FORTUNE -- Mitt Romney has a curious definition of "middle income," based on an interview this morning with ABC News:
MITT ROMNEY: No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
I'm honestly not sure what Romney is trying to say here, except that he doesn't want to raise federal income taxes.
Is he honestly trying to argue that "middle-income" is $200,000 to $250,000?" According to recent U.S. Census data, just 1.9% of U.S. households fit that definition. I've heard people say the American middle class is disappearing, but 1.9% would be extreme.
Romney defenders on Twitter have latched on to the "and less" part of his statement, but how does that really help matters? Does Romney mean everything under $250,000 is middle income? If so, that would seem to eliminate the "lower income" category entirely -- and how do you have a middle without the lower and higher?
I've asked the Romney campaign for clarification. Also asked for a specific definition from the Obama campaign, given the President's tendency to refer to tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 as "middle class" tax cuts. Not really expecting answers from either.
For the record, median U.S. household income is around $50,000.
Sign up for Dan's daily email newsletter on deals and deal-makers: GetTermSheet.com
Houses look more affordable than ever. But prices will have to fall further before many Americans can actually afford to buy one.
The end of 2010 brought the start of a double dip that left U.S. home prices down 31% from their mid-decade peak. The latest slide puts the price of the average dwelling far below its long-run average as a share of per capita income, according to Paul Dales of MOREColin Barr - Mar 9, 2011 6:34 AM ET
Institutional investors are clamoring for some of the most maligned securities from the credit crisis, while individual investors are taking on more risk for steady income that beats Treasuries. Is it 2005 all over again?
By Nancy Miller, contributor
Investors are getting fed up with minuscule interest rates but remain nervous Nellies -- afraid to gallop into the stock market and afraid to hang back with their bonds.
Instead they hope they're entering MOREFeb 24, 2011 12:25 PM ET
|GM's recalled Cobalt was a failure from the start|
|Pope Francis challenges the free market - The Buzz|
|Why you should pay off your car loan ASAP|
|Americans have fallen in love with real estate once again|
|Your Internet security relies on a few volunteers|