Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Problem with B. Hussein Obama's $250,000

FROM BILL'S WORDS

Article here.

My wife and I will likely fall into the “Obama’s Wealth Redistribution” category when he is elected. (Sorry, Senator McCain, but you keep shooting yourself in the foot and unless you pull off a miracle—and I’m praying for one—on November 4th, B. Hussein Obama will win the election.) Even though our income will be greater than Obamessiah’s magic (and arbitrary) number of $250,000, we’re paid not much more per hour than some telemarketers, drafters, RN’s, and other not-usually-considered-rich people.

I’m the less-hard-working of the two of us. I work 40-hour weeks. A lot of those “less rich” people mentioned above work harder than I do. So perhaps I deserve to be taxed a little more than most.

But my wife is another story entirely. She works 70+ hours per week to earn that money, and she works harder than many of those people who aren’t considered “rich” by Obamessiah. And yet she still earns less per hour than those folks I mentioned above. Talk about your disincentives!

So, is $250,000 a fair number? It doesn’t matter: it’s the method used to determine who’s rich and who’s not. It doesn’t take into account how hard someone works for that money, and it certainly doesn’t take into account how that person’s take-home pay is used. Is it being saved? Is it being invested? (These are two activities that we in the US punish, not reward, and I’m betting that Hussein will continue that trend by increasing capital gains taxes.)

So tax the rich more, but for goodness’ sake, tax those who don’t work for their money (lucky gamblers and lottery winners come to mind). Tax the people who are significantly overpaid. (What attorney is worth $1000 per hour? What CEO is worth $20,000 per hour? What entertainer is worth $73,000 per hour?).+

Bottom line, Barry: Don’t assume that earning money makes us rich. Working for a fair wage and being paid a fair wage should not be the handicap you would have it be.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
+ I took the numbers I found at the referenced sites and divided them by 80 hours per week, 52 weeks a year. That’s being ridiculously conservative and makes their hourly rates appear to be smaller than they really are. In reality, how many hours per week do these guys work? And how many of them work 52 weeks per year, i.e., with no vacation? Again, taking that into account would only serve to increase their hourly rate.

For example, if Howard Stern works only, say, sixty hours per week and 50 weeks per year, his hourly rate goes from $73,000 to $101,000. Can you say “absurd,” boys and girls?

Good. I knew you could.

by Bill Eccles

No comments: