CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo attacks Sen. Obama on taxes by making the ludicrous claim that $200,000/year isn’t rich. Median U.S. household income is $48,201. Yes, I hope conservatives take up this battle and run with it. This is what happens when people like Maria Bartiromo and John McCain surround themselves with fellow six and seven figure travelers – they lose all context for what the real world is like.
One less fur coat for Paris Hilton and Maria Bartiromo, what shall we do?
Well what is your definition of rich, Oliver. I have been all over the spectrum. I made 20K a year, 50 and now I share an income of about 120K. Am I rich? Do I deserve to be taxed extra because I served my country, worked hard to get a scholarship. Does my wife deserve to be taxed extra because he put herself through law school and now works 12 hours a day as a Public Defender for below your vaunted national average?
Respectfully,
The Squid
It’s not taxed extra, its taxed appropriately. Please don’t try to argue that a six figure income isn’t rich, because it is.
By the way, it’s not my vaunted national average. It’s the census bureau’s.
You ain’t rich, Squidward. Settle down. You’re comfortable. Barack isn’t taking about you.
Duros,
Why do you have to bring poor Spongebob’s people into this?
Respectfully,
The Squid
You know who also thinks $200K isn’t rich? Michelle Obama
Considering that Bartiromo had a major conflict of interest when she was dating a bigwig at Citicorp., while reporting on Citicorp, she may not be in the best position to level such criticisms
“The salaries don’t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt,” she said, referring to the student loans, “so you’re in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids. ”
Hell my wife and I both have private law school debt.
So where did she say that, Farris? Perhaps that was a general statement regarding the American condition? Her comments aren’t wrong, regardless of how much you make.
KXB:
Remember the little dust up she got into with “B-52″ Ben a year or so ago? He told her something he thought was off the record and she went on CNBC with it. Opps!!!!
Duros,
Why do you have to bring poor Spongebob’s people into this?
Well, which is it? Squid or Shark?
Pick a side, we’re at war!
;-D
If it was a “general statement regarding the American condition”, then it wouldn’t have been about “the money she had to spend on piano and dance” and “student loans from her time at Princeton and Harvard”
Duros,
Indeed I am both. (Squid=Naval Officer, Shark=Lawyer)
I still don’t see how a six figure income automatically qualifies somebody as “rich.” You’ve argued before that a person making $100K a year is “rich.” I don’t get it. To be honest, I make nearly $65K a year and despite that, it’s still struggle from time to time. Mortgage payments, insurance payments, food bills, car payments, credit card bills, property taxes, doctors bills, etc. This stuff adds up. Another $35K a year would be nice, but it wouldn’t exactly have me living high on the hog.
Rich. Being truly rich is when you have millions of dollars at your disposal. That’s rich. It reminds me of that quote from the movie ‘Wall Street’ where Gekko says:
“Wake up, will ya pal? If you’re not inside, you’re outside, OK? And I’m not talking a $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable, I’m talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars buddy. A player, or nothing.”
The highest rate currently applies to income above 350K or so–and only the income above that level is taxed at that rate. That’s about 4 times mine and my wife’s combined income. It’s pretty safe to say most people making that much money are fairly rich(unless they have incredibly massive debt or something). The next highest rate applies to income above 160 K or so, and only the income above that level is taxed at that rate. If you’re married filing jointly, it kicks in at nearly 200K. That’s two tenured college professors, or a first year associate and a social worker, or a doctor and a housewife. I would at least describe 200K household income as “affluent”, since they can afford a home priced between 400 and 800K. The third highest rate applies to individuals making 77K or more, and to married couples making 128K or more. So, Squid, you and your wife don’t even qualify to be taxed under the third highest rate. Actually, your current federal income tax rate, averaged , should be around 20%. Obviously that doesn’t include SS and Medicare withholding, but it’s pretty manageable. If you guys have any deductibles at all, like a mortgage payment, it’s even less than that.
The 400 richest taxpayers only wound up paying about 18%, from what I’ve read.
Well, according to the government stats, the people making over $200,000 a year constitute only 3% of the US population. That is the group that is basically getting the advantage of the lowered tax rates on capital gains (ie. aptly termed unearned income). That means the rest of us, ie. 97% of the US population will not be affected.
Additionally, Ms Bartiromo indicated that gains on home sales would lose their capital gains treatment. Last time I checked US tax law, sales of personal property including homes are not given any kind of preferential capital gains treatment. Profits on sales of personal residences are taxed at oridinary income rates currently.
As for capital gains increases, or increases on ordinary income minimizing the value of a 401K, my thinking is just the opposite. Any increase in the marginal tax rates would seem to increase the value of a 401K (or equivalent plan) to the contributor. High income proceeds are not taxed during your earning years, and are taxed at the marginal rates only when withdrawn. Presumably, that will be a time when your overall income is less. In current circumstances few people earn over $200,000 a year, and even fewer have that kind of income in retirement.
It seems the Ms Bartiromo’s off hand criticims lack substance.
Squid Shark
I made 20K a year, 50 and now I share an income of about 120K. Am I rich?
Yes – yes, you are rich. I can’t really believe that you have the stones to try and pass yourself off as a poor, disadvantaged soul whose family makes four times poverty level wages for a family of eight. But then again, that’s Republican’ts for ya…
Do I deserve to be taxed extra because I served my country, worked hard to get a scholarship.
No – you deserve to be taxed extra because you make more money. The money you make within each tax bracket is taxed at the same rate as everyone else’s income within that tax bracket. Poor baby…
Does my wife deserve to be taxed extra because he put herself through law school and now works 12 hours a day as a Public Defender for below your vaunted national average?
Does your wife deserve to be taxed less than someone putting in those twelve hours in a 7-11? Your choice, your responsibility. What ever happened to that good ole can-do attitude of your basic Republican’t?
Respectfully,
The Squid
I’m not looking forward to increased tax rates, either. But, it’s funny – the only way the tax giveaways to the rich got put into law in the first place was to agree that they would end at a certain point in time. Now that that point in time is close to arriving, are Republican’ts about to flip-flop on this issue too? Why did you lie to the american people in order to get your tax giveaways to the rich on the books? Not that I would expect any sort of response on these questions, after years of Republican’ts dodging them…
There’s rich and filthy rich. A six figure salary is rich. Looking into one’s feelings is kind of useless on this. I recently read a good book on wealth where they discussed that pretty much everyone from a million up to billions didn’t consider themselves wealthy because they compared themselves to the guys at the very top. I argue about this regularly with my own mother because she doesn’t think I do well, but I do when compared to the median – especially as a single guy.
“Does your wife deserve to be taxed less than someone putting in those twelve hours in a 7-11? Your choice, your responsibility. What ever happened to that good ole can-do attitude of your basic Republican’t?’
She deserves to be taxed the same I would imagine, does she work less, does all the years she put into getting her education mean that she deserves to be taxed at a higher rate? G-d forbid if she finally goes into private pratice…
“the tax giveaways to the rich”
Seems to me that I got some of that money, and I was making less than 20K back then.
“What ever happened to that good ole can-do attitude of your basic Republican’t?”
Can-do attitudes can be seriously tempered by excessive taxation.
“was to agree that they would end at a certain point in time.”
And they will end unless the elected representatives of the people choose to extend them.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Oh I almost forgot.
” can’t really believe that you have the stones to try and pass yourself off as a poor, disadvantaged soul whose family makes four times poverty level wages for a family of eight. But then again, that’s Republican’ts for ya…”
I am not trying to pass myself off as disadvantaged, I am actually quite blessed, but my wife and I did not get where we were by accident. I cone from very humble beginnings, I joined the Navy, got my education and did pretty well for myself. My wife worked her way through college and supported herself through law school, now she spends her entire day dealing with crack addicts and sex offenders (most of them in your horrible poverty category), just so they can get the best defense possible. I am sorry you think that makes theus some sort of evil Republicans.
Respectfully,
The Squid
So Obama wants to tax income in excess of $200,000 an extra 4% and to bump up the capital gains tax a goodly bit. I’m for it.
“So Obama wants to tax income in excess of $200,000 an extra 4% and to bump up the capital gains tax a goodly bit. I’m for it.”
And so are most Americans, including Warren Buffet, who is the richest person on the planet. (Maybe, it keeps going back and forth.)
George W. Bush fucked over America’s budget and someone is going to have to pay for it. Paying for it means increased taxes. These taxes can either come from the rich or the middle class.
Who do you think can pay for this more? Taxing which group will hurt the economy more?
Two simple questions that anyone with any understanding of economics will agree on.
“Two simple questions that anyone with any understanding of economics will agree on.”
I am no economist, but the “rich” are the ones investing in the business, correct? Disposable income also going to charities and such.
Why don’t we just eat them, I seem to remember someone advocating that once.
Respectfully,
The Squid
“I am no economist…”
That much is obvious. I doubt you ever took a single economics course in university.
“but the “rich” are the ones investing in the business, correct? Disposable income also going to charities and such.”
No. No, consumers keep the economy going. The middle class is the engine of the economy and if there were no billionaires, the economy would continue just fine.
You must raise taxes because George W. Bush spend like a drunken sailor at a whore house, no offense meant to the prostitutes of the world. Someone has to pay for this, but the key is making sure you can raise the money without hurting the economy. And the principle of Declining Marginal Value states that someone who makes $100,000 a year can be taxes more without disrupting their spending habits than someone making $50,000 a year. And not just two times more taxes, but the exact number is not something I can calculate.
“That much is obvious. I doubt you ever took a single economics course in university. ”
That much is true, I am a history and religions major, otherwise I am schooled in the conduct of armed conflict.
You condescension is unnecessary, however. I don’t make comments about your grammar or rhetorical fallacies; because I am sure that you are not schooled in such things. We all learn as best we can. I made the statement I made before because it would seem to be common sense (from what I have read) that in a capitalist society, persons with real capital, as well as consumers, would be necessary for the growth of the economy.
Respectfully,
The Squid
The problem here is that Obama has actually voted in favor of raising taxes on not onbly the rich, but the lower middle class as well. He voted to raise the 25% bracket to 28% th8is covers workers making $32,550 to $78,850. By this measure, Obama thinks $32K is rich.
Uh, no. The 25% tax bracket covers single people not with incomes between $32,550 and $79k but Adjusted gross incomes of that level. Taking out the standard deduction and a single exemption, someone would have to make about $46k as a single person to even get to that bracket. A single person who makes $50k would see a tax increase of about $2.40 a week.
The tax “increase” would only revert the tax table to that from 1993-2000, which saw the greatest peacetime expansion in history. Not surprising why conservatives are against it.
History and religion and bombing the crap out of unarmed people. Hmm. You do need to go back and learn a bit more. Anecdotes could lead you to the Europe of today with loads of taxes and still quite a bit of can-do. Or New York, or San Fran, or any other place that thinks that slavery is best when slaveowners are placed in small cells.
Whining about making a comfortable living in most of the US strikes me as gutless and something your senior chief would frown upon. Oooh poor me, I has to pay taxes. Quick, call the wahhhmbulance!
Sorry that you have to fulfill duties of citizenship and want to end them. Try Somalia, Afghanistan, Darfur or any other free-market society.