I don't agree 100% with either candidate or the current president elect, but since the natl debt will increase, no matter what, I'd rather keep more money in my pocket.
Yeah, that's kind of the problem. The gov. needs revenue, but do you trust the people taking it from you to spend it wisely?
And, contrary to intuition, the McCain spending plan was the one to increase the national debt more than the Obama plan.
Virg, I don't want to get into any class wars about that $250K tax point, as I understand cost of living differentials. But one point to make is that we all make choices about where we live, where we work, and what creature comforts we expect. Someone living in a metro area will pay more for what that has to offer; someone living in the suburbs will pay less, but may need to offset that with a longer commute. It's the quality of life for the city mouse versus country mouse argument. Basically, those who get nailed because they are in high-cost areas do get some quality of life adjustment in other ways, that really can't be quantified.
What can be quantified is numbers of earners in these various tax brackets. 84% of American households (multiple earners, pre-tax amounts) make under $100,000. (An astounding 28.22% earn under $25,000 per year; 26.65% earn $25,000-$49,999; 18.27% earn $50,000-$74,999; and 10.93% earn $75,000-$99,999.)
From there, 9.89% earn $100,000-$149,999; 3.17% earn $150,000-$199,999; 1.17% earn $200,000-$249,999; and in the tax bracket in question of $250,000+, you find only 1.50% of all earners.
Is it any consolation that the tax bites under Obama will really only hit a small number of earners? I suppose it depends on whether you're in that bracket. But certainly, for the vast majority of Americans, it does not constitute an undue burden.
One view of the Bush tax cuts:
The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts. In the Bush era, economic inequality is on the rise...
Start with 1973. If you assume that a height of six feet represents the average income in that year, the person on the far left side of the line -- representing those Americans living in extreme poverty -- is only sixteen inches tall. By the time you get to the guy at the extreme right, he towers over the line at more than 113 feet.
Now take 2005. The average height has grown from six feet to eight feet, reflecting the modest growth in average incomes over the past generation. And the poorest people on the left side of the line have grown at about the same rate as those near the middle -- the gap between the middle class and the poor, in other words, hasn't changed. But people to the right must have been taking some kind of extreme steroids: The guy at the end of the line is now 560 feet tall, almost five times taller than his 1973 counterpart.
I'm not suggesting we penalize success, and neither is Obama. The country did just fine under the Clinton tax rates, which is what Obama is returning to for those top earners. The fact that he is offering the middle class a tax break that would be lower than the Clinton era is good for the middle class, though it may exacerbate the deficit. Clearly, the answer to the deficit lies in Federal spending.
Think for a moment where wealth in the hands of the $250K+ crowd goes, and where it goes in the hands of the middle class. The former will invest it, so that we create market wealth, but no real domestic product activity. The middle class is actively engaged in the consumerism that drives production, rather than paper wealth. Now, if we can combine that sort of middle class upswing in wealth, spreading it all around the economic sectors, and we can keep that money at home, and keep those jobs at home, we could see this economic imbroglio turn into a real boom.