming more income-imbalanced in ways you normally only associate with 3rd world countries.
