CONTACT US

Recent Blog Posts

Obama's War on Women

Editorial of The New York Sun | August 14, 2008

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.


Reader comments on this article

Comment By Date

The hypothetical high wage earning couple can in most cases drastically reduce their exposure to federal and state income taxes... [MORE]

john Shirey 

Aug 14, 2008 17:10

So a couple making almost $400,000 a year will have to pay more taxes? Cry me a river. [MORE]

sefton 

Aug 14, 2008 17:19

It makes no difference whatsoever, whatever Obama claims he'll do on taxes before the election, will be out the window... [MORE]

Robert Arvanitis 

Aug 14, 2008 17:21

We are expecting our second child this winter. I make a good income enough to afford daycare for two children... [MORE]

lisa 

Aug 14, 2008 17:47

I dislike the attitude of the commenters here. Basically, you are saying that you don't care if a policy is... [MORE]

Steven 

Aug 14, 2008 17:57

That assessment is a pretty extreme reach. There is no such thing as a second earner, man or woman. There... [MORE]

ff11 

Aug 14, 2008 18:48

First, if two people marry and incur higher taxes why is this a penalty only on the woman? Hopefully the... [MORE]

Tim 

Aug 15, 2008 14:06

What is the real size of the demographic we are talking about? I mean let's be serious, a household combined... [MORE]

Nick Zamonis 

Aug 15, 2008 14:46

I don't know a single person earning more the $100,000 but if I did earn that amount, which means a... [MORE]

RFO 

Aug 15, 2008 20:45

War on women? Vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade is a war on women. Suggesting that women who make less... [MORE]

TKK 

Aug 16, 2008 00:20

The subject of the article is misleading. "War on women"? More appropriately, we should all be asking what will be... [MORE]

Pamela 

Aug 16, 2008 08:49

All tax policies are going to be unfair to someone. The republican attitude has been that if the rich have... [MORE]

John Doe 

Aug 16, 2008 14:53

Everytime the subject of taxes comes up people get all hysterical. Let it be remembered that taxes are what pays... [MORE]

RichardB 

Aug 16, 2008 19:10

The title of the article is quite misleading. It is quite a stretch of imagination to come to the same... [MORE]

Anthony 

Aug 17, 2008 23:44

RichardB What deluded planet are you on if you think the top wage earners aren't paying thier fair share. For... [MORE]

Chance Haywood 

Aug 20, 2008 23:58

I guess we have one of those households where we evil ones earn too much. If we have to give... [MORE]

Jim 

Aug 25, 2008 16:14

I agree the article may be stretching the case that the proposed taxes are against women. Why is everyone so... [MORE]

Sharon 

Sep 3, 2008 18:46

Any Federal Income Tax that is direct and not apportioned is illegal--period. The 16th amendment does not allow the government... [MORE]

isaiah 

Sep 4, 2008 03:42

I think it's about time that the rich pay their share of taxes. They have had a free ride under... [MORE]

J Vandermeer 

Sep 4, 2008 08:56

Who makes over $200,000 a year anyway? I don't want to punish anyone for their success but ...come on. [MORE]

Axl VanJovi 

Sep 4, 2008 12:55

Boy, talk about a stretch to make such a rabid feminist argument. Gotta make everything about feminism nowadays don't we,... [MORE]

Tracie 

Sep 5, 2008 11:19

To JIM, who commented on Aug. 25. You are a condescending individual who is rather out of touch with what... [MORE]

lucia 

Sep 18, 2008 14:29