2012 election pregame

Hugin · 2012-09-26T12:43:19.000Z

wahoo:

Feldstein says Romney would need to eliminate key deductions for folks over $100K. How are you translating this to middle class? Is Middle class over $100K?

Yes, for the purposes of our current tax code, middle class means incomes up to $250k.

triggercut · 2012-09-26T12:46:38.000Z

wahoo:

Feldstein says Romney would need to eliminate key deductions for folks over $100K. How are you translating this to middle class? Is Middle class over $100K?

$100k household income for a married couple or family sure as hell ain’t upper class.

Timex · 2012-09-26T12:47:30.000Z

triggercut:

$100k household income for a married couple or family sure as hell ain’t upper class.

For a married couple the number goes up to 200k.

Rightbug · 2012-09-26T12:58:03.000Z

Timex:

For a married couple the number goes up to 200k.

I’m not sure if he’s applying that same measure to the eliminated deductions.

Forbes took issue with some of Feldstein’s assumptions and conclusions:

Forbes

Even if Governor Romney's Tax Plan Could be Made to Add Up, It Wouldn't Make Any...

(401kcalculator.org) Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein weighed in on the mathematical feasibility of Governor Romney's tax plan in today's Wall Street Journal. His bottom line: using his assumptions and his preferred dataset, the plan could raise...

strategy · 2012-09-26T12:58:56.000Z

gmonkey:

The Republican party are going so far down the far right rabbit hole, that, to maintain even a moderately healthy two party system, it needs to turn back the policy clock, and return to a ground that has a semblance of sanity. For that to happen, the Republicans need a shellacking of epic proportions.

Agreed. But the threshold for craziness required for this to happen is probably too high due to the effective two-party system in place. Die-hard Republican voters won’t shift their votes to the Democrats, and there are no viable voting alternatives available (what usually happens in Scandinavia, in contrast, is that voters go to another party on the same wing, or a bunch of MPs break away and cannibalize the majority of the old party).

Houngan · 2012-09-26T13:36:44.000Z

triggercut:

$100k household income for a married couple or family sure as hell ain’t upper class.

Actually yeah, it is. $200,000 household income puts you in the top 4%. $100,000 for a household puts you in the top 15%. I would say that is “upper class.” I think most here are suffering from White College Guy In City syndrome. The middle class is down around $60,000 for a household, if we’re talking about the actual statistical middle.

Timex · 2012-09-26T13:40:59.000Z

Ya, if you make over 100k, you are pretty rich.

You aren’t like, rich as balls, but you are rich enough that you probably are totally free of any ACTUAL financial worries. You can probably just buy anything you need, whenever you need it, without even really considering it.

You can’t buy crazy stuff, like your own plane or a yacht or anything, but if you never have to worry about shelter or food? Ever? That means you’re rich.

Jason_McCullough · 2012-09-26T13:47:59.000Z

Median household income is $60k or so; $100k is nearly double that. Even if you start slicing like “dual earner households only” to get rid of all the retired people and single-earner families or whatever $100k is still noticeably above average. At $200k household you start to flirt with actually being rich.

Dan_Theman · 2012-09-26T14:16:48.000Z

Indeed. Any time someone mentions “middle class” and then throws around numbers in six digits, I get the distinct feeling that it has a detrimental effect on how the general public perceives them.

triggercut · 2012-09-26T15:08:45.000Z

I’m not particularly interested, honestly, but I’d say that it kind of depends on where you live. If your household income is $100k and you’re a couple living in Cedar Rapids, that means you’re doing very well.

If your household income is $100k and you’re living in Northern Virginia, NYC, DuPage County, San Francisco, etc., chances are you are squarely middle class.

Dan_Theman · 2012-09-26T15:31:29.000Z

Well, perhaps my presumption is that “middle class” has more to do with “middle” than not, and this tells me that $100,000 is well beyond middle: 80% of the household in the U.S. make less than $100,000. I think I’d expect there to be some level of distaste for such references from politicians or pundits. Although honestly, I’d expect there to be more of it than I see.

ReptileHouse · 2012-09-26T15:34:55.000Z

While I see where you’re coming from, it gets complicated by just how skewed the wealth becomes at far right extreme. Even very well off folks look at the truly rich (top .1% types) and think, rightly, “There’s no way I’ll ever get there!” That gets extended to, “Therefore I’m middle class,” which is a bit trickier proposition. We make it too much of a binary distinction between middle class and rich.

triggercut · 2012-09-26T15:34:58.000Z

Dan_Theman:

Well, perhaps my presumption is that “middle class” has more to do with “middle” than not, and this tells me that $100,000 is well beyond middle: 80% of the household in the U.S. make less than $100,000. I think I’d expect there to be some level of distaste for such references from politicians or pundits. Although honestly, I’d expect there to be more of it than I see.

And yet with married couples with two earners, median income–according to the census–is $85k.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0698.pdf

Now what?

strummer · 2012-09-26T15:38:07.000Z

Houngan:

Actually yeah, it is. $200,000 household income puts you in the top 4%. $100,000 for a household puts you in the top 15%. I would say that is “upper class.” I think most here are suffering from White College Guy In City syndrome. The middle class is down around $60,000 for a household, if we’re talking about the actual statistical middle.

$100,000 is much closer to $0 than it is to the amount which, from a practical, functional perspective, would be required to make a family “rich” or “upper class”. The fact that $100k is in the top 15% just shows how bottom heavy the income curve is.

Dan_Theman · 2012-09-26T16:18:09.000Z

ReptileHouse:

While I see where you’re coming from, it gets complicated by just how skewed the wealth becomes at far right extreme. Even very well off folks look at the truly rich (top .1% types) and think, rightly, “There’s no way I’ll ever get there!” That gets extended to, “Therefore I’m middle class,” which is a bit trickier proposition. We make it too much of a binary distinction between middle class and rich.

Valid point - that spread does seem to present something of a mental block. That jives with my experience in dealing with a lot of people who are far wealthier than myself yet still drop occasional comments denegrating “the rich.”

triggercut:

And yet with married couples with two earners, median income–according to the census–is $85k.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0698.pdf

Now what?

Oh, sure - don’t get me wrong, I understand the influence that a nuclear household with dual incomes can have. It’s just that’s apparently not so much the norm, these days. I’m really kind of wondering why such juxtapositions are not mentally discordant for so many people out there.

I guess the point that most people will always veiw themselves as being so very distant from the wealthiest must be where that divide comes into play.

As a silly aside, if I got an 18% raise and went from an $85k to a $100k household, I’d feel pretty darn wealthy. Anybody want to chip in? ;)

triggercut · 2012-09-26T17:54:41.000Z

Newest Mitt: How awesome is Romneycare?

Risking Conservative Ire, Romney Touts Romneycare

Mitt Romney pointed to the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts one of his signature achievements Wednesday, a move that has drawn swift and strong rebuke from conservatives in the past.

Romney pointed to the Massachusetts health care law — the foundation for the national healthcare reform law Romney promises to dismantle if elected — as a key highlight of his record in an interview with NBC News.
“[D]on’t forget — I got everybody in my state insured,” Romney told NBC. “One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don’t think there’s anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record.”

Timex · 2012-09-26T18:07:48.000Z

I know folks on the far right don’t like Romney’s healthcare record in Mass… But what about the folks on the left? Do they just deny him credit for it? Say that someone else did it?

triggercut · 2012-09-26T18:11:30.000Z

Timex:

I know folks on the far right don’t like Romney’s healthcare record in Mass… But what about the folks on the left? Do they just deny him credit for it? Say that someone else did it?

I think they give him plenty of credit for it. President Obama gives him credit for it, and has done so on the stump.

Here’s a hint: The voters on the left who are very happy about Obamacare–women and the 47%–are not going to jump ship for Romney over this.

W_Wiley · 2012-09-26T18:15:57.000Z

Governor Mitt Romney might well win this thing. But he’s not running.

charmtrap · 2012-09-26T18:21:54.000Z

Timex:

I know folks on the far right don’t like Romney’s healthcare record in Mass… But what about the folks on the left? Do they just deny him credit for it? Say that someone else did it?

I think people on the “left” (whoever they are) think Romneycare is pretty good for a typically American half-ass attempt at socialized medicine. Now if only Romney thought Romneycare was good for the rest of the country he might get more credit for it. The fact that he’s almost completely disavowed his own program makes it hard to give him credit.