Thursday, August 14, 2008

Obama Delares War On Two-Income Families, Would Impose a Punitive Marriage Tax Penalty

The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate's tax increase plans. Mr. Obama's two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and it isn't pretty.

To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the "rich" — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income.

Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions.

If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.

~NY Sun Editorial

14 Comments:

At 8/14/2008 10:46 AM, Blogger randian said...

Ouch!

 
At 8/14/2008 10:48 AM, Blogger randian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 8/14/2008 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we would have better children, and a bettering society if the mothers stayed home and quit slaving for the government. Just a thought.

 
At 8/14/2008 11:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone is going to have to pay to bail out Wall Street, insolvent banks, the unfunded liablities of SS and Medicare along with enriching the military industrial complex. Get a grip.

 
At 8/14/2008 12:09 PM, Anonymous anon_0 said...

Come back to real world and look up median income, or GDP per capita. Look at the income distributions.

Believe it or not, there are actually people in the world who do NOT make 200k or more!!! I know some people who post here cannot believe this fact, but it is true! In fact, MOST people don't make that much.

"Declares war"? Man, WSJ has become Fox News for elitists.

 
At 8/14/2008 12:10 PM, Anonymous anon_0 said...

Sorry, not the WSJ here, but almost as bad.

 
At 8/14/2008 12:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a government needs money it can either borrow it which must be repaid with interest by it's citizens, it can raise it threw taxation and take it from them directly or it can print it by monetizing the debt and take it as the hidden tax of inflation. Before this is all said and done they will be printing. Pick your posion.

 
At 8/14/2008 1:34 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Someone is going to have to pay to bail out Wall Street, insolvent banks, the unfunded liablities of SS and Medicare along with enriching the military industrial complex"...

Well let's see, just how many people are actually employeed due to the monetary actions on Wall Street versus the parasistes feeding off the taxpayer financed federal trough? Thanks to socialist thinking and the perceived need for nanny state programs I'm sure it shrinking...

How many people are making a paycheck indirectly due to this 'alledged' military industrial complex versus how many people are overseeing the waste of extorted tax dollars to finance that serious waste of money called, "LBJ's War on Poverty", a forty plus year blunder but a blunder liberals take inordinate pride in?

"unfunded liablities of SS and Medicare"?!?!

So where did all the extorted tax dollar go that were supposedly collected for both SS and medicare?

BTW where in the American Constitution does it mandate federal interference in the fields of retirement or medicine?

 
At 8/14/2008 1:51 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> if the mothers stayed home and quit slaving for the government.

Not to suggest that I disagree with the sentiment that families would be better off with one of the parents at home (although I also suspect that it's much more slaving for the god of commerce and materialism), this would not be the way to do it.

(emphasis mine):
> the unfunded liablities of SS and Medicare along with enriching the military industrial complex. Get a grip.

Yeah, like one thin dime of this is going to go to cover SS and MC.

a) Stop smokin' what you're smokin'.

b) *loosen* your grip on that thing. I know "stickin' it to the rich" is sexually arousing, but... not here, please.

 
At 8/14/2008 2:00 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Sorry, not the WSJ here, but almost as bad.

LOL, so you managed to get *one* thing in your silly diatribe right, after correcting it, that is.

======

A clue for you:
Start doing what Obama proposes, and you do things which cause a shortfall in monies expected to be raised.

The next result is to "fix" the problem by dropping the upper limit -- first to $150k, then to $100k... and, if you actually looked at median incomes, you'd know that it's not very hard AT ALL for combined income to go over $100k.

In some parts of the country, with property values as they are, that's not even that much money.

The "Income Tax" was sold as a "Soak the Rich" scheme.

Now *YOU* pay income tax.

Is U "Rich", boyo?

Politicos always sell things based on greed -- "bread and circusses, for FREE!!!" -- then comes time to really, really pay the tab, and suddenly we find we're all on the hook.

 
At 8/14/2008 2:03 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

.




Governments get money the same way that individuals do... Primary Production, Secondary Production, Forced Redistribution, and Voluntary Redistribution - make, trade, steal, and beg. There are no other ways.
The difference is that Governments are inefficient at making, trading and begging (except from other governments), so they have to steal.

- Alexis A. Gilliland -

 
At 8/14/2008 2:05 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> BTW where in the American Constitution does it mandate federal interference in the fields of retirement or medicine?

Logic!?!?

Logic!?!?

Weeeee don' neeeed no steeenkin' logic!!

:oP
.

 
At 8/14/2008 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a government needs money it can either borrow it which must be repaid with interest by it's citizens, it can raise it threw taxation and take it from them directly or it can print it by monetizing the debt and take it as the hidden tax of inflation. Before this is all said and done they will be printing. Pick your posion.

Cut spending.

 
At 8/15/2008 3:37 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Cut spending.

Yeah, but what are you going to do when a huge percentage of that is guarantees -- pensions, SoSec, and the like?

That's a group of "sacred cows" you don't dare touch with our current system of elections.

It's not all of the budget -- yet, but those largely unfunded mandates constitute an ever-increasing portion of the budget pie.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home