CNBC's Bartiromo Misleads On Impact Of Obama's Tax Plan

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, whose collagen injections are widely reputed to be a key market bellwether, offered the New York Post the precise sort of dire warnings you'd expect them to solicit on the deadly dangers of Senator Barack Obama's policies on the capital gains and income tax. It's certainly not surprising to hear Bartiromo express concern over a prospective rise in the capital gains tax - after all, back when he was co-moderating the worst political debate in recorded history, Charlie Gibson, no doubt blessed with the capital gains problem himself, spent an inordinate amount of time yelling about it. Yet, we will allow that it is a worthwhile debate to have: when President Clinton raised the capital gains tax in the 1990's, the economic conditions were vastly different than they are today.

Still, on matters of tax policy, you'd sort of like the anointed experts to have their facts right, and not indulge in misleading characterizations of the impact of that policy. Unfortunately, Bartiromo can't resist getting a little hysterical:

The income tax is also in for a bump. Bartiromo says, "Right now [it] is 35 percent, Obama wants to take that to 39 percent . . . We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think."

Bartiromo's suggestion that $200K per annum income is "not rich," and that an increased tax on those who earn that much represents some sort of widespread impact on mainstream earners is flatly false. The facts are these: in 2005, the national median income was a mere $44,389. And, according to the 2006 U.S. Census data on household income, households earning $200K or more represent a slim 3.5% of all households. That means that over 95% of all American households would likely prefer to have the problem Obama would impose on the nations' elite earners.

Comments

[Lilybart]

When you live in NYC and want a nice coop and private schools, then $200,000 is so not rich!!

But she is suffering from low-information and a skewed view of life hanging out with hedge fund guys.

[Gmoney1]

As I said yesterday, she must be talking about those who drive their BMWs and Mercedes - because at 200K that's what they drive - now, if you want 2 1/2 kids, a 600K house and a dog, well maybe you're not rich if you earn 200K - but what do you say to the same people with the same expenses who earn significantly less - you see, those people on tv live in the same bubble as those in D.C. -

[Mrwilliams2u]

Can I say Elitist.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Hey its hard to make ends meet on a mere $4,000 per week.

We have to pay the chauffeur, our pilot who flies our private jet and we have 2 mortgages, 1 for our duplex on park ave the other for our beach house in the hamptons. Come on you guys lets not change the rules now. We need to continue Bushs policy of robbing from the poor so we rich can have fuller more meaningful lives.

[coolrepublica]

I'm sorry to break it to the Huffington Post but 200K in NY, CA, MA are far from rich. If you leave in Idaho I'm sure 200K would get you crapping in your pants, but where I live, you're lucky if you can afford rent.

[TroubleNYC]

I make slightly less than that and I have a beautiful home in the east end of Long Island. What are you talking about?

[antaeus]

Still unclear. How long have you lived in that home?
Do you commute daily from eastern L.I. to Manhattan?

Older, settled people, especially in CA where property taxes were frozen in place for current home owners years ago, are not especially burdened,

But younger strivers with student loans and first homes to buy? And young children?

What are you talking about?

[thisoldbroad]

Here's a better look at all the tax/tax break talk. We have a winner!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/11/you-call-tax-increase/

[fass]

GOOD FOR HER THAT KIND OF MONEY IS NOT RICH. BUT I DO KNOW MOST AMERICANS DO NOT MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY. THESE PEOPLE ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH, MAYBE THEY OUGHT TO SHUT UP FOR A WHILE.

[inthedesert]

Does anyone really believe these botox-riddled, face-lifted "experts on ANYTHING? I am sorry but I got fed up with all the "beautiful" and/or "handsome" talking heads on TV months ago. These people are news "celebrities" not newspeople. Just as there is a huge difference between an "actor" and a "celebrity"(think Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie)so it goes with the people on TV who claim to be "authorities" on everything from the stock market to making scrambled eggs. Unfortunately, the average American just "hangs" on every word or action from these no-bodies. These people are nothing more than "shills" for any number of special interest groups with AGENDAS. And, these agendas DO NOT INCLUDE THE MIDDLE CLASS.............Get ready for all kinds of crap about Obama, his family and his background. The gloves are now off for many so-called TV pundits. They really have no idea what is going on in America...and if they did, they would not CARE. It's all about ratings and making "news" and whatever it takes to do that , they will say or do it. I used to watch Olbermann till I realized he was just as down and dirty as the rest of the FoxNoise bunch.....I have not turned my television on in over a month......................think I am missing anything of importance? NOT!!!.

[jerryfromcalifornia]

WELL BARTIROMA IS FAR FROM ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE. I WOULDN'T TAKE HER TO A DOG FIGHT!

[OrganizersWin]

Take a look at the "Top Marginal Tax Rates" during the time from FDR to JFK, or even until Reagan shifting of the tax burden. Your eyes may bulge out. There are so many ways to adjust the tax structure, that would be both progressive and fair, I cannot list them all here. The MSM will mischaracterize everything- corporate taxes, estate taxes, marginal income tax, capital gains taxes, etc. They ignore the 400-700 Trillion in derivatives floating around (some instruments unwinding as we speak). I have always supported a mildly progressive tax to pay for "single payer health care" and "free college for all"... while lowering the marginal rates altogether for everyone- let the war profiteers rape the budget outside of those things at least.... oops did someone say social security? I know. We could also create fiscal stimuli by targeting interest free loans, small and some big business tax incentives and breaks, and a reintroduction of tariff policies, that can help in so many areas.

Example- we could have first time home buyers given interest free loans, free health care for all saving employers from extra labor costs, free college thereby investing in our own countries resources- and pay MUCH LESS than we do now in terms of taxes. Remember, I didn't even mention monetary policy fraud, and the fact that what we pay now doesn't cover the interest on the debt.

[joekerr]

First...I suspect that she propblaby makes more than 200,000 a year. Which explains the whole thing. When she says, "this may affect more people than you think"...well she probably meant her friends. What I don't understand is how any media outlet would allow a person in their employ to make statements based on personal agendas. Sure if you're making 200k a year, you want more. And you probably feel like the government should keep it's hand out of your pockets. But that doesn't give you leave to make a political statement on a national news program to benefit yourself, does it? I thought you had to pay for commercials. And btw the way I am a single male making about 60k. And I pay about 12,000 a year in taxes. Which leaves me...well not much after food, gas and rent. So you make 200,000 a year and pay 78,000 a year in taxes....which happens to more than I make gross in a year. That still leaves you 122,000 ahead, which means you can buy a house (no rent so you get to keep your money in equity or value) and afford a kid which gets you even more tax breaks. I, however, cannot even conceive of buying a house, let alone afford a child. So if that's not rich...then what exactly is? Gold jets and private islands?

[iranter]

she's so evil and wrong and just plain wrong. she does not understand money and things, she's a girl.

[ccpostman]

Any salary is o.k. if you own a house.

A 200k+ income in California is now mandatory if you just bought a house for the first time or are saving for one. I don't know about the rest of the states but you need the big salary in California to get started.

The houses in Southern California still are very highly priced. The bubble still has not burst here. When this pyramid game stops, watch out!
A real estate flipper around the corner is still trying to sell a knock down for 2.3 million. He bought it for 775k two years ago. People like this make 200k+ salaries mandatory for first time house buyers here. Flippers do NOTHING for the economy but over-inflate property values for their personal gain. The only people that can play the game are people that already own houses. Because of this, nobody can now afford houses on just average salaries alone now.

If you own a house you have to factor in this in the salary game.
You could be making 60k a year and sitting on a house that has rode the price boom to the stratosphere!
Houses are great salary equalizers. If you own a house your a player, if not...hello renter.

[UncommonSenz]

Of for the love of god...

for those of you trying to honestly argue that those earning in the top 3.5% bracket are somehow not rich, how can someone earn more than 96.5% of the country and not be considered "rich" by any definition of that term? (yes, it won't go nearly as far in NY or SF, but it is still in excess of 95% of Americans)

But even getting away from the loaded term "rich", and looking at the substance of what she said.

"That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think."

Um, no it won't. It will impact about 3.5%, which means it will not impact "more people than I might think". She was trying to make the argument that a lot of people will be hit by this, and 3.5% is completely counter to that point.

Are we seriously debating this point?

[antaeus]

Yeah, we are, because strivers in big cities just like the Obama's, who came from nothing and worked hard and borrowed to go to good schools, and who are then obligated to work in major cities (you think those fancy degrees are for Morgantown?) are the very people who would be hurt by raising taxes on their incomes, which Mrs. O herself has characterized as not being rich.

Pay attention.

[WasteNJ]

Hey maybe she was just reading the prompter wrong. I know this is sexist but why are all these knuckledraggers on TV such hotties? Damn.

Sorry.

[SCharb]

$200k is either upper-middle class or rich, depending on where you live. But they're not the rich people who we hate.

The FILTHY RICH people, the millionaires and billionaires, are the ones causing all the problems. The selfish, spoiled class living off in a different fantasy world. The CEOs and board members who live on Wall Street and see nothing wrong with giving themselves a 6-figure raise even when their company's stocks are plummeting. The hoity-toity Beverly Hills elitists who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on 16-k golden dog collars and fancy hairdos. The elitists who own multiple mansions. The people who can afford to spend money to find tax loopholes so they won't need to pay their fair share. The cartoony people who you think "at least there aren't so many people like this" until you realize that wow, they DO exist, in large numbers. And they're ruining America with their childlike self-centeredness.

The Republicans think that raising taxes on the filthy rich is raising taxes on everybody.

Ronald Reagan coined the term "Welfare Queen" for (imaginary) lazy poor people who were spoiling it for everyone else. The Welfare Queen didn't actually exist; the Loophole Leech is no myth.

[Shaddup]

Corporations are the biggest Welfare Queens ever.

[asiankida]

as a caveat, $200k is not rich in the cities, i.e. New York, LA, Boston, etc. so in that respect, she is absolutely right.

[mntnguy]

I live in SD and moved here from SF and If you think 200,000 a year is not rich than you are as out of touch as she is!

[WasteNJ]

Making 200K as a singular income isn't bad, but you're only middle class in NYC at that. However, most other places you're doing pretty well making that kind of money, and in a lot of places that would be considered "rich". Most importantly, below 75K for a family is pretty much just getting by.

Mine and my fiancee's incomes add up to about 95K and we can't really afford anything lavish, we don't drive new cars and we rent an apt. It's not easy to save much money with the cost of everything going up.
200K is a cutoff that makes sense as far as the cost of living right now. It has to be somewhere, and nobody wants it to be them that's affected. But hey, multi-billionaires feel the same way, and they feel like they are just as justified to say it.

[fourex]

Do you understand 3.5% of the country, not NYC. Expand your horizons.

[politricking]

Except that she doesn't include this part:

in 2005, the national median income was a mere $44,389. And, according to the 2006 U.S. Census data on household income, households earning $200K or more represent a slim 3.5% of all households. That means that over 95% of all American households would likely prefer to have the problem Obama would impose on the nations' elite earners.

PS, I live in NYC, which is expensive, but NYC isn't all of America.

[antaeus]

Lies, d_mned lies, and statistics.

Why has a shifting income median number become the operative definition of words like "rich" and "middle class"? The fact that so many people earn less than 200K might indeed be an indication of the collapse of America's middle class, but that number doesn't itself elevate the 200K salary to what we understand by the word "rich."

Does a family of four in NYC or Boston or SF or LA look rich at such a household income level?

Did Mrs. O think that they were "rich" at that level in Chicago?