The White House's budget for fiscal year 2010 calls for tax hikes on wealthy Americans. In this case, that means couples making over $250,000 a year and individuals $200,000 a year. Under the budget plan, these households (about 3 percent of the total) would experience tax increases of $318 billion over the next 10 years. Here's a look at the states that will be most affected by the tax hike and how they voted in the last presidential election.1. District of Columbia
% of Households Earning $200K+: 8.4%
Total Households: 251,039
Median Income: $50,318
Households Earning $200K+: 21,194Election Results:
Obama: 93%
McCain: 7%2. Connecticut
% of Households Earning $200K+: 8.0%
Total Households: 1,320,714
Median Income: $64,158
Households Earning $200K+: 105,433
Election Results:
Obama: 61%
McCain: 38%
Sunday, March 01, 2009
When it rains, it pours
So your blue state is struggling as a result of all those rich people taking a beating it must be heartening to know that the coming tax increases on rich people are targeted at your state....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
And don't forget that a big corporation will fall into this evil rich group that deserves to have the tax man giving the rectal exam. So stockholders like retired grandmothers, endowment funds like NYU's, and low income scholarships will get nailed as hard as anyone.
I think it's about time the compassionate liberals get the once-every-generation-lesson that they never seem to retain. We keep trying to tell them that high taxes on the rich, while it sounds really "progressive", ultimately hits the poor the hardest. Everything always hits the poor the hardest. That's the definition of being poor: in a state of being hit the hardest.
No one wants it that way, least of all the so-called rich. But that's what ends up happening. Go from the lowest tax countries to the highest tax countries and you will see a deteriorating standard of living for the lowest rung on the economic ladder:
UK, France, Cuba, USSR
=
fair, bad, deplorable, gone
In 4 years when today's actions have taken their effect, there will still be poor people. Meaning all prior events hit them the hardest. Will the NYT do a story on how the Obama economic policies put the current poor in their current position. Highly doubtful. They will probably see the broken lives as collateral damage in a greater cause.
As I always say, I'm not conservative for me. I'll always be in front of the poor schleps who are forced to send their kids to Chicago Public Schools.
I'm conservative because liberalism always hurts the poor first.
Just look at every inner city. What has years of liberalism done for any of those folks?
Post a Comment