Anonymous wrote:HHI of 140k for family of four here. Townhome with a garage, 12 mi from downtown and 1 mi from red line metro, 2 cars and a dog. We aren't rolling in it but certainly don't feel we are poor.

To be fair, which stop on the red line....

HHI of 140k for family of four here. Townhome with a garage, 12 mi from downtown and 1 mi from red line metro, 2 cars and a dog. We aren't rolling in it but certainly don't feel we are poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100K around here isn't jack...

No? It is enough for my family of four to afford a comfy lifestyle, buy a town home, a new car, not worry about bills, and take two vacations a year.

Sure, but if the TH has no garage or is more then 30 miles away from work, that car will be expected to last a decade (and new car is subjective to begin with), you severely crimp your spouses spending and your two vacations are driving distance and/or long weekend.... Then you're in denial.

Liberal retort will likely be about my runon sentence...

Anonymous wrote:100K around here isn't jack...

No? It is enough for my family of four to afford a comfy lifestyle, buy a town home, a new car, not worry about bills, and take two vacations a year.

As someone making half of this "middle class," I'd like to know where to line up for my handout.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-george-stephanopoulos-and-mitt-romney/

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't say middle class was $200K to $250k.

He said that the middle class was $200 to $250K and less. Which means that the very top of middle class is either $200K or $250K. So that would make a family with a HHI of $210K the very high side of middle class, and maybe not even in the middle class.

My family's HHI is almost exactly $200K, and that is consistent with my view. We are very upper middle class or maybe even rich.

Mittens specifically denied that $100,000 was middle income. Regardless of what he believes to be the top of the middle class, he is quite out of touch with most of America to believe that people making $100,000 are poor.

Citation please.

Anonymous wrote:100K around here isn't jack...

People keep saying that, but 100K in this area is not poor. People who make that might think they are poor, but they really have no clue. That is this area. In most of the US, people making 100K understand full well that they are not poor.

100K around here isn't jack...

Anonymous wrote:He didn't say middle class was $200K to $250k.

He said that the middle class was $200 to $250K and less. Which means that the very top of middle class is either $200K or $250K. So that would make a family with a HHI of $210K the very high side of middle class, and maybe not even in the middle class.

My family's HHI is almost exactly $200K, and that is consistent with my view. We are very upper middle class or maybe even rich.

Mittens specifically denied that $100,000 was middle income. Regardless of what he believes to be the top of the middle class, he is quite out of touch with most of America to believe that people making $100,000 are poor.

Anonymous wrote:He didn't say middle class was $200K to $250k.

He said that the middle class was $200 to $250K and less. Which means that the very top of middle class is either $200K or $250K. So that would make a family with a HHI of $210K the very high side of middle class, and maybe not even in the middle class.

My family's HHI is almost exactly $200K, and that is consistent with my view. We are very upper middle class or maybe even rich.

So that mean's there's no lower class?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it should be defined as: the mean average income of the people at my fundraisers.

Or "The only people who will benefit if I am elected."

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it should be defined as: the mean average income of the people at my fundraisers.

Maybe it should be defined as: the mean average income of the people at my fundraisers.

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree, especially in our area and north.

In our area to be "rich" (and above middle class) the 1% begins at income of $527,000

To be considered part of the 1 percent in this area, it takes a household income far above the national average of $387,000.

The gateway for the region is $527,000. In the District, the top 1 percent of households bring in at least $617,000; in Montgomery County, more than $606,000; and in Fairfax County, $532,000,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/joining-washingtons-one-percenters-takes-more-than-the-us-average/2012/04/21/gIQAJ6YvXT_story.html

WTF? The average HHI in the US is $50K. I hear the point you are making, but it helps if you either phrase your argument correctly, and/or get your data straight.

Either way, Romney and everyone else inside the beltway is absolutely tone deaf on this issue, which is why the country hates everyone and everything about politics.