In an article in today's N.Y. Post (noted on Politico.com), CNBC's Maria Bartiromo was quoted as saying Obama's tax policies would "bite". In particular, she noted that the income tax is in for a hike. "Right now [it] is 35 percent, Obama wants to take that to 39 percent . . . We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think." If people making $200,000 are not rich then who is?
The full quote from Politico.com is as follows:
N.Y. Post "Page Six" does "BARACK’S BITE": "WE'RE in for taxing times if Barack Obama wins the White House, says CNBC's Maria Bartiromo. ‘He's going to take the capital gains tax at 15 percent right now all the way up to 25 to 28 percent,’ the ‘Money Honey’ tells Avenue. ‘Sell anything, like a home or stocks, and make a profit . . . [almost] 30 percent of the profit will go to the government instead of 15.’ The income tax is also in for a bump. Bartiromo says, ‘Right now [it] is 35 percent, Obama wants to take that to 39 percent . . . We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think.’ "
According to Wikipedia "Household Income in the United States," http://en.wikipedia.org/...
the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the US Census Bureau. The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. In 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000.
Wikipedia further reports that 3.19% of households made between $150,000 and $200,000 and only 2.67% of households made over $200,000 (1.17% made between $200,000 and $250,000 and 1.5% made over $250,000).
If Bartiromo thinks that people making over $200,000 (only 2.67% of households) are "not rich" then who are the rich? The 1.5% making over $250,000? Some smaller percentage making even more money?
Why is the press so fixated on protecting the very wealthy? Is it because they are all part of that elite club? Remember George Stephanopoulos' question to Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania debate travesty:
"Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year? And if the economy is as weak a year from now as it is today, will you persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?"
Of course this was followed by Charlie Gibson's false claim that raising the capital gains tax results in falling revenues. (Not to mention his false claim that Obama's plan to lift the cap on social security taxes would impact typical two income families like a firefighter and a teacher, making over $100,000 - social security taxes are, of course, calculated separately).
I think it is clear that households making over $200,000 are rich. They represent the wealthiest 2.67% of America's population. I think an argument could even be made that anyone making over $100,000 is rich (less than 20% of households do). Obviously, Ms. Bartiromo makes more than $200,000 and Obama's tax proposals might impact her personally. Perhaps in the future she should just say that Obama's tax proposals will impact her and not try to spin it that his proposals are somehow negatively impacting the middle class.