It’s useful to hold two theoretical constructs in mind when approaching this issue and similar ones. The first is relative deprivation theory. The second is the Sorites paradox, to defend against Platonic thinking.
Also, Mises warns against comparing incomes in different countries without accounting for varying cost of living expenses in Socialism.
Oh snap, so you are a professor!
You crack me up, deary, honestly, but I’m gonna still have to go with Bob here. You’re not a professor. I know you think you’re encouraging critical thinking by answering questions with questions, but you’re really just dicking around and wasting time. Just make your fucking point already, Jesus.
No, no one has actually pointed out that I’m wrong about that. President Obama may not have ever specifically said he views “$250,000” as the middle class, but he has specifically said he only wants to preserve middle class tax cuts and raise taxes on the wealthy. When you get into the specifics, he is always talking about letting tax cuts expire for people earning over $250,000 a year. It’s clear that he considers $250,000 to be the upper bound of “people who aren’t rich enough for me to raise their taxes.”
I’m pretty sure Romney has yet to accept the Republican nomination for President of Earth, which might make this argument relevant.
The word “only” is bothersome–I’ve never seen him use that word. Rather, I’ve seen him imply that he wants to preserve middle-class tax-cuts, and nobody could every possibly accuse people earning a quarter-million a year of being middle-class, so he’s comfortable raising their taxes without having to worry that he’s raising taxes on the middle class.
A house-builder might want to build a doorway such that normal-sized people never have to duck, and therefore make the doorway 7 feet tall; “Only the very tallest people will have to duck,” the builder declares. This does not in any way imply that people who are 6’11" are normal-sized. Rather, it means the builder wanted to be on the safe side and built in a margin of error.
I disagree. He asks questions because he thinks it looks like he’s encouraging critical thinking skills but really he’s just stalling until he can come up with a new trolly thing to say. He’s so transparent he could be saran wrap.
So if we assume that he means everyone earning $250,000 would see their actual tax levels protected, instead of meaning that he has no idea what a middle income is, then he’s in fantasy-land.
I vote wealthy fantasy-land, lap of luxury.
I can’t see that this, from Obama’s web site, is substantively different from what Romney said:
" The Obama Plan
Extend middle-class tax cuts to prevent a tax increase on 98% of American families who earn less than $250,000 a year, saving a typical middle-class family of four $2,200 a year"
You still haven’t explained why that should be so clear.
I think it’s the “no” after 100,000. I can see the argument that middle-class goes UP TO $250,000, if one decides that there’s only one class above “middle”. I don’t see any definition of middle class that excludes people making under $100k, and at least one reading of Romeny’s statement suggests that he does.
He said $250k and less. I don’t see how anyone could take that initial “no” to mean he thought middle class or middle income was $100k-$250k.
Except he specifically excluded people making $100K.
If he just said $250K was middle income, I’d accept it was a simple error. $100K is both middle income and middle class, surely, if $250K is. I vote him being out of touch.
Clearly, Mitt believes you are middle class if you make $99,000, and if you make $101,000. But not $100,000.
Given the statement Romney made, I think it’s more accurate to say Romney has misrepresented what Romney thinks. That’s assuming he does actually think that $100 000 represents a middle class income, and not what you wipe your ass with.
It’s like a car insurance commercial.
Save up to 15% or more! 200 to 250 thousand and less!
How much am I going to save, and is 100 thousand middle income or isn’t it? I have no idea.
The only thing that does seem clear is that 200 thousand is middle income. 250 thousand may not be, if he is saying the max falls somewhere in the 200-250 range. Anything less than 200 thousand we also don’t know.
Sorry, but I think this is silly. Look, if Obama also thinks that you’re middle-class unless you’re in the top 2% of earners, he’s also ridiculously out of touch. I’ll grant that. Everything else he’s said makes me think that my interpretation–the “middle-class with a buffer zone” interpretation–is probably his intent, and it jibes with the quote above.
But Mitt explicitly and unambiguously repudiated that viewpoint: the most charitable reading possible of his words is that he intended to mean that as long as you’re pulling down less than a quarter-million, you’re middle-class.
Charlotte may be a little more upmarket than you think. North Carolina is having a bit of a boom in the cities, which drives up the cost of living a little. It’s not Manhattan, but it’s not Mayberry, NC, either. I think that money might go a little further in a really rural area, which is what the reference was about.
Nope. He says the “typical middle class family” will get a $2,200 tax cut. The only way he gets that number is to include everyone up to $250,000. He didn’t say that “the typical middle class family, including a buffer zone”.
The other important distinction here is that Romney is speaking off the cuff, and the Obama quote is from his web site. I’m always willing to cut someone more slack in the former situation than the latter.
Obama didn’t say $200,000 to $250,000. I get that Romney probably meant “the upper bound would be in the 200 - 250 range”, but that’s not what he said. To paraphrase Rand Romney, he misrepresented himself.