Obama Delares War On Two-Income Families, Would Impose a Punitive Marriage Tax Penalty
Submitted by CARPE DIEM
The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate’s tax increase plans. Mr. Obama’s two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, and it isn’t pretty.
To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he’d impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the “rich” — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income.
Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: “His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000.” It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions.
If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
~NY Sun Editorial
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Are you an investor? Have something you want to say about the economy? Register on Econoimist Blog now and get published within minutes. Before posting, it is recommended that you review our posting guidelines.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
You just described my situation perfectly, except my fiance and I together earn just barely more than $250,000 a year. If he made just under $200,000 on his own, I would have no problem canning the legal career and staying home with the kiddies. But my income is half of our total and with my student loans and the cost-of-living in Bergen County, New Jersey . . .it just doesn’t make sense. I mean, we drive Hondas as it is. Mine’s over ten years old. I’m the wealthy?? I’m supposed to give back what I got in the 90s? Uncle Sam didn’t give me any handouts when I was ten. And my schoolteacher parents weren’t exactly raking in the dough from their non-existent investments. Take my Barbies if you must, but let me save enough money now so that maybe, someday, we can manage to buy a house and raise a family that all shares the same last name.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
couldn’t agree more….now that he has been “elected” my husband and I are going to consider taking our 20 year “legal” marriage and get a divorce. Our 4 kids are nearly grown and out of the house. We have a friend who has been divorced since the day their last child was born. The kids think they’re married — just the government knows differently! They each claim head of household and save tons in taxes each year.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I’m in the same situation as annee. What an attack on women that worked hard to get an education and marry equally successful men. I too will consider ditching the legal carreer and stay home to raise the babies. Way to go Obama, another valuable worker off the market.