Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

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.

The statistics disagree, though.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The statistics disagree, though.

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.

Thank you Melissa Just wanted to make sure your looking at the same thing I was. No need to be insulting either

 Seaward wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The statistics disagree, though.

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.

 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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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?

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

Whiiich won't reduce the deficit.

Ryan's plan isn't a real budget plan anyway. It's a political statement.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Whiiich won't reduce the deficit.

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.

Just curious if anyoe else caught it. The money that ran both OIF and OEF was borrowed. Yet its factored in.

 Seaward wrote:
Ryan's plan would reduce

Something that isn't the deficit.

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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

Median is not a hard concept to understand...

This is freshman level statistics. Hell, this is grade school levle statistics.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Hang on, what? Median, mode and mean? Are you joking? Or would you care to explain what you think the distinction is?

The mean is the arithmetic average of a set of numbers.

The median is the numeric value separating the higher half of a set of numbers from the lower half.

You want to argue that a median is an average, go nuts, but you're simply incorrect.

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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Well done, point conceded.

I still refuse to believe I'm not middle class.

So does Romney. Which is kind of the point.

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.

 Mannahnin wrote:
So does Romney. Which is kind of the point.

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.

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

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*

 Seaward wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
So does Romney. Which is kind of the point.

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

Lol. I'm sorry but those taxes are far too low.

 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!