… $121. Depending on where you live and whether you’ve bumped your tip up to 20%, that $121 might not even cover a nice dinner. But $121 is the total added annual federal tax burden for people making between $250,000 and $603,400 a year. Somehow, I don’t think that extra $121 is going to be a hardship on people who make as much as $603,400 a year. Last Sunday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution cited the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center analysis saying that only the top 1% of wage earners would see a tax increase. They identify that top 1% as those earning between $619,561 and $2,832,449. And their figures show larger savings at every level seeing a cut and lower increases at the very top than the Parade figures. Curiously, both tables were pubished on October 12 and both cite the Tax Policy Center as their source. Here is the latest analaysis from the Tax Policy Center so you can read it for yourself.
Clearly, Barack Obama’s tax proposal benefits the vast majority of wage-earners. In contrast, John McCain’s plan concentrates the benefits at the top, continuing the policies of “trickle-down” economics begun under Ronald Reagan. The distribution of income and wealth in the United States is difficult to conceptualize. Here’s some information that may help. And over the past couple of decades, there has been a pronounced upward redistribution of both wealth and income, assisted by tax policies and furthered by the increased disparity between compensation packages for CEOs and that of the average worker. The increasing disparity has become an increasing concern for many groups, including some religious groups who see it as contrary to the tenets of their religion. Some have gone so far as to label the trend as “pillaging” by the upper class.
Not surprisingly, McCain is calling Obama’s tax policies a redistribution of wealth. More accurately, they should be described as a return to the policies of eight years ago.
After reviewing both tax plans carefully I would have to say that Obama’s tax plan most definitely benefits the greater portion of taxpayers. The increase in taxes for the upper income is nominal at best.
As I am striving to be in that above $250,000 annual income group, I think I could easily handle an extra $121 a year in taxes. If Sen. Biden wants to call that being patriotic, well then I guess that’s as good a word as any. Especially since the higher my income goes, the more employees I will need which will generate more income for me which generates more jobs and therefore more income for someone else.
If that is being patriotic, then I think I really want to be counted in. Trickle down does not work. Trickle down is what has kept my company small, employees at a casual level and my income minimal. Trickle up works much better in my mind.
<>
The problem with this is that you seem to forget that $121 dollars will continue to grow. It might be $121 at 250k. but as your income increases that $121 increases. How can you continue to invest in your small company when the government continues to take a larger and larger peice of your investment pool?
The idea of the government acting as Robin Hood to small business’s Lord Sherriff assumes two things. First that there is a limited ammount of wealth availible in the universe that cannot be increased. Second that small business somehow “stole” their wealth from someone.