No, Really—'Seriously?' McCain and Obama Define 'Rich'
In the middle of this blog's home page is a section called "Seriously?" in which someone's comments are quoted incredulously. It currently features John McCain and his reply at Saturday's Saddleback Forum when asked to define "rich": "I think if you're just talking about income," McCain said, "how about $5 million?"
To be fair to McCain, his answer was more nuanced than that.
As soon as he said it, he gave the following qualification (note, too, his own use of the word "seriously"):
I don't think, seriously that—the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously—and I'm sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is...that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
...So it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life. And we all know the challenges, my friends.
McCain's answer was a good one. He refused to play the game of defining "rich," because the premise of that game is that "rich" people aren't taxed enough. The percentage of one's income forked over to the federal government is hardly the best indicator of one's contributions to the American economy—not least because it assumes lawmakers spend the money wisely. Allow individuals to retain their earnings and they invest in companies, buy new cars, or remodel their houses—all of which keeps the economy humming. As hard as it is to imagine, even nitwitted Paris Hilton has her benefits. Her spending sprees keep shops open, salespeople employed, and importers, manufacturers, marketers, and a whole host of others in business.
But what was Barack Obama's answer to what constitutes rich? A family earning $250,000. Given that he proposes raising the top marginal rate to 39.6 percent, that would mean the family is left with $151,000—and that's before local, state, property, and sales taxes.
So for Obama, leaving a family with $151,000 means they're rich? Er, "Seriously?"
Tags: income | presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | John McCain | wealth
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (13) | Print
Reader Comments
Obama and his Berlin speach
IN his speach in Berlin Obama mentioned "take the wealth from the rich and give to the workrs who worked for the wealth"
Once at age 19 I was a member of the Communist Party USA and that is exactly what Karl Marx said except called the rich Capatalist and the workers proletariet....... sonds the same to me
Taxation
I liked the comment Fred Thompson made last night at the convention; just simple logic.
If you tax only the rich (and I don't agree that an individual making $42,000 or a couple making over $150,000 are rich), don't you think this will affect those who are not additionally taxed when they deal with businesses in shopping for clothes and food, buying a car, home, etc. And will businesses and
the "rich" be hiring as many people when their income is
cut in half?
So many people point to Denmark and their health care system
for everyone, but their taxes are so high, their spendable income is nil. I don't think Americans want to live that way.
250K Rich?
Two people earning an annual salary of 250K in New York, San Diego, San Francisco, or Northern Virginia are not rich. Especially if they have children. That income is about what it takes to achieve middle class status in those high cost of living areas. Charlie Rangle put the figure at one million and Pelosi at 500K. What's disturbing about Michelle and Barack's "tax the rich" is that none of the "other" taxes we already pay are even mentioned. We pay tax on gasoline that allows the federal government more profit on the gallon than the oil companies, county property taxes, municipal taxes, state taxes, sales tax, and now he wants a windfall tax on the profits of the oil companies (higher gas prices) plus a significant increase in capital gains taxes and even a proposal to tax 401K's. I belive the figure they mentioned was 40% on federal just for the income payroll deduction. The hypocrisy of these the two Obamas is stunning considering their economic shenanigans. Neither of them have made a payroll, run a business, or have a clue as to what it takes to really take care of a group of employees and their families. Yet they are so eagar to slow down business and the entreprenurial spirit all for the sake of income redistribution. It is amazing that so many people are blindly following this guy without any idea what his policies are.
advertisement
