Well, maybe "middle income" is halfway between the highest and lowest incomes, so somewhere around $50 million?
I'm assuming you mean median household income. Since that is most literally the middle income. Which is still around $50k, because you are underestimating the number of people making low wages and overestimating the number of people making high wages. No, as George alluded to, there is literally no objective way to make those legitimate numbers unless you do some real strange math.
Then what did you mean by "half way between"? The mean? Or if you literally take the highest number, lowest number and take the average of those two?
Eeyup.
I thought he meant the median, as that is the mathematical concept that most fits what he was saying.
Anyway. With that measure it would be around $65,607,540. Assuming the lowest wage is minimum wage, working full time. And you exclude those mega earners who don't get paid a salary.
If you consider more than straight salary for the top earner and go into bonuses and stock options, the middle income is actually $800,007,540
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that "halfway" wasn't a mathematical concept. I'd better go relearn trigonometry - I thought I understood it, but clearly I must have been very confused the entire time.
Also, I'd forgotten that corporations are people too; maybe if we count them the figures will turn out right?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that "halfway" wasn't a mathematical concept. I'd better go relearn trigonometry - I thought I understood it, but clearly I must have been very confused the entire time.
Also, I'd forgotten that corporations are people too; maybe if we count them the figures will turn out right?
If we'd consider corporations, I think Wal-Mart is the highest US-based corporation. They have a revenue in 2012 of $446,950,000,000. So the middle income goes up to $223,475,007,540. Maybe he misspoke and meant to say $200 billion instead of $200,000.
As it turns out, it seems I was already following the directions in that very helpful article you linked. That's great to know!
However, I'm still waiting on the article that explains why there's a problem with using language that, under standard definitions, means exactly what I wanted it to say.
If we'd consider corporations, I think Wal-Mart is the highest US-based corporation. They have a revenue in 2012 of $446,950,000,000. So the middle income goes up to $223,475,007,540. Maybe he misspoke and meant to say $200 billion instead of $200,000.
Possibly. The numbers would be closer if we took the mean value with corporations counting as people, though likely still well off.
Calm down, I'm just taking the piss. Your meaning was obvious.
I took the gross revenue of Wal Mart + 15080, then divided it by 2 to get that number. I can't find any easy to digest list of top US corporate revenues, so I'm going by this and just using the top listed, only using the US companies. The mean is $101,867,677,419.35.
The middle-most number there is $50,933,846,249.50. So I think he just misspoke, and meant $200 billion.
It would definitely be lower if we could find the average revenue of a corporation, including the (comparatively) tiny ones. Maybe Mitt simply has access to better information than I do. That would make sense, since he's a business man and probably gets all this information in his business meetings.
Why on earth would you mean to cite such a number when talking about taxes on household income?
Corporations are people, and thus have households. I wonder what his opinion on corporate marriages are, should they be given tax incentives just like normal people so they can file jointly if they choose to marry rather than merge? Will we see a movement for corporate-american rights?
I think you'd find that Wal-Mart's taxable U.S. revenues (and those of most mega-corps) are considerably less that the above-quoted figure due to use of shelters and international accounts, tax breaks, corporate welfare, and any other number of snaky accounting principles you can't imagine.
I think you'd find that Wal-Mart's taxable U.S. revenues (and those of most mega-corps) are considerably less that the above-quoted figure due to use of shelters and international accounts, tax breaks, corporate welfare, and any other number of snaky accounting principles you can't imagine.
Definitely, but we're talking about average income, not average net profit. Although maybe he meant to refer to net wages, after taxes and what not.
Every article I can find on the quote talks about the income of the middle-class, which he defines as 200,000-250,000 and less. A couple articles note that Obama has defined middle-class income in the same way.
Every article I can find on the quote talks about the income of the middle-class, which he defines as 200,000-250,000 and less. A couple articles note that Obama has defined middle-class income in the same way.
The articles I'm seeing don't have that key term "and less", aside from coming from Obama. While I don't literally think that Romney has such a narrow definition of middle income and thinks everyone below that is poverty-stricken, the fact that he opened his oh-so-beautiful mouth and said something like that is asininegenius, in some way. I'm wondering if anyone on his staff actually cares about him looking out of touch anymore, or if they've given up on that.
About three years ago, there were a couple of spam punks in the DM_store on TF2. They were filling voice chat with, "BOOM. DEAD. 'CAUSE OBAMA'S PRESIDENT NOW." That phrase gets a lot of use around the ol' Hawk house.
About three years ago, there were a couple of spam punks in the DM_store on TF2. They were filling voice chat with, "BOOM. DEAD. 'CAUSE OBAMA'S PRESIDENT NOW." That phrase gets a lot of use around the ol' Hawk house.
About three years ago, there were a couple of spam punks in the DM_store on TF2. They were filling voice chat with, "BOOM. DEAD. 'CAUSE OBAMA'S PRESIDENT NOW." That phrase gets a lot of use around the ol' Hawk house.
AP poll finds most Americans want to stop Super PACs from "buying" elections. Six in 10 Americans now think gay couples should receive the same benefits as married couples. http://apne.ws/PEoV8i
About three years ago, there were a couple of spam punks in the DM_store on TF2. They were filling voice chat with, "BOOM. DEAD. 'CAUSE OBAMA'S PRESIDENT NOW." That phrase gets a lot of use around the ol' Hawk house.
Rylin's first words?
"Hi, Dad, Mom, duck, meow."
Somewhat lacking in political subtext.
She should be able to say 2 syllable words. THANKS OBAMA!
Comments
Anyway. With that measure it would be around $65,607,540. Assuming the lowest wage is minimum wage, working full time. And you exclude those mega earners who don't get paid a salary.
If you consider more than straight salary for the top earner and go into bonuses and stock options, the middle income is actually $800,007,540
Also, I'd forgotten that corporations are people too; maybe if we count them the figures will turn out right?
If we'd consider corporations, I think Wal-Mart is the highest US-based corporation. They have a revenue in 2012 of $446,950,000,000. So the middle income goes up to $223,475,007,540. Maybe he misspoke and meant to say $200 billion instead of $200,000.
However, I'm still waiting on the article that explains why there's a problem with using language that, under standard definitions, means exactly what I wanted it to say. Possibly.
The numbers would be closer if we took the mean value with corporations counting as people, though likely still well off.
I took the gross revenue of Wal Mart + 15080, then divided it by 2 to get that number. I can't find any easy to digest list of top US corporate revenues, so I'm going by this and just using the top listed, only using the US companies. The mean is $101,867,677,419.35.
The middle-most number there is $50,933,846,249.50. So I think he just misspoke, and meant $200 billion.
It would definitely be lower if we could find the average revenue of a corporation, including the (comparatively) tiny ones. Maybe Mitt simply has access to better information than I do. That would make sense, since he's a business man and probably gets all this information in his business meetings.
Somewhat lacking in political subtext.
http://apne.ws/PEoV8i
Thanks NOBAMA.