Quote:


My best guess is that the additional single percentage increase in taxes will be almost in the noise to the $250k+ households, compared to what is happening to the values of their investments and real estate holdings.



Agreed. a point or two isn't the end of the world. But that only raises $10B-$20B. Obama's budget envisions deficits in the *trillions* (with a T). Before the recession raising a trillion dollars off of those over $250k/year would have required *doubling* their taxes, not just one or two points.

It's estimated that 75% of the people who were millionaires at the start of 2008 weren't at the end of the year. Once the numbers are in it's likely to be the case that even *100%* taxes on those over 250k/year can't pay for Obama's budget spending any more, and if the rich can't pay that doesn't leave many choices as to who gets the bill...

Part of the problem is the talk of "2%" Obama tossed around during the election. The current budget certainly isn't a 2% thing, and when you look at the budget as proposed, figure out how much money has to be raised and see what tax rates where might raise that much money - that's where the problem is. The 2% thing was for some other spending plan, not the one he's pushing to Congress now.

It's not a question of "raise taxes a point or two on the rich", it looks more like "raise taxes to 80% on the rich and double them for everyone else".

And keep in mind we haven't seen a plan to rescue the banking system - that's not yet in Obama's numbers. That is likely to be another $1T-$2T - enough by itself to absorb for several years any possible tax increase on the rich alone.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock