BOSTON — 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 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.
Median household income is, as the article states, right around 50k. Mean is right around 80k. No statistical definition* of "middle income" approaches 200k.
Median household income is, as the article states, right around 50k. Mean is right around 80k. No statistical definition* of "middle income" approaches 200k.
*The only kind of definition that really matters.
?? I'm confused... could anybody be considered part of the "middle class" if their upper income reaches 250k?
EDIT: oh wait.. it's "middle income"... not "middle class"... there's a difference.
d-usa wrote: I am in the top 10% of wage earner based on household income, and I am nowhere near $250,000
Best part:
Romney wrote:
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.
For reference, the top 5% of earners in the US begin a little north of 166k. 250k is the top 1.5%.
So, basically, we won't change taxes on the top 5%, but we'll lower taxes on people that are in the top 5%.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, it does not stop the Republicans from criticizing "Obama's Plan".
Hypocrisy, much?
Everyone keeps saying Romney's plan is bad...
Care to elaborate?
Most of it is not so much bad as much as it is effectively nonexistent.
Romney, and Ryan for that matter, don't really have a plan. They have a political statement that masquerades as a plan, but isn't actually concrete enough to run the government on.
But the stuff that IS there is pretty bad. He'll drop taxes, won't touch medicare or defense, and yet he claims he'll keep it revenue neutral... through MAGIC! Or something. I odn't know, it's his lies, not mine.
Plan for what? Are you going to ask a actual question with an answer? Asking for platitudes and talking points is nice, but if you want a specific answer ask a specific question.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, it does not stop the Republicans from criticizing "Obama's Plan".
Hypocrisy, much?
Everyone keeps saying Romney's plan is bad...
Care to elaborate?
Most of it is not so much bad as much as it is effectively nonexistent.
Romney, and Ryan for that matter, don't really have a plan. They have a political statement that masquerades as a plan, but isn't actually concrete enough to run the government on.
But the stuff that IS there is pretty bad. He'll drop taxes, won't touch medicare or defense, and yet he claims he'll keep it revenue neutral... through MAGIC! Or something. I odn't know, it's his lies, not mine.
Fair enough...
I just wish SOMEONE from any political party to perform a true actual assessment of each government function to determine if A) if its needed and B) is it efficient.
That's all... and this needs to be someone in Congress to lead this charge.
Whatever Obama / Romney proposes are just starting framework... once such President's proposal hits the floor, it'll be a shadow of the original plan.
Jihadin wrote: Shuma. Step back. Relook at Melissa post and look at mine below her post
Yeah, you made a flamebait post that had nothing to do with the already vague and useless discussion at hand. It had bad grammar. Are you going to ask a meaningful question?
Samus_aran115 wrote: Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything
Uh... depends. Most Doctors / Pharmacists / Lawyer I know probably makes more than that...
But, there's a lot of those professions here in the states, so thats probably true.
Thats why that original statement got me confused... If we were take the standard of living into account... 200k in Southern Cali or in the North East aint' that much.
This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k). But what he said there made him look silly.
Samus_aran115 wrote: Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything
Uh... depends.
Thats why that original statement got me confused... If we were take the standard of living into account... 200k in Southern Cali or in the North East aint' that much.
This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k). But what he said there mad him look silly.
Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. Ah yes, there's a group of people bound to run into each other while house-hunting. —Dante Chinni
Romney has likely read briefs on what constitutes median income in America, his educational background wasn't in this kind of statistics and it's unlikely he ran into it much in his work history. I find it sad that a popular government official can believe something like this though. Romneys a smart guy, I'm certain he didn't really think that these numbers were a realistic reflection of American incomes, but I personally believe that those with an income of less than 40 thousand dollars don't register to him as people in America. He's never had to interact with them, even in his private sector experience it's unlikely he dealt with people at that pay grade very often. They likely don't represent the "American people" he has come to know throughout his life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Sorry Shuma I'm not your target for the day. Go try someone else
Stop painting targets all over your posts and sure, I'll stop pointing out when they're wrong, nonsensical, racist, or flamebait.
Samus_aran115 wrote: Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything
Uh... depends. Most Doctors / Pharmacists / Lawyer I know probably makes more than that...
But, there's a lot of those professions here in the states, so thats probably true.
Thats why that original statement got me confused... If we were take the standard of living into account... 200k in Southern Cali or in the North East aint' that much.
This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k). But what he said there made him look silly.
I always kind of assumed that doctors made somewhere around the 130,000 mark, but that might be a bit low. There's lots of money to be made in medicine.
I think his opinion of everything is a bit warped, given his financial standing, and the silver spoon in his mouth that he was born with At least where I live, small businesses are dying out, but for reasons other than taxes. Local property fees, shipping costs, customer traffic and publicity all have a lot to do with why small businesses need these tax breaks in the first place. It's a tough issue to tackle.
Samus_aran115 wrote: Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything
Uh... depends.
Thats why that original statement got me confused... If we were take the standard of living into account... 200k in Southern Cali or in the North East aint' that much.
This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k). But what he said there mad him look silly.
Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. Ah yes, there's a group of people bound to run into each other while house-hunting.
—Dante Chinni
Romney has likely read briefs on what constitutes median income in America, his educational background wasn't in this kind of statistics and it's unlikely he ran into it much in his work history. I find it sad that a popular government official can believe something like this though. Romneys a smart guy, I'm certain he didn't really think that these numbers were a realistic reflection of American incomes, but I personally believe that those with an income of less than 40 thousand dollars don't register to him as people in America. He's never had to interact with them, even in his private sector experience it's unlikely he dealt with people at that pay grade very often. They likely don't represent the "American people" he has come to know throughout his life.
Your hatred for the guy is stunning...
The Nixon family’s touching story:
After his home was damaged in a wild fire in 2007, Reed Fisher got an unexpected hand:
Bryce Clark discusses his struggle with alcoholism and how Romney helped:
One of my favs...Ken Smith tells the story about Romney helping his charity provide for military veterans:
Samus_aran115 wrote: Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything
Uh... depends. Most Doctors / Pharmacists / Lawyer I know probably makes more than that...
But, there's a lot of those professions here in the states, so thats probably true.
Thats why that original statement got me confused... If we were take the standard of living into account... 200k in Southern Cali or in the North East aint' that much.
This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k). But what he said there made him look silly.
I always kind of assumed that doctors made somewhere around the 130,000 mark, but that might be a bit low. There's lots of money to be made in medicine.
I think his opinion of everything is a bit warped, given his financial standing, and the silver spoon in his mouth that he was born with At least where I live, small businesses are dying out, but for reasons other than taxes. Local property fees, shipping costs, customer traffic and publicity all have a lot to do with why small businesses need these tax breaks in the first place. It's a tough issue to tackle.
Fair enough...
If anyone is at school or starting school soon... DON'T go for Doctor in Medicine... go to Pharmacy... money just as good, but not all the BS the Drs are going thru.
Real people trying to get someone elected for president on Glenn Becks show. If you're running for president and you can't get dozens of people to pretend to have strong ties to you in the most pro "you" show out there than you're not going to be president. The swift boat veterans got on tv too and John Edwards used his cancer wife to play the pity card. This is just pathetic.
Real people trying to get someone elected for president on Glenn Becks show. If you're running for president and you can't get dozens of people to pretend to have strong ties to you in the most pro "you" show out there than you're not going to be president. The swift boat veterans got on tv too and John Edwards used his cancer wife to play the pity card. This is just pathetic.
Real people trying to get someone elected for president on Glenn Becks show. If you're running for president and you can't get dozens of people to pretend to have strong ties to you in the most pro "you" show out there than you're not going to be president. The swift boat veterans got on tv too and John Edwards used his cancer wife to play the pity card. This is just pathetic.
If we want to bandy about stupid articles relating to the mans interpersonal relationships heres one that describes him as being kind and generous to close friends and family and a cold hearted machine to everyone else.
So here's a question Whembley, does Mitt Romney know America personally? Or is the vast majority of this countries population outside of the bubble of people "he cares about"? I mean, you clearly want to think of him as secretly warm and loving with understanding and empathy towards the lower classes. Which account is true? Which Mitt Romney is the one that thinks 250 thousand dollars is realistically something Americans make?
Okay then... Republicans bad... gotcha.
Well they do want to cut funding for the egyptian military a year after their strongman fell and they stopped torturing people for us. Republicans don't have a great track record of being good.
Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything
Uh... depends. Most Doctors / Pharmacists / Lawyer I know probably makes more than that...
Most make substantially less than that, to the best of my knowledge.
Remember, the figure is that the median household income in the US is ~$50,000. Total for the household.
Samus_aran115 wrote: Isn't This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k).
Manny... I think the qoutes are doing wierd things in your post.
What's income? What you earn after taxes? Or total?
I was referencing that comment about two MDs or two Lawyers...
I know a staff inpatient Pharmacist... just a regular chick entering orders... not on any supervisor/management track.
She works 7 days on and get's 7 days off...
She shares rent with another Pharmacist who works on your off week...
Guess what she does on her off week? She goes to Bermuda and lives with her boyfriend... (been doing that for at least 10yrs). So, somehow the $$$ she earns came up... she wouldn't give me a figure, but is over 6 figures.
The other chicks tease her 'cuz she's maintaining a year round tan!
Shuma... I was just calling you out when you said Romney doesn't think those middle income people exisits... that's a shallow statement dude.
That's not quite what I meant, but the distinction isn't clear. I don't think he thinks of those people when forming opinions concerning the wealth or welfare of the American state. I'm sure he's aware that they exist. I grew up poor in Maine, a fairly impoverished state. I grew up in a trailer park, several siblings, single parent. I still have a hard time seeing something like a forty thousand dollar salary and not considering it to be an immense amount of money. I have worked hard the last few years of my life to expand my horizons, I've had to to get out of the boonies. I don't believe Romney has ever worked very hard to include people in his worldview, he's never had to, he started in wealth and has continued upwards. He never will have to. His speeches, the way he interacts with people, the kind of life he lives and the kinds of gaffes he makes imply to me that he has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. I don't think considering 250k to be a somewhat regular amount for a household is all that unrealistic for someone who grew up without want or need. I think Romney the candidate wants to be inclusive and make plans that help everyone, but Romney the candidate isn't Romney the person, and he's been having a bad week for speaking off the cuff.
Look... Romney does have a perception problem... I get that (he's too rich... he's middle income comment).
Obama had (and still does) a perception problem too (you didn't build that... spread the wealth).
The problem there is that "you didn't build that" was a conservative campaign to recharacterize something that realistically no one would disagree with, that being that you didn't build the road that you put your business on. The spread the wealth thing is also a label for liberals, not Obama. Romneys image problem comes from Romney himself. Romneys image problem is closer to Bidens, consistent and stupid gaffes.
At the end of the day, Romney has my vote... even though he doesn't have a chance.
And that's the saddest thing of all, that nothing he does, says or plans to do can keep conservatives from voting for him to get rid of Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Manny... I think the qoutes are doing wierd things in your post.
What's income? What you earn after taxes? Or total?
I was referencing that comment about two MDs or two Lawyers...
I know a staff inpatient Pharmacist... just a regular chick entering orders... not on any supervisor/management track.
She works 7 days on and get's 7 days off...
She shares rent with another Pharmacist who works on your off week...
Guess what she does on her off week? She goes to Bermuda and lives with her boyfriend... (been doing that for at least 10yrs). So, somehow the $$$ she earns came up... she wouldn't give me a figure, but is over 6 figures.
The other chicks tease her 'cuz she's maintaining a year round tan!
Shuma... I was just calling you out when you said Romney doesn't think those middle income people exisits... that's a shallow statement dude.
That's not quite what I meant, but the distinction isn't clear. I don't think he thinks of those people when forming opinions concerning the wealth or welfare of the American state. I'm sure he's aware that they exist. I grew up poor in Maine, a fairly impoverished state. I grew up in a trailer park, several siblings, single parent. I still have a hard time seeing something like a forty thousand dollar salary and not considering it to be an immense amount of money. I have worked hard the last few years of my life to expand my horizons, I've had to to get out of the boonies. I don't believe Romney has ever worked very hard to include people in his worldview, he's never had to, he started in wealth and has continued upwards. He never will have to. His speeches, the way he interacts with people, the kind of life he lives and the kinds of gaffes he makes imply to me that he has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. I don't think considering 250k to be a somewhat regular amount for a household is all that unrealistic for someone who grew up without want or need. I think Romney the candidate wants to be inclusive and make plans that help everyone, but Romney the candidate isn't Romney the person, and he's been having a bad week for speaking off the cuff.
Okay... I'm nodding my head here... agreeing with you. WOAH!
Look... Romney does have a perception problem... I get that (he's too rich... he's middle income comment).
Obama had (and still does) a perception problem too (you didn't build that... spread the wealth).
The problem there is that "you didn't build that" was a conservative campaign to recharacterize something that realistically no one would disagree with, that being that you didn't build the road that you put your business on. The spread the wealth thing is also a label for liberals, not Obama. Romneys image problem comes from Romney himself. Romneys image problem is closer to Bidens, consistent and stupid gaffes.
No... I disgree.. I think his image is similar to Obama... that is "Obama the socialist" vs "Romeny the Rich White Dude".
At the end of the day, Romney has my vote... even though he doesn't have a chance.
And that's the saddest thing of all, that nothing he does, says or plans to do can keep conservatives from voting for him to get rid of Obama.
Why is that sad? I don't like Obama...
If Bill Clinton was running, I'd vote for him over Obama...
Probably the ONLY way I'd vote for Obama, is if Gingrich was running... that man has prolems... (at least his speeches/conferences would be epic).
Shuma... I was just calling you out when you said Romney doesn't think those middle income people exisits... that's a shallow statement dude.
That's not quite what I meant, but the distinction isn't clear. I don't think he thinks of those people when forming opinions concerning the wealth or welfare of the American state. I'm sure he's aware that they exist. I grew up poor in Maine, a fairly impoverished state. I grew up in a trailer park, several siblings, single parent. I still have a hard time seeing something like a forty thousand dollar salary and not considering it to be an immense amount of money. I have worked hard the last few years of my life to expand my horizons, I've had to to get out of the boonies. I don't believe Romney has ever worked very hard to include people in his worldview, he's never had to, he started in wealth and has continued upwards. He never will have to. His speeches, the way he interacts with people, the kind of life he lives and the kinds of gaffes he makes imply to me that he has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. I don't think considering 250k to be a somewhat regular amount for a household is all that unrealistic for someone who grew up without want or need. I think Romney the candidate wants to be inclusive and make plans that help everyone, but Romney the candidate isn't Romney the person, and he's been having a bad week for speaking off the cuff.
Look... Romney does have a perception problem... I get that (he's too rich... he's middle income comment).
Obama had (and still does) a perception problem too (you didn't build that... spread the wealth).
The problem there is that "you didn't build that" was a conservative campaign to recharacterize something that realistically no one would disagree with, that being that you didn't build the road that you put your business on. The spread the wealth thing is also a label for liberals, not Obama. Romneys image problem comes from Romney himself. Romneys image problem is closer to Bidens, consistent and stupid gaffes.
At the end of the day, Romney has my vote... even though he doesn't have a chance.
And that's the saddest thing of all, that nothing he does, says or plans to do can keep conservatives from voting for him to get rid of Obama.
Is this in a private practice hospital?
??
Doesn't matter... you can go to a state university hospital, charity hosptial, OUTPATIENT pharmacy like Walgreens... and the pay is very similar. The reason being is that there's such a huge demand for them...
Heck, I remember in 2010, that if you got your Pharmacy degree and sign a 5 (maybe its 6) year contract with Walgreens, they'll give you a sports car of your choice (I just remember the porche), pay for your school loans during the contract AND pay the market salary rate.
Most of the time, Pharmacist would work at the hospitals, then go staff at an Outpatient Pharmacy outfit (Walgreens, Walmart , CVS, etc) for about 10 hours per week in addition raking in even more.
Seriously, if I wanted to go back to school... I'd get my Pharmacy degree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Only thing that should be good out of this is the debate between Ryan and Biden. Precurser to 2016 election probaly
Hmm... not to get off topic... Both of them have equally distorted perspectives. However, considering men of Romney's ilk have contributed to the predicament that we're currently facing in no small degree, I naturally lean towards Obama. I don't personally feel that a businessman has any particular place in politics, or that a business man would grasp the problems he faces with the right ideas.
But. Considering Obama's presidency, I'm not sure that more of the same thing would be beneficial either. I think he has the Charisma and the brains to be a better president, and his perspective is a bit broader than Romney's, in a lot of ways... but something isn't clicking with his ideas and results.
No... I disgree.. I think his image is similar to Obama... that is "Obama the socialist" vs "Romeny the Rich White Dude".
I will agree that the labels themselves are mirrors of one another (as is natural considering the parties they represent), but I think that they way they earned those labels is considerably different. Chalk it up to my political leanings if you wish, but Obamas appear more undeserved given that most of them stem from criticisms his party, not him. That said, I don't think a candidate for president can avoid falling into one of these categories, since a lot of the bad from a democratic perspective (he's a warmong, he's super rich) are good from a republican one (he'll defend us, he knows how to handle money).
Why is that sad? I don't like Obama...
If Bill Clinton was running, I'd vote for him over Obama...
Probably the ONLY way I'd vote for Obama, is if Gingrich was running... that man has prolems... (at least his speeches/conferences would be epic).
It's sad because I rarely see realistic or meaningful criticisms of Obama from conservative perspectives. There are certainly things to critique, a lot of them. But what is critiqued is usually insubstantial or are critiques of the world, not Obama or the democrats. Americas ability to discuss politics with itself appears fundamentally broken to me.
Doesn't matter... you can go to a state university hospital, charity hosptial, OUTPATIENT pharmacy like Walgreens... and the pay is very similar. The reason being is that there's such a huge demand for them...
I looked into the industry in '09 when I was shopping around for career statistics and the numbers didn't seem anywhere close to that inflated. I was wondering if it were a largescale practice because the pay scales in those have a much bigger wild streak when it comes to moving out of line with the general paygrade of a given job.
No... I disgree.. I think his image is similar to Obama... that is "Obama the socialist" vs "Romeny the Rich White Dude".
I will agree that the labels themselves are mirrors of one another (as is natural considering the parties they represent), but I think that they way they earned those labels is considerably different. Chalk it up to my political leanings if you wish, but Obamas appear more undeserved given that most of them stem from criticisms his party, not him. That said, I don't think a candidate for president can avoid falling into one of these categories, since a lot of the bad from a democratic perspective (he's a warmong, he's super rich) are good from a republican one (he'll defend us, he knows how to handle money).
Yeah... I can see that dude.
My main criticisms go back to who he is...and I really don't wanna get into this (wrong topic) since the last time I had to tussle with Mellisia...
And to be honest... I really don't like both parties... I wish we can have more... *shrugs*
Why is that sad? I don't like Obama...
If Bill Clinton was running, I'd vote for him over Obama...
Probably the ONLY way I'd vote for Obama, is if Gingrich was running... that man has prolems... (at least his speeches/conferences would be epic).
It's sad because I rarely see realistic or meaningful criticisms of Obama from conservative perspectives. There are certainly things to critique, a lot of them. But what is critiqued is usually insubstantial or are critiques of the world, not Obama or the democrats. Americas ability to discuss politics with itself appears fundamentally broken to me.
Yeah... I can see that perspective. Like I said, I think there's enough blame to go around and I'm just as guilty.
Lemme tell ya something though... my grandmother (god loves her) is a political junkie (must be where I got mine), but I could NEVER peg her party.
Annnnyway... I asked her "Has it always been this stupid?" and, like most old people, she'll talk your ears off... she said "Yes, that's the way its always been dear...". She also had an unhealthy obsession on JFK .
Doesn't matter... you can go to a state university hospital, charity hosptial, OUTPATIENT pharmacy like Walgreens... and the pay is very similar. The reason being is that there's such a huge demand for them...
I looked into the industry in '09 when I was shopping around for career statistics and the numbers didn't seem anywhere close to that inflated. I was wondering if it were a largescale practice because the pay scales in those have a much bigger wild streak when it comes to moving out of line with the general paygrade of a given job.
While there's some truth to that... as in, large scale system would pay more vs smaller place out in the boonies. It's still lucrative...
The Demand is so huge now, that you almost have your pick.
I know several really smart/good Rph'es who chose the boonies... (one to raise horses, and the other wanted to be the "big fish in little pond").
If I remember, I'll ask my Pharmacy friend (the manager) for that report showing the avg salary by region.
There's a government website dedicated to showing the budget, due to Obama's push for transparency in government. This particular page holds the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. It has the option of downloading each section as a separate part or as a single pdf.
So, basically, we won't change taxes on the top 5%, but we'll lower taxes on people that are in the top 5%.
I'll reiterate with emphasis, the above is the argument Romney is making.
We'll spend Gnosis to negate the paradox!
But, honestly, he hasn't presented a real plan, so a fantasy plan makes as much sense as anything he's said so far. I'm fairly certain he's just mouthing whatever his campaign managers tell him to say. His entire campaign largely consists of just a barrage of sound bites, deflections, and misinformation. I think he's just going for the shotgun effect. Sadly, it seems to be working on a lot of people.
Jihadin wrote: So we have blue collar and white collar...we by chance creating a red collar worker force?
According to a random history program I watched a long time ago.The term red neck comes from union workers who wore red scarfs. So there is your red collar worker.
What is wrong with Mr. Romney describing "middle income" as less than or equal to $250,000? if he says he wants to lower taxes on that income bracket who is getting hurt? no one...except the people who are nothing but a drain on society, and can help it, but choose not to. Besides it not being a statistical number, it is a number that Romney feels comfortable with, and I dont care, I fit within his definition, and I only made 10 grand last year, 13 this year.
Well, he said, "200k-250k, or less". So either he meant 200k-250k, or he said something totally meaningless, as "everything 250k or below" can't be the middle. As it mathematically includes the bottom.
jordanis wrote: What is wrong with Mr. Romney describing "middle income" as less than or equal to $250,000? if he says he wants to lower taxes on that income bracket who is getting hurt? no one...except the people who are nothing but a drain on society, and can help it, but choose not to.
Besides it not being a statistical number, it is a number that Romney feels comfortable with, and I dont care, I fit within his definition, and I only made 10 grand last year, 13 this year.
You know me... I'll defend Romney if I think he's being unfairly criticized...
But, what the hell was he thinking? That statement is an attempt of political jujitsu that's really making him look lame...
For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000.
Mannahnin wrote: Well, he said, "200k-250k, or less". So either he meant 200k-250k, or he said something totally meaningless, as "everything 250k or below" can't be the middle. As it mathematically includes the bottom.
I somewhat suspect he did not mean he considers 200K to 250K to be middle class. I suspect he meant between whatever bottom you want to declare up to 200K or 250K is middle class. I don't really disagree with him, either, but I live in northern Virginia, where 40K a year's considered poor.
And he would still be obviously wrong to cite those numbers as relevant to those who draw middle income.
I'd consider $250K to be upper middle class, myself, depending on cost of living in a given location. Probably goes a lot further in Bozeman, MT than it does in Arlington, VA.
How so? To the best of my knowledge, there's no strict definition-by-numbers as to what constitutes the middle class. I wouldn't consider a household making $200K a year, especially in Manhattan or DC or Chicago, to be upper class.
How so? To the best of my knowledge, there's no strict definition-by-numbers as to what constitutes the middle class. I wouldn't consider a household making $200K a year, especially in Manhattan or DC or Chicago, to be upper class.
Certainly there's no dictionary definition of Middle Class. And obviously people stretch it all the time to try to avoid thinking of themselves as poor, or as upper-crust. But there's lots of data about average income levels, and that's what we're talking about. The chart Whembley posted last page, in a lucky shot at linking something informative for once, showed average household income across the entire country. The second-highest bracket was 59k-74k. 74k+ is the highest.
Even in Manhattan or DC or Chicago, a household making over $200k a year is well off and making substantially more money than most people.
Mannahnin wrote: Certainly there's no dictionary definition of Middle Class. And obviously people stretch it all the time to try to avoid thinking of themselves as poor, or as upper-crust. But there's lots of data about average income levels, and that's what we're talking about. The chart Whembley posted last page, in a lucky shot at linking something informative for once, showed average household income across the entire country. The second-highest bracket was 59k-74k. 74k+ is the highest.
Even in Manhattan or DC or Chicago, a household making over $200k a year is well off and making substantially more money than most people.
I must be missing that chart, I only saw the one regarding median household income.
Mannahnin wrote: Certainly there's no dictionary definition of Middle Class. And obviously people stretch it all the time to try to avoid thinking of themselves as poor, or as upper-crust. But there's lots of data about average income levels, and that's what we're talking about. The chart Whembley posted last page, in a lucky shot at linking something informative for once, showed average household income across the entire country. The second-highest bracket was 59k-74k. 74k+ is the highest.
Even in Manhattan or DC or Chicago, a household making over $200k a year is well off and making substantially more money than most people.
I must be missing that chart, I only saw the one regarding median household income.
What's the distinction you're drawing? Median is an average. Do you have some more statistics on hand to expand on/cast a different light on that data?
Mannahnin wrote: What's the distinction you're drawing? Median is an average. Do you have some more statistics on hand to expand on/cast a different light on that data?
Median is not an average.
I wasn't drawing a distinction, simply pointing out that the chart posted wasn't average income, it was median income.
You pointed out that 74K+ was the highest bracket on that particular chart. If I was going to take issue with anything - other than the incorrect assertion that median = average - it would be that that, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything, unless you're suggesting we couldn't possibly divide 74K+ into further brackets as well.
Ryan's plan isn't a real budget plan anyway. It's a political statement.
Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit if we hit the revenue targets he calculated it with, which is...unlikely, putting it charitably, but it's not necessarily any more pie-in-the-sky than anything else.
It also does, indeed, do an admirable job as a political statement.
It is not a working budget . If it was put in place, we could not actually run the government on it, because it does not have enough specifics. It does not specify what cuts it will make. It does not specify what tax loopholes it will close. It does not specify how it will be revenue-neutral. It does not specify how it will be both revenue-neutral and reduce the deficit (which is a mathematical impossibility).
It's a lie that he tells you to try to look fiscally responsible. Nothing more.
Mannahnin wrote: What's the distinction you're drawing? Median is an average. Do you have some more statistics on hand to expand on/cast a different light on that data?
Median is not an average.
I wasn't drawing a distinction, simply pointing out that the chart posted wasn't average income, it was median income.
Hang on, what? Median, mode and mean? Are you joking? Or would you care to explain what you think the distinction is?
Seaward wrote: [You pointed out that 74K+ was the highest bracket on that particular chart. If I was going to take issue with anything - other than the incorrect assertion that median = average - it would be that that, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything, unless you're suggesting we couldn't possibly divide 74K+ into further brackets as well.
Median = statistical midpoint, separating the higher half of a probability distribution from the lower half. That chart is showing where the average household income falls by county. In a small percentage of the country, the midpoint for household incomes, for residents in a given country, is (was, in 2009) between $59k and $74k. So in the second-richest counties, half of the households bring in less than that per year, and half bring in more. In the richest counties, that midpoint is north of $74k. In the vast majorty of counties, it's well under that.
They're the three mathematical averages. And median is more useful in certan applications than the mean, like in household income figures like that chart.
If a given street had (as a crude example), ten houses on it, nine of which housholds brought in $50,000 a year each, and the tenth brought in $2,000,000 a year, would you argue that the average income of the folks living on that street is $245,000 per year?
Mannahnin wrote: They're the three mathematical averages. And median is more useful in certan applications than the mean, like in household income figures like that chart.
If a given street had (as a crude example), ten houses on it, nine of which housholds brought in $50,000 a year each, and the tenth brought in $2,000,000 a year, would you argue that the average income of the folks living on that street is $245,000 per year?
I'd argue that's what the average or mean is, yes. I'd argue it's not what the median or mode is. Median's certainly more useful than mean in skewed populations, such as the example you provided. I'm not sure US household income would be such a population, since one assumes it doesn't jump from 50K for most people up to $2000K without a healthy distribution in between.
Using mean as the exclusive definition of average is silly, and leads to basic errors like the one you're making. This is really Intro to Statistics stuff.
Median is the form of average used in these kind of stats because it's more accurate and meaningful in this application.
You might want to do some more reading into household incomes in the US before feeling too comfortable with your assumptions about how skewed the numbers are.
Mannahnin wrote: They're the three mathematical averages. And median is more useful in certan applications than the mean, like in household income figures like that chart.
If a given street had (as a crude example), ten houses on it, nine of which housholds brought in $50,000 a year each, and the tenth brought in $2,000,000 a year, would you argue that the average income of the folks living on that street is $245,000 per year?
I'd argue that's what the average or mean is, yes.
But that doesn't answer the question that was asked. It is a semantic dodge to avoid dealing with the issue.
Mannahnin wrote: Using mean as the exclusive definition of average is silly, and leads to basic errors like the one you're making. This is really Intro to Statistics stuff.
Median is the form of average used in these kind of stats because it's more accurate and meaningful in this application.
Tell you what.
Find any credible source that defines median as an average and I'll concede the point.
Mannahnin wrote: They're the three mathematical averages. And median is more useful in certan applications than the mean, like in household income figures like that chart.
If a given street had (as a crude example), ten houses on it, nine of which housholds brought in $50,000 a year each, and the tenth brought in $2,000,000 a year, would you argue that the average income of the folks living on that street is $245,000 per year?
I'd argue that's what the average or mean is, yes.
But that doesn't answer the question that was asked. It is a semantic dodge to avoid dealing with the issue.
Yes, it does. That is in fact the average. It is not the median or the mode.
Seaward wrote: Yes, it does. That is in fact the average. It is not the median or the mode.
So the problem, it would seem, is that you don't understand the difference between averaging numbers and average income. The families on that block that make $50, 000 a year don't actually have $245, 000 to spend. The question isn't "is the average of these numbers 245000", but "is the average income of these houses $245,000". They are not the same question, and you are answering the former, which wasn't asked, but not the latter, which was.
Seaward, seriously, this is basic statistics. "Average" in the sense you're using it is a colloquial term. In math, median, mode and mean are all averages. In statistics specifically, median is used a lot as it can be much more informative and descriptive than mean in some applications.
Mannahnin wrote: Seaward, seriously, this is basic statistics. "Average" in the sense you're using it is a colloquial term. In math, median, mode and mean are all averages. In statistics specifically, median is used a lot as it can be much more informative and descriptive than mean in some applications.
Seriously, though, you may have come from a middle-class background, so may be culturally middle-class, even though your financial situation is now way better than that of most people in the middle class.
Seriously, though, you may have come from a middle-class background, so may be culturally middle-class, even though your financial situation is now way better than that of most people in the middle class.
Nah, I think Romney'd admit he's not middle class. The question is if he can actually understand the middle class.
Single Filing Status
10% – less than $8,700
15% – between $8,700 and $35,350
25% – between $35,350 and $86,650
28% – between $86,650 and $178,650
33% – between $178,650 and $388,350
35% – over $388,350
Married Filing Jointly
10% – less than $17,400
15% – between $17,400 and $70,700
25% – between $70,700 and $142,700
28% – between $142,700 and $217,450
33% – between $217,450 and $388,350
35% – over $388,350
So...
I don't know where he got the "$200k/$250k and less"? This is a flub... he should've picked something like "those paying in the 10% to 28% range, I want to work with Congress to lower those rates", or some variation... *shrugs*
Seriously, though, you may have come from a middle-class background, so may be culturally middle-class, even though your financial situation is now way better than that of most people in the middle class.
Nah, I think Romney'd admit he's not middle class. The question is if he can actually understand the middle class.
That was a joke. Though not much of one, based on the fake humble origins narrative Anne tried to sell at the convention. Even though it's patently absurd, they're willing to pretend they have some idea what it's like to struggle economically, because they know some folks will buy it.
$200,000 is £132,000. That is very definitely NOT middle income.
Our government recently lowered the tax rate for people earning £100,000 actually, but they at least acknowledged that people above this level were "high earners".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Wouldn't discussing the tax bracket be better?
Single Filing Status
10% – less than $8,700
15% – between $8,700 and $35,350
25% – between $35,350 and $86,650
28% – between $86,650 and $178,650
33% – between $178,650 and $388,350
35% – over $388,350
Married Filing Jointly
10% – less than $17,400
15% – between $17,400 and $70,700
25% – between $70,700 and $142,700
28% – between $142,700 and $217,450
33% – between $217,450 and $388,350
35% – over $388,350
Testify wrote: $200,000 is £132,000. That is very definitely NOT middle income.
Our government recently lowered the tax rate for people earning £100,000 actually, but they at least acknowledged that people above this level were "high earners".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Wouldn't discussing the tax bracket be better?
Single Filing Status
10% – less than $8,700
15% – between $8,700 and $35,350
25% – between $35,350 and $86,650
28% – between $86,650 and $178,650
33% – between $178,650 and $388,350
35% – over $388,350
Married Filing Jointly
10% – less than $17,400
15% – between $17,400 and $70,700
25% – between $70,700 and $142,700
28% – between $142,700 and $217,450
33% – between $217,450 and $388,350
35% – over $388,350
Lol. I'm sorry but those taxes are far too low.
Heh... interesting...
Whats worst is that we can take exemptions and take advantage of loopholes, such that you could effectively be taxed at a lower bracket than what your cashflow brings in.
That's why I've always advocating repealing ALL exemptions/loopholes... yeah... take THAT, that's very unRepublican of me!
Mannahnin wrote: Taxation and spending are both problems. You can't deal with the deficit seriously without addressing both, and dealing with healthcare.
Where Do You Fall on the Income Curve? By CATHERINE RAMPELL
The Tax Policy Center has updated its figures on the income distribution in America, which we’d previously written about in a post about why most rich people don’t feel very rich. They have now crunched income levels for every single percentile, and the numbers refer to 2011 rather than 2010. So I’ve updated my chart on this subject.
The graph below shows how much income is earned by a household at any given percentile in the income distribution, based on these new numbers for 2011:
Incomes grow much, much faster at the top end of the income distribution than in the middle or at the bottom end. That is, the disparity in income between one percentile and a consecutive percentile is bigger among the very rich.
For example, the difference in income between a household at the 50th percentile and a household at the 51st percentile is $1,237 ($42,327 versus $43,564). But the difference in incomes between a household at the 98th percentile and the 99th percentile is $146,118 ($360,435 jumps up to $506,553).
The gaps become even wider at the extreme top of the income ladder: A family at the 99.5th percentile makes $815,868; its neighbor at the 99.9th percentile makes more than double that, at $2,075,574 a year.
In fact much of the rise in inequality over the last few decades has been because of the increasing inequality isolated among the very top members of the income distribution, as America’s wealthiest have pulled further and further away from their slightly less wealthy peers.
(Addendum: “Income” in this case refers to cash income, without energy assistance, imputed corporate income tax liability and the employer’s share of payroll taxes.)
Yes, median is an average. People use "mean" and "average" interchangeably but "average" actually refers to a host of statistical measures that includes median.
They also generally mean "arithmetic mean" rather than just "mean". Which is unfortunate because a geometric mean is actually more useful when determining what middle class is, because it allows household size to be considered directly.
I'd consider $250K to be upper middle class, myself, depending on cost of living in a given location. Probably goes a lot further in Bozeman, MT than it does in Arlington, VA.
I'll be in the top 8% this year, maybe the top 6% if my training business does well. I also live in Chicago, which has a very high cost of living. I am definitely not middle class though.
That said, I'm also single, which does affect things but I would still say that an average household (2.63 people) earning 200-250k per anum is not middle class; regardless of where that household happens to be. And it certainly isn't middle income.
jordanis wrote: if he says he wants to lower taxes on that income bracket who is getting hurt?
That depends on if you want the government to reduce the deficit or not.
For someone that claims that he wants to reduce the federal deficit, Romney's doing everything in his power to increase the federal deficit.
I was under the impression Romney had more or less signed on to Ryan's budget plan.
He signed on to his plan in the usual Romney fashion of "I have a plan, but I'm not going to say what the plan is, just trust me that it is there and it will work."
All Romney has said is that he likes the Ryan plan, but there are areas where they disagree, but the doesn't really know what they are because he hasn't really spend any time comparing them. But he likes the plan, except for the areas where they disagree, which he doesn't know what they are.
He signed on to his plan in the usual Romney fashion of "I have a plan, but I'm not going to say what the plan is, just trust me that it is there and it will work."
All Romney has said is that he likes the Ryan plan, but there are areas where they disagree, but the doesn't really know what they are because he hasn't really spend any time comparing them. But he likes the plan, except for the areas where they disagree, which he doesn't know what they are.
Well, hell, I apparently fell for exactly what the strategists must have been hoping everyone would fall for, then: "Romney picked Ryan, that must mean he'll use Ryan's budget."
He signed on to his plan in the usual Romney fashion of "I have a plan, but I'm not going to say what the plan is, just trust me that it is there and it will work."
All Romney has said is that he likes the Ryan plan, but there are areas where they disagree, but the doesn't really know what they are because he hasn't really spend any time comparing them. But he likes the plan, except for the areas where they disagree, which he doesn't know what they are.
Well, hell, I apparently fell for exactly what the strategists must have been hoping everyone would fall for, then: "Romney picked Ryan, that must mean he'll use Ryan's budget."
He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
ShumaGorath wrote: He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
Medicare's become as much a third rail of American politics as social security. Which is a shame, as I believe they're both going to have to go.
ShumaGorath wrote: He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
Medicare's become as much a third rail of American politics as social security. Which is a shame, as I believe they're both going to have to go.
The entire American healthcare system is unsustainable, it and everything attached to it will eventually collapse or be cut. Obamacare was a bandaid, but without getting off of a system that requires insurance and private practices the costs are going to continue to skyrocket. The system has structural issues that strongly encourage corruption (mostly issues with middlemen between caregivers and patients).
ShumaGorath wrote: He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
Medicare's become as much a third rail of American politics as social security. Which is a shame, as I believe they're both going to have to go.
The entire American healthcare system is unsustainable, it and everything attached to it will eventually collapse or be cut. Obamacare was a bandaid, but without getting off of a system that requires insurance and private practices the costs are going to continue to skyrocket. The system has structural issues that strongly encourage corruption (mostly issues with middlemen between caregivers and patients).
ShumaGorath wrote: He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
Medicare's become as much a third rail of American politics as social security. Which is a shame, as I believe they're both going to have to go.
The entire American healthcare system is unsustainable, it and everything attached to it will eventually collapse or be cut. Obamacare was a bandaid, but without getting off of a system that requires insurance and private practices the costs are going to continue to skyrocket. The system has structural issues that strongly encourage corruption (mostly issues with middlemen between caregivers and patients).
Quick... let's go single-payor!
We're practically there already...
We're not even close, that's why the system is going to destroy itself. Single payer works better in virtually every scenario (and that's how it has played out globally.) Private health insurance has no reason to exist and is purely a profit driven middleman built out of an archaic system of capitol insurance developed hundreds of years ago for factory machines. There is absolutely no reason it should have ever been applied to the American healthcare system and virtually every issue in the American health structure its root in the insurance pay system.
The current medicare crises is a response to massively inflated healthcare costs which are massively inflated largely because the insurance payout system encourages hugely overcharging on care. The entire thing is a cottage industry designed around pulling as much money out of the insurance payer as is possible to make up for the uninsured and it's led to a society that doesn't get treated until health issues become chronic and extremely expensive because preventative care is unafordable under upper middle class.
ShumaGorath wrote: He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
Medicare's become as much a third rail of American politics as social security. Which is a shame, as I believe they're both going to have to go.
The entire American healthcare system is unsustainable, it and everything attached to it will eventually collapse or be cut. Obamacare was a bandaid, but without getting off of a system that requires insurance and private practices the costs are going to continue to skyrocket. The system has structural issues that strongly encourage corruption (mostly issues with middlemen between caregivers and patients).
Quick... let's go single-payor!
We're practically there already...
We're not even close, that's why the system is going to destroy itself. Single payer works better in virtually every scenario (and that's how it has played out globally.) Private health insurance has no reason to exist and is purely a profit driven middleman built out of an archaic system of capitol insurance developed hundreds of years ago for factory machines. There is absolutely no reason it should have ever been applied to the American healthcare system and virtually every issue in the American health structure its root in the insurance pay system.
The current medicare crises is a response to massively inflated healthcare costs which are massively inflated largely because the insurance payout system encourages hugely overcharging on care. The entire thing is a cottage industry designed around pulling as much money out of the insurance payer as is possible to make up for the uninsured and it's led to a society that doesn't get treated until health issues become chronic and extremely expensive because preventative care is unafordable under upper middle class.
I was referring to the amount of regulation and money that the govt puts in our current system...
It's possible that same about of effort/energy/$$$ that we put in the current system could fund a single payor system. *shrugs*
ShumaGorath wrote: He tries to imply that he's using Ryans budget but without touching medicare. Problematically, that makes the Ryan budget even less tenable (and it already can't work).
Medicare's become as much a third rail of American politics as social security. Which is a shame, as I believe they're both going to have to go.
The entire American healthcare system is unsustainable, it and everything attached to it will eventually collapse or be cut. Obamacare was a bandaid, but without getting off of a system that requires insurance and private practices the costs are going to continue to skyrocket. The system has structural issues that strongly encourage corruption (mostly issues with middlemen between caregivers and patients).
Quick... let's go single-payor!
We're practically there already...
We're not even close, that's why the system is going to destroy itself. Single payer works better in virtually every scenario (and that's how it has played out globally.) Private health insurance has no reason to exist and is purely a profit driven middleman built out of an archaic system of capitol insurance developed hundreds of years ago for factory machines. There is absolutely no reason it should have ever been applied to the American healthcare system and virtually every issue in the American health structure its root in the insurance pay system.
The current medicare crises is a response to massively inflated healthcare costs which are massively inflated largely because the insurance payout system encourages hugely overcharging on care. The entire thing is a cottage industry designed around pulling as much money out of the insurance payer as is possible to make up for the uninsured and it's led to a society that doesn't get treated until health issues become chronic and extremely expensive because preventative care is unafordable under upper middle class.
I was referring to the amount of regulation and money that the govt puts in our current system...
It's possible that same about of effort/energy/$$$ that we put in the current system could fund a single payor system. *shrugs*
We put fantastically more regulation and money into our system than any single payer system. All of that ludicrous complication that comes with having tens of thousands of different ways to pay in fifty states with their own stupid little laws requires a titanic amount of regulation that doesn't need to exist. Americas system is doing everything wrong in every place and our treatment statistics are falling like a rock while prices fly into the sky because the system is finally collapsing under it's own weight. You can't do healthcare privately anymore, it's just not tenable with modern medicine and the way globalized business works.
We put fantastically more regulation and money into our system than any single payer system. All of that ludicrous complication that comes with having tens of thousands of different ways to pay in fifty states with their own stupid little laws requires a titanic amount of regulation that doesn't need to exist. Americas system is doing everything wrong in every place and our treatment statistics are falling like a rock while prices fly into the sky because the system is finally collapsing under it's own weight. You can't do healthcare privately anymore, it's just not tenable with modern medicine and the way globalized business works.
And he would still be obviously wrong to cite those numbers as relevant to those who draw middle income.
I'd consider $250K to be upper middle class, myself, depending on cost of living in a given location. Probably goes a lot further in Bozeman, MT than it does in Arlington, VA.
Of all the towns. I was going to disagree because I have always thought the cost of living was really high in Bozeman. Then I saw the cost of living in Arlington.
I have already stated I am a conservative... I am not a neo-nazi. I have changed... I attented a Jewish Holocaust survivor's lecture in Syndey and I found out how I was... I like Jewish people, I am not a rascist. I want equality for all races but I am suspicous about muslims in my area.
I want equality for all races but I am suspicous about muslims in my area
Thats sterotyping because of the extremist. Possible hold over from a previous belief by your comment and Auston comment towards each other. The muslims in your area are more worried about the general population view on them.
I want equality for all races but I am suspicous about muslims in my area
Thats sterotyping because of the extremist. Possible hold over from a previous belief by your comment and Auston comment towards each other. The muslims in your area are more worried about the general population view on them.
That's not the reason. In my area, there are a lot of Lebonese, Somalian, Yemenese and Turkish Gangs. So I get worried when hearing about Muslims, sure there are good Muslims. Also, many I don't like it how many Muslims in my area refuse prison reform in my area, I don't dislike muslims as a whole, I am just get a bit woried sometimes about the crime levels done by some of their youth.
Ahh those type of youngin's. Hell we were all young ourselves. You know what. Take a picture of the stupidity. Xeroz a the pic with a short explanation and put on the Walmart board or whatever you have. Their parents will go freaking bat crap crazy.....and they are a firm believer of house discipline. I thought my team witness a murder when dad beat the ever lovin crap out of his son for throwing a rock at us. Rock on armor sounds like a bullet hitting. We saw dad running up to us waving his arms palm open while we were looking for a shooter. Caught his son behind the wall that 20 meters away and literally spanked with hand first then a switch handed to him by another adult. All we could do was give a thumbs up. Terp later talked to him and we gave him a lidocain cream for his butt.
Jihadin wrote: Ahh those type of youngin's. Hell we were all young ourselves. You know what. Take a picture of the stupidity. Xeroz a the pic with a short explanation and put on the Walmart board or whatever you have. Their parents will go freaking bat crap crazy.....and they are a firm believer of house discipline. I thought my team witness a murder when dad beat the ever lovin crap out of his son for throwing a rock at us. Rock on armor sounds like a bullet hitting. We saw dad running up to us waving his arms palm open while we were looking for a shooter. Caught his son behind the wall that 20 meters away and literally spanked with hand first then a switch handed to him by another adult. All we could do was give a thumbs up. Terp later talked to him and we gave him a lidocain cream for his butt.
Might have to do that in the future. Thanks the the advice.
Immigrant families are really old world in disciplining their kids. If the kids are misbehaving, tell the parents. The parents will put a stop to it posthaste.
At least where I live, small businesses are dying out, but for reasons other than taxes. Local property fees, shipping costs, customer traffic and publicity all have a lot to do with why small businesses need these tax breaks in the first place. It's a tough issue to tackle.
