Pajamas Media

Obama’s Taxes: A $2 Trillion Trip Back to the 70s

With President Obama in office, the days of governments extracting a top marginal rate of 60% will return. Could bell bottoms be far behind?

June 27, 2008 - by Tom Blumer

Remember how the press made George Bush’s tax rate cuts look so “huge” in 2001 and 2003?

A March 10, 2001, New York Times article by reporters Frank Bruni and Richard W. Stevenson typified the approach. The trick was to talk about the (scary) $1.6 trillion impact of the “cuts” while minimizing attention to their time frame. At the linked article, the reporters waited until the ninth paragraph to tell us that it was a “$1.6 trillion, 10-year package” — that is, a less intimidating average reduction of $160 billion a year.

Using consistent language, Barack Obama’s tax proposals involve tax hikes of at least $2 trillion, and possibly $3 trillion, over the next 10 years.

Obama would bring tax policy back to the 1970s, or about where we were before the Reagan-era tax rate cuts that triggered the Seven Fat Years of 1983-1989. Despite being partially offset by Bush 41’s and Bill Clinton’s rate hikes, the Reagan rate cuts and their remnants propelled the economy forward almost non-stop for nearly 18 years until the 2000 bubble burst.

Using “static analsyis,” the non-business press and rate cut opponents assumed that Reagan would deprive the government of huge sums of money. Supply-side rate cut proponents knew better, and predicted that more money, not less, would flow into the federal treasury, as the unleashed economy would grow faster than if rates were not changed.

That supply-siders’ predictions were correct is indisputable. Congressional Budget Office data show that federal fiscal year receipts increased by 65% from 1983 to 1989 — a compound annual rate of 8.7%.

The Bush rate cut success story is similar. While the rate reductions on earned income were less substantial than many would have liked, bringing the top rate down only to 35% from Clinton’s 39.6%, the 2003 Bush capital gains and dividend rate cuts were more aggressive than their Reagan-era counterparts.

Those investment-related rate cuts have favorably influenced behavior far beyond even proponents’ wildest dreams. Federal fiscal year receipts increased by 44% from 2003 to 2007 — a compound annual rate of 9.6%. Even in fiscal 2008, as the media and Alan Greenspan obsess over a possible recession, federal receipts before economic stimulus payments are on track to increase by about 4%. April 2008 receipts set an all-time single-month record.

If a President Barack Obama gets his desired tax increases, he will show us that supply-side economics has a painful reverse gear. Just as Uncle Sam never had to do without the $1.6 trillion the New York Times and the rest of the media fretted over in 2001, an Obama administration will never see anywhere near the multi-trillion-dollar tax increase windfall it hopes for.

Let’s look at the static Obama numbers. I started with the most recent available IRS tax return data from 2005 (specifically Table 1.4, a download accessible at this IRS link). Adjusting for estimated inflation since then, and naively assuming no change in behavior, here are my first-year lowball estimates of the impacts of the major proposed tax hikes:

Obama has said he will let the Bush tax rate cuts expire for incomes over $250,000. This will push those taxpayers into either the 36% bracket (up from 33%) or the 39.6% bracket (up from 35%). Estimated annual impact, before considering the investment-related items that follow: at least $110 billion.
Although waffling a bit, it appears that Obama plans to increase the capital gains rate nearly to its pre-2003 level, and to once again make dividends fully taxable as ordinary income — again, apparently, on incomes of over $250,000. Estimated annual impact: at least $50 billion.
Third, as discussed in last week’s column, Obama plans to impose the Social Security payroll tax on all income from work and self-employment above $250,000. Estimated impact: at least $40 billion.

That’s at least $200 billion a year in tax hikes; if 2007 IRS data were available, we might find that the static impact is really closer to $300 billion. Consistent with media treatment earlier this decade, we’re talking about “at least $2 trillion (over the next 10 years).”

But Uncle Barack will never see most of that revenue, because taxpayers will make adjustments. Among them: CEOs will restructure their pay packages; entrepreneurs will work less hard and pay themselves lower salaries; investors will move funds between investments less often and push for smaller dividend payouts. In the Wall Street Journal last week, Lawrence Lindsey estimated that the Social Security payroll tax hike alone will “make the private sector $5 poorer … [and only] make the government $1 richer.”

Barack Obama, in bringing back the tax structure of the 1970s, would cause many of the highest earning taxpayers with income from work or self-employment to face a top marginal rate of 60% or more: 39.6% federal, 12.4% Social Security, 2.9% Medicare, and often 5% or higher state and local income taxes.

This is one 1970s show that we don’t need to see. Economic stagnation in the name of class warfare doesn’t play well, even in reruns.

Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

39 Comments

1. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (’Obama’s Taxes: A $2 Trillion Trip Back to the 70s’) Is Up:

[...] It’s here. [...]

Jun 27, 2008 - 12:03 pm 2. PR:

Thanks Tom for the primer on BO’s socialism. And he has never mentioned controlling spending or growing the economy.I can’t wait for the lefty’s to get on here and tell us how good this will be for us. What a disaster BO is.

Jun 27, 2008 - 2:20 pm 3. Roderick Reilly:

The 1970s ARE coming back. I’m really creeped out that, not only are Democrats screaming for windfall profits taxes, not only is gasoline an issue, and not only is their a mood of retreat unwarranted by reality, BUT THE NETWORKS ARE COMING OUT WITH 70’s-themed TV shows.

What’s next? Platform shoes for men? Flower-print shirts with enormous open collars?

Heaven help us.

Jun 27, 2008 - 2:23 pm 4. Chris:

He hasn’t been elected, yet. But you are undoubtedly correct in this assessment.

Jun 27, 2008 - 6:49 pm 5. Smokey:

BO will not only take higher taxes. He will absolutely GUT the U.S. military.

Why is no one talking about this??

Jun 27, 2008 - 7:06 pm 6. fred:

I have read about this and also saw a television interview of FOX – financial reporters who have talked with Obama and they report that his grasp of economics, business, and finance is very slim. He will rely on advisers, and already is relying on advisers and his party’s position on tax policy.

The goal of Obama and the Democrats is sweeping. They are indeed aiming at completely rolling back tax and economic policy to what it was before Ronald Reagan came to the Oval Office. If you combine this with not having any energy policy except to bring in the Kyota penalties and effect the most massive wealth transfer (to the U.N.)in history, what you will have is an economy reeling from much higher energy prices and stagnant business investment.

Layer on the inevitable foreign policy disasters, and you have Jimmy Carter Act II: Things Can Really Get Worse.

After the next four years, I believe a revived Republican Party with better leadership and better candidates will put the Jackasses out of power and they will be not a factor for a very, very long time. But, for now the kiddies under age 40, who have no memory of the Carter years, will have to be taught a painful lesson. The Gramscians from the sixties and seventies who burrowed in to academia and media will be thoroughly discredited.

Jun 27, 2008 - 7:29 pm 7. LisaP:

It’s not going to happen. After McCain wins in a landslide of Reagan proportions, the “Bradley effect” will be renamed the “Obama effect.”

Jun 27, 2008 - 10:02 pm 8. AllisonD:

I hope it doesn’t happen but it absolutely scares me to see the people who I thought were intelligent people with Obama stickers on their cars and signs in their yard.

Jun 28, 2008 - 4:23 am 9. Alan:

Wow! After reading you’re article, I’m convinced the budget is in surplus! That is, unless government spending increased by over 44% or you used some seriously misleading numbers.

Jun 28, 2008 - 5:21 am 10. Alberto Gonzalez:

We left Cuba in 1965, we escape Socialism Cuban style, my wife and I worked very hard in the U.S. until we retired to Spain a couple of years ago where we live now. Spain has a Socialist government since 2004 and we were seriously considering moving back to the U.S. until Obama won the primary. The Socialist government of Rodriguez Zapatero have dilapidated the treasury and now Spain is in the middle of a huge recession and creeping inflation. We have stagflation, and the proposed cure is to raise more the taxes the previous government of conservative Aznar reduced. Unemployment is 10% and going up, and the economy is dying as a result of strikes and restricted credit situation. Interest rates will go up around July and nobody in the government seems to know what is happening, much less know what to do to fix the problem. Left-winger Rodriguez Zapatero, the actual prime minister, endorsed Obama a few weeks ago, he doesn’t like Bush. The rumor is there is a possibility Zapatero and Obama will get together some time before the elections to discuss plans for the future. My wife and are voting for McCain and if he is elected we will move back to the U.S. Lord have mercy!

Jun 28, 2008 - 5:54 am 11. Lyddea:

“Wow! After reading you’re article, I’m convinced the budget is in surplus!”

That gives you an idea how misleading this article is. Who knew the difference between a capitalist paradise and socialism was a 4% rise in income tax rate on millionaires.

There are two equally dishonest ways to lie about the impact of tax cuts. Static comparisons, which ignore the fact that tax cuts do interact with economic growth. And purely relative comparisons, as used here, where one looks at only growth after tax cuts have been implemented. This conveniently forgets the relevant comparison is to what tax receipts would have been without those tax cuts. This is the type of logic that leads people to firmly believe that tax cuts always increase tax revenue, something easily dismissed by reductio ad absurdum when following this to the 0% tax rate with the “highest tax receipts of all”.

True comparisons are difficult and notional, we cannot implement two tax systems in the same year of course. However, for comparison here let us remember that these proposed tax increases would result in no increase for 95% of us and a tax burden universally less than those under the Clinton presidency. O America, let us not repeat the grim economic tragedy of those years!

Jun 28, 2008 - 8:50 am 12. Colin Rich:

I happen to be only 20 so my knowledge is limited. However, I am not thoroughly ignorant and have done enough reading to despair at the current state of American politics.

The economy is not the only important thing. Yes, another Republican would probably improve the business climate, thus pushing CEO pay higher and probably just letting worker pay flat-line amidst inflation (or decrease) as it has the past decade or two… or three.

However, Obama shows promise internationally as a diplomatic leader. The current “point guns at everyone who is a threat to America’s international energy empire” could end one of two ways; total submission of the world to America’s whim or global nuclear war.

Simply put, we “youngsters” are sick of being poor, sick of war, sick of global warming, sick of fake messianic missions with ulterior motives, sick of a small elite population steering the oceans of people towards and against eachother for short-term wealth and power, and sick of the fact that no matter what happens we will inevitably still have to be the ones to clean-up this debt-ridden forsaken pile of trash after you all have had your fill of the treasure.

I think its funny that nobody cares about the fact that if the tax cuts are implemented, ceos and entrepreneurs would restructure their pay so as to avoid it. They would rather make less money than submit to a tax increase that would benefit the education, transportation and disaster-aid sectors of the economy (all of which have seen cuts under Bush), further benefiting the millions of people who made them rich in the first place.

As for “gutting the military”- so? We have already proven through the indo-china wars and Iraqi war that our offensive military not only devastates the populations of those under attack but also the young men and women (some younger than myself by years) serving in the military. Cutting a swath through the BS, everybody knows that the war in Iraq was to take control of the oil supplies, tightening the loosening stranglehold we have on the world’s energy economy. Iran right now threatens to complete a Eurasian energy grid, being the third leg of a gas and oil pipeline tripod already involving China and Russia, effectively neutering the US’s global energy dominance. So is it any surprise they’ve become a target?

This reckless war mongering proves that, like Japan in the 40s, we do not deserve an offensive army. We should focus solely on defense and let an international coalition of nations, with an international army, decide who is a threat and who is not. An over-sized, over-aggressive military, because of its frightening nature, is more of a threat to the US than one that is too small.

Perhaps the US doesnt need to have the world’s strongest economy. Perhaps it doesnt need the world’s strongest army. Perhaps we could all enjoy a comfortable level of wealth and peace in the world.

Jun 28, 2008 - 12:52 pm 13. Ditto:

Lyddea it isn’t that taxes would increase for “most of us” – it’s a question of who bears the burden of a tax, as opposed to on whom the tax is imposed. It’s naive to believe that taxing U.S. oil companies will have a positive impact on U.S. citizens. The end result will be higher gas prices for us, because any company that wishes to stay in business must raise prices if its costs increase. Likewise, it’s naive to believe that taxing “the rich” will make life better for “the poor” – the Robin Hood effect cannot work in our society. You’re just increasing the cost of doing business for “the rich” and feeding the idea that “the poor” are entitled to a cut of “the rich” man’s dollar, just because he is poor.

Do you want to help low to middle income people live better? Make it attractive for them to invest money. Make it attractive for them to start their own businesses and innovate and come up with products and services that keep our nation competitive in a global marketplace. Help Americans understand that diversity is something to embrace, not a political debate. Stop feeding the mentality of entitlement and start showing people that education, industrious behaviors and UNITY is equally important.

Jun 28, 2008 - 1:03 pm 14. Javelin:

Of course, we just need to cut taxes more and increase the deficit and do nothing about spending. Of course we need a huge conventional military, only a traitor or a commie would disagree with that. Obama is a Stalinist, he will throw half the country into a gulag with Reverend Wright running the KGB.

Jun 28, 2008 - 1:09 pm 15. Tom Blumer:

Who knew the difference between a capitalist paradise and socialism was a 4% rise in income tax rate on millionaires.

Lyddea:

Last time I checked 12.4% plus 4.6% is 17.0%. Both taxes would apply to “incomes” over $250K. The first would apply to all income from work or self-employment. The second would apply to all taxable income, period. Plus, the definition of “taxable income” at the bottom of Page 1 of the long-form 1040 would increase with the hikes in the tax rate on cap gains and dividends.

It’s a lot, lot more than 4%, and it’s not “just on millionaires. In fact, I read elsewhere today that the impact on singles kicks in at $200K. By the time they sit down with the real numbers they want, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decide that anyone making over 100K is “rich.”

The tax receipts without the tax cuts might conceivably have been higher initially, but as shown in the Lindsey quote, not by nearly as much as you might expect, and at the cost of lower economic growth, leading to anemic growth in future tax receipts.

Jun 28, 2008 - 1:32 pm 16. Ralph Evans:

tax increases and taxcuts are not really going to matter if you dont have a government willing to reign in its lust for spending and develop the spinal calcium to face and deal with the problem of around 57 trillion in unfunded future mandated payments. face it there is no SS trust fund it is IOUs that they have to pay back before they can ue them. 60+% of the budget is mandatory spending, SS, debt service and the like.

if inflation is allowed to keep eating away at discretionary spending this consumer driven economy falls on hits the rocks no matter who is at the helm.

with 800B in new promised spending there isnt going to be anything left for a federal budget in 4 yrs of this socialist regime to wory about.

Jun 28, 2008 - 2:54 pm 17. Lyddea:

Line em up…

“It’s naive to believe that taxing U.S. oil companies will have a positive impact on U.S. citizens.”

Windfall taxes on oil companies are not even mentioned in this article and not addressed in my post.

“Do you want to help low to middle income people live better?”

Yes. I’d start by trying to balance our budget, lessening the macroeconomic influences driving the inflationary pressures on the dollar which are lowering our purchasing power. I would accomplish that with taxes that affect only those making more than 200k a year. How would you do it, cut taxes on the rich?

“Last time I checked 12.4% plus 4.6% is 17.0%… It’s a lot, lot more than 4%, and it’s not just on millionaires. In fact, I read elsewhere today that the impact on singles kicks in at $200K.”

Yup, 4.6% is a “lot, lot more” than 4%. And this odious tax increase is not just on millionaires, its also on singles making over $200k a year, you know, the destitute… What we should do instead is keep the current, regressive, SS tax, no?

“start showing people that education, industrious behaviors and UNITY is equally important”

Let’s do that by getting rid of the estate tax so those of us accumulating our wealth through our parents efforts (and none of our own) need contribute nothing to the country. Secondly, let’s slash capital gains taxes so that those earning money through wealth, rather than work, pay the lowest marginal tax rate. Finally, let’s run a budget and trade deficit so large that we devalue the dollar, the devaluation of which accounts for over half of the rise in price of oil.

Our current economic policy has moved beyond ideology, it is unsustainable. Not even that, it is hurtful. To you, to me, to even those making $200k a year in dollars.

…knock em down.

Jun 28, 2008 - 7:48 pm 18. Tom Blumer:

Lyddea:

You threw gutterballs.

People we depend on to be productive and who generate the ideas and innovations that improve peoples’ live — that is, a good portion of the people who earn high-income wages and salaries or who are self-employed — are going to face a huge tax increase of 16%-17% of their income (12.4% + 4.6% = 17% in the real world). As a result, they will restructure and report less income, and they will pay less tax than anticipated — all of which will slow down innovation and economic growth. You DO care about economic growth, right?

The SocSec tax right now is correlated to benefits paid. That’s why the tax stops at 102K. Give me one good reason why we should demand that the “wealthy,” who would get no additional benefit from Social Security, and who in fact already pay federal income tax on 85% of the Social Security benefits they ultimately receive, should pay billions in and get absolutely nothing back. If you want to turn SocSec into a pure welfare program, by all means just say so. It looks like theft (really further theft) to me; just because the government is doing it doesn’t really alter that.

Jun 29, 2008 - 1:39 am 19. Amazed:

It shouldn’t, but it still amazes me how seemingly intelligent people can be so easily BS’d by a bunch of BS that panders to what are their core racist fears and prejudices. Most of you idiots believed all of the BS to attack Iraq too, I’m sure because it was good for the military contractors and thus our economy. Idiots and fools you are. Let them eat cake, right?

Jun 29, 2008 - 5:31 am 20. John McCain should stick to the economic basics [Karl]:

[...] the minutiae of economic policy. McCain can point out that Barack Obama’s tax proposals involve tax hikes of at least $2 trillion over the next 10 years. And while Obama claims he wants to redistribute wealth by taxing [...]

Jun 29, 2008 - 8:20 am 21. BizzyBlog » Obama’s Taxes: The $2 Trillion ‘1970s Show’ Mirage:

[...] This post originally appeared on Friday at Pajamas Media under the title “Obama’s Taxes: A $2 Trillion Trip Back to the [...]

Jun 29, 2008 - 11:56 am 22. Joe:

I’m Oback Arama and I want to talk to you about government revenue enhancement. I’ve been all across the however many states of this great nation of ours and I’ve sensed a deep hope for change. What I want to do is change the way you think and hope about taxes. That’s change that works for me, and change that I can use..

No doubt there have been times when you’ve seen something that was unfair or something that has gone wrong and you’ve said “The government should do something about that”. I have the audacity of hope to believe that if we can put a man on Mars, then we certainly should do something about those unfair things and those things that have gone wrong. We know the battle ahead will be tough, but always remember that no matter how tough it may get, nothing can stop us if we scream “CHANGE” loud enough and often enough. Eventually our opponents will give up and say “please, please anything, but please just stop with the ‘CHANGE’ thing. I can’t take it anymore.” When that time comes, my plan will be to institute a 100% withholding tax from every person’s paycheck. Once we have paid all of the bills, we will return an amount to each and every person according to his needs. This will not only be eminently fair but it will also enable us to balance the budget, save Social Security and bring our health care up to the level of the health care in Cuba, in the former Soviet Union, and in the former German Democratic Republic. With our surplus funds, we will take care of all of those unfair things and all of those things that have gone wrong.

They may say that this day will never come; that it is a false hope; that our sights are set too high; that our country was too divided to come together around this commune purpose. But I ask you huddled masses yearning to be in a collective: “If Pol Pot could do it, can we do it?” Yes we can! Yes we Can! Yes we Can! That’s why I’m running for President.

I’m Oback Arama and I approved this message.
obackaramablog.com

Jun 29, 2008 - 2:15 pm 23. Rachel Peepers:

What’s the best tax break available to Jane and John Q. Public? If they’re homeowners, it’s selling their house.

Homeowners already know the many tax breaks that Uncle Sam offers, most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Well, he also has good tax news for home sellers: Most of them won’t owe the Internal Revenue Service a single dime.

When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit if you’re a single owner, twice that if you’re married, and not owe any capital gains taxes.

Which will change if Obama is elected. The main stream media won’t ask him about it, but Obama plans to again start charging homeowners huge capital gains taxes should you sell your home.

Change. That’s what Obama promises. And after all his taxes are enacted, all you’ll have is pocket change, hardly enough to afford the trip to the polls.

Jun 29, 2008 - 5:15 pm 24. don:

Lesson in economics liberals I employ 11 people raise my taxes and I will fire as many as possible to make up the increase in my tax burden and tell the others to work harder or go out of business.Eco 101 Obamanism is going to make you unemployed Dummies

Jul 1, 2008 - 7:10 am 25. dr. luba:

Perhaps, rather than the odious 70s, we should return to the halcyon days of the 50s, when everyone liked Ike, America was a great economic power, and all was well in the world. (Well, for white folks anyway. Others knew their places.)

Was were the tax rates back then? Anyone recall?

Jul 1, 2008 - 8:41 am 26. dr. luba:

Answer can be found here:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Jul 1, 2008 - 8:59 am 27. winit:

Its really kind of simple. At some point working for taxes aren’t worth it. I’ll work part time instead of full time and make the same amount take home.

Of course it won’t help taxes, won’t help the economy, but I’ll be working less and have more time of my own.

Have fun tax and spenders, there is no law yet that says American’s have to work the hours they do. Universal health insurance will be one more reason to work part time, since I can get health insurance without an employer.

Jul 1, 2008 - 11:10 pm 28. asdfs:

Colin,
Sick of being poor? How will Obama and more taxes make you more wealthy? Are you on welfare because thats who will be getting more of everyone elses money if Obama gets elected. Go back to school and get and education so you can do for yourself as those who built this country did.

Jul 2, 2008 - 7:18 am 29. edw:

One concern I have about proggressive taxation that I’ve not heard anyone talking about is the potential to destabilize revenue from the government. Already the highest income earners pay the overwhelming majority in taxes, and the Democrats will have them pay an even larger share. It seems, though, that the number of people paying the top marginal rate every year would fluctuate the most. Most everyone will pay the bottom and middle rates every year, but many people who make enough to pay the top rate might only do so on certain years, following the boom and bust cycle of the economy. So if a large portion of the income the government relies on is from the top rate, then wouldn’t it’s overall revenue be subject to greater fluctuation? Even worse, in recessions its revenue would decline more sharply at the very time it’s looking to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and spending. This hardly seems like a sustainable system, especially with growing debt and with less of the budget devoted to discretionary spending.

Tom, does this sound like a possible problem?

Jul 2, 2008 - 10:10 am 30. Schala:

“It’s a lot, lot more than 4%, and it’s not “just on millionaires. In fact, I read elsewhere today that the impact on singles kicks in at $200K. By the time they sit down with the real numbers they want, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decide that anyone making over 100K is “rich.””

Someone with 100K a year, before taxes, lives VERY comfortably, even with 4 kids and a wife to support, who doesn’t work. Someone with 200K, yes, is RICH damnit.

I’ve worked for 15~25K a year, paid 25% in taxes, and let me tell you that it’s not the 6K in taxes from my 25K that hurt, it’s the fact that I only had 19K to live with. If I made 200K a year and paid 50% of it, I could live in a palace with 100K in my pockets a year.

At 25K a year, saving money is almost impossible unless you live in a dismall apartment in the middle of nowhere (the only place its cheap), and work from home or in that small town (the commuting from ‘middle of nowhere’ to some city would make the rent deal worthless). You try buying a house with a single income of 25K a year. Even a small one that costs 100K.

Jul 2, 2008 - 1:59 pm 31. Republican problem - Political Wrinkles:

[...] to face it… Oh, he intends to change things. Back to the future multiplied by TRILLIONS! Pajamas Media

Sep 3, 2008 - 10:37 am 32. CBS Poll: McCain, Obama Tied - Page 2 - Political Wrinkles:

[...] actually know the CHANGES ahead for them thanks to Obama’s radical income redistribution plan? Pajamas Media

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:36 am 33. Tracie:

Schala, I am interested in knowing how many hours a week you put in at work? My guess is you go to work, do your job and go home. My husband spends on average 12 hours a day at work sometimes working for a 24 hour block of time. He sacrifices many hours with his children so that, as a physician, he can care for people like you. He spent countless years in school being educated and whether you like it or not he deserves every bit of his >250,000 salary. You deserve none of his money which is what Obama’s tax cuts boil down to. He taxes us more in order to fund a tax cut for you. Which by the way is not a very generous cut I think $500 per working person. That’s about 12.50 per week. I know there will be other tax cuts for families but that is the across the board cut. If you have children in daycare or college other cuts will apply. But here’s the deal if you want a handout fine but call it what it is. And please will everyone stop singing Obama’s praises. He is not the one funding the extra cash in you wallet – we our – the hard working physicians, dentists, and other hard working Americans. The cash is not just flowing into our homes. We are working very hard for it so if you want to make the big salaries buckle down, commit to 8+ years of higher education and be willing to work 60+ hours per week. That’s how we do it. So think about it do you really deserve any of our money?

Oct 29, 2008 - 9:07 am 34. Amber:

Seriously where do you live Schala? My husband and I both work 60 plus hrs a week and make >$250k but we can’t even afford to buy a home here in CA! Not even with the housing market conditions. We are NOT rich, if I was rich I would expect to live in a 4 bedroom home at least not a 2 bedroom 900 sq ft condo.

Oct 30, 2008 - 11:23 am 35. nom deplume:

For those of you in a position to hire people, consider what the Schalas, Lyddeas and Colin Riches of the world want.

IMO, as an attorney who counsels in this area, it is better not to hire trouble. The Schalas and Colins are bitter, lazy, and will probably wind up suing you.

Nov 19, 2008 - 3:06 pm 36. BizzyBlog » Will Obama’s Next ‘Betrayal’ Be of His Environmentalist Supporters?:

[...] as Team Obama has already acknowledged, to immediately and punitively raise Social Security and other taxes on the wealthiest 5% of Americans for the purpose of handing out money to millions of others. It is [...]

Dec 5, 2008 - 7:55 am 37. BizzyBlog » The POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy: Tanks a Lot:

[...] would solve our energy problems, consisted of promises to radically raise Social Security and federal income taxes on the country’s highest earners, who also happen to largely be its most productive [...]

Jan 17, 2009 - 7:42 am 38. Gurk News » Blog Archive » Obama’s $2 to $3 Trillion in new Taxes:

[...] Original Article: PajamasMedia [...]

Feb 26, 2009 - 7:59 pm 39. How Low Can it Go? - Page 2 - OKCTalk:

[...] effect on families and business. Pelosi: I am going to raise your taxes on The Patriot Room Pajamas Media

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:47 am