Above The Law, a website devoted to Law Firms it seems, takes a look at what will happen to the income of associates if Obama is elected. Here is their analysis of a fictional associate making over 164 grand a year:
The effect is enormous. Betsy’s marginal tax rate goes up from an already ridiculous 42.5% to 51.4%—not including the new 6.2% marginal tax on your employer. Subject to how she structures her withholding, Betsy’s take home pay drops an average of $515 a paycheck—less in the early months of the year, but much more in the later months of the year. Add in the effects on her bonus, and Betsy loses nearly $20,000/year in take-home pay.
I added a third column: how big a pay cut would you have to take to receive the same take-home income? The answer is that Obama’s tax increases have a bigger effect on your income than a law firm cutting New York salaries by $34,000.
Yeah, someone making 160 grand isn’t hurting but don’t forget a couples income is considered as one in the eyes of the IRS and many couples living in the high cost of living areas can easily make that amount. That’s going to hurt.
The thing is that someway, somehow, all these programs Obama wants to institute, including the Global Poverty program, will need to be paid for somehow. How? By taking it from the backend of our employers. Those people who sign our paychecks. But those businesses can only stay afloat if they make a profit, basic economics. So they keep those profits by taking away raises, benefits, new employees and so forth.
Which means we are back to 1978 and Jimmah….
But Democrats being Democrats, they don’t think we should keep our own money…..it should be controlled for the common good. Here’s Jay Tea at Wizbang about his own state, New Hampshire, a state with a anti-tax history:
One of the hallmarks of New Hampshire politics has been a staunch anti-tax platform. We are the only state with neither a sales nor an income tax, and most of us like that.
But that could be coming to an end.
There’s a group of people pushing to rework the state’s tax structure. The Boston Globe is lauding them, pointing out that the state has a $50 million deficit in the first year of our two-year budget. Obviously, something has to be done, and these people say that raising taxes is the solution.
I find myself wondering what the hell happened. Astonishingly, the Boston Globe answers that question. But they have to bury the info, lest too many people manage to put two and two together and come up with “Democrats.”
Way, way down in the 12th paragraph, the Globe realizes it can’t cover up the essential facts any longer:
The debate over taxes is the latest sign of political change in New England’s most conservative state, where Democrats currently control both houses of the Legislature, and Lynch, a Democrat, is in his second term. Last year, some conservatives cringed as lawmakers approved a 17 percent state budget increase. Others marveled at the state’s adoption of civil unions for same-sex couples.
That’s right. Feeling their oats, the Democrats jacked up the state budget 17% (I’ve read it as 17.5% in other places, places I trust more than the Boston Globe, but even 17% is bad enough) in a single year.
After years and years and years of getting hammered as “tax and spenders” and derided and mocked and run down, the Democrats finally got swept into office in 2006. And as soon as they did, they spent the hell out of the state’s coffers, and now need to jack up taxes to pay for it all.
This is “change,” all right.
There’s that change word again….where have I heard that term before recently hmmmmm?
See author page