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

[ajax2]

Maria come out of your tower and meet real people who earn wages below $200,000. It's the 95% of the population you have been avoiding.

[AmericanSinceFeb08]

It is about time for moneyhoney to leave the ivory tower and mingle among some real people.

I feel sorry for the guy in Seattle. Well, we all make choices. There are cheaper places to live than Seattle.

[Repub4Obama]

$200k is not rich. I live in Seattle, and recently bought a vintage (read: ugly and no remodle) 1974 house that's a 1-story 3/1.5, and it was over $420k. New house median is about $650. My payment is $3k a month. If you have a married couple like us, throw in a few kids, want to fully fund a retirement plan, pay for health insurance (another $1000 a month), and pay some taxes, then you're not really left with 'rich'. $200 a year would help out, but I still wouldn't think we were rich.

Not to say we don't live well, but it's not like I'm lighting cigars with $100 bills on my 50' yacht. I do know several couples who make about $400-$800k and yes, they are rich. I also have a customer who has about $500M in the bank, and yes, he's rich. He makes about $200k a MONTH not a YEAR. And he says that he wouldn't mind paying more taxes on income.

[clwilk]

I agree with Repub4Obama. I live in Southern California and $200k is NOT rich! If I made that amount and lived in Mississippie or Nebraska, yes I'd be living in a mansion and rolling in the dough. I live in a decent sized house in a neighborhood with a mix of blue and white collar neighbors. People need to take into account that costs of living vary from state to state and city to city. Yes, I chose to live in Southern California (that's where I was born and where all of my family lives) but you cannot make a blanket statement about national averages of incomes and assume that everyone that makes a certain amount of income lives the same lifestyle. I am probably worse off that someone who lives in Ohio and makes $45k per year.

[fourex]

And because you live in S.Cal the percentage making $200,000 or more will change to 10%, YIKES.

[mntnguy]

I think it depends on how you define rich I live and work in downtown SD one of the most expensive places in the US and yes 200,000 a year would be considered rich by most. You bought a home in Seattle that the prices was super inflated because of these republican economic policy.

[JiminNC]

Well, it seems we know what this chick is making.

[Independentjunkie]

200k in large cities is not rich...

everytime they cite national medians , but national medians are horriable indicators because include majority of the US where cost of living is low.

in big cities a family of 4 earning 200k is very much middle class....

[Jey]

Really? Which cities are you referring to? Just curious because I lived in L.A. a few years ago and I made close to six figures and lived very comfortably with a family of five. I can't imagine other big cities beating out L.A.

[slinkymom]

I live in a well off suburbian area outside of Chicago and my husband brings home just under $150,000. I get to be a stay at home mom, we take vacations, and have a very comfortable home. Don't tell me $200,000 isn't rich. It is.

[joeyp404]

When you start out with a attack on her physical on the correspondent, and then call her "hysterical" you lose all credibility. If you had a point why resort to being personally malicious and sexist?

[mntnguy]

If you found that malicious or sexist you really need to go buy a dictionary! These people that scream sexism or racism all the time need to find a time machine and go back in time and see what sexism and racism is all about none of you have a clue! Just posting crap so that they can sound like and advocate give me a break. In the words of Bill Clinton "this is the biggest fairy tail I have ever seen"

[YenNguyen]

Seems like Ms. Bartiromo is out of touch with reality. In the land of Microsoft, I've seen salaries around 150K and these folks aren't too shabby, so I'd say above 250K is pretty well off.

[Daly]

I wonder if Ms B knows how much gas cost; I am sure she is aware that it is 4$ plus a gallon but does she know that means $50 or so to fill up a honda civic?

Most of us have to roll to our jobs on the $50 dreaming of $200k just once in our lives while these clowns Charlie Gibson and Maria are crying about taxes. Try crying cause the kid needs shoes.

I bet she is like HRC and does not even know how to pump gas.

[CalGoldenBear]

Hey, Ms. "Money Honey" doesn't have to worry about a measly $200,000 a year.

Her hubby, Jonathan "Jono" Steinberg is the son of NYC financier Saul Steinberg and is the founder and former chief executive of the now defunct Individual Investor Group, publisher of the also defunct dot-com era "Individual Investor" magazine. (I used to be a subscriber).

And back in 2007, Maria and Jono paid $6.5 million for a 5-bedroom, 5-level townhouse on Manhattan's tony East Side!

So while she may have helped her chef papa in the family Italian restaurant as a kid, she probably orders takeout nowadays.

And supposedly without all that makeup, the fortyish Maria ain't that much of a hottie.

[MDTERP]

Oh she's forty and not that attractive? Off with her head. Stupid remark, sexism lives.

[Independentjunkie]

what does how much she earn or her husband have to do it w/ it?

Obama makes top 1% money of the US population. should he not then be allowed to talkl about the middle class woes?

[ChiGuy]

It sounds like we can easily figure out which way she's leaning. What a pity.
No matter how many new "money honeys" come on the scene, I still like her the best.

[dr4Will]

as a millionaire I give 10% of my money to charities each year---after taxes and charities 200,000 does not go a long way if the life style matches the income--everything is relative to your style of living--Obama is worth $23 million, where are you left wingers who want to help the poor--why are you not hollering about your millionaire candidate--what wimpy hypocrites you are!!!

[LettuceB1]

Where the hell did you get that Obama is worth $23 mill? Check the facts, they are funny little things, they usually go hand-in-hand with the truth.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html

He has made less money then all the candidates, unlike your friend "9 mansions McBush."

Love you anyway!

[kurttrail]

So he'd be raising his own taxes too.

What is hypocritical about that?

If I made $200,000 a year, I think I could deal with the extra tax. You conservatives got us into an unnecessary war that ain't paying for itself.

Aren't you patriotic enough to support the troops with more than mere words on a magnetic yellow ribbon?

[slinkymom]

My husband brings home a little less than $150,000 per year, after taxes and giving to charity, keeping 3 boys fed and in sports, we have plenty left over for nice vacations and toys for the kids. I do drive a 6 year old car and we do not spend our money on trying to keep up with the neighbors and their spending, but we are not hurting one bit. We also do not complain about the higher taxes we pay on our home and income. We can afford it.

[ApolloniaCreed]

Lifestyle is a choice.

[GrainOSand]

How much of your time do you give to charitable work? Your moniker implies you are a doctor of some sort. If you are an MD, how many patients have you treated free of charge? Anybody can write a check. Solving systemic problems requires more than a check or a laissez faire approach to resolution. It is a blessing and potentially an indication of hard work when one is able to amass a fortune. No reasonable person begrudges anyone his or her blessing or the fruits of their legitimate labor. What comes into question often in a country like America, is the legitimacy.

I am not a Democrat. Over my lifetime, that political Party has been more concerned with the poor than any other political Party has. The GOP sees the poor as a nuisance that will be addressed through die-off or long-term imprisonment or the drugs that people like Reagan and Oliver North put into the communities (yes, I firmly believe that story and am sorry the reporter who broke it was treated so poorly, he took his own life). Warning to the GOP, do not think America is safe from the backlash of hypocrisy. Do not think a government wields so much power that it can thwart a galvanized tidal wave of dissent coming from all quarters. We may be on the verge of the emergence of just such a groundswell as more and more realize they have been robbed blind and their children’s future’s jeopardized.

[eternalkerri]

I keep seeing everyone gripe about "People in New York or San Francisco have to make 200k a year just to get by.
Well, guess what. the other 250 or so other million americans dont make near that much....

[Daly]

Hey
I live in San Francisco and I can assure you that we are not even close to 200k for that matter with binoculars I can see far far away to 100k and I hear HRC of NYC is in need of a loan. So don't buy the hype.

[allonfla]

$200,000 is not rich if you spend $300,000 a year. Let's face it if you are not living very well on that much money then you need some financial counseling.

Remember that commercial where that guy is showing his big house, fancy car, big yard and then says he is up to his ears in debt.?

Not feeling rich on six figures stop wasting your money!

[mntnguy]

And there you have it folks the truth!

[maribelle1963]

"CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, whose collagen injections are widely reputed to be a key market bellwether, "

That's where I stopped reading. You and your misogyny can go shove it.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

Here's a quarter....now go buy a sense of humor

[MDTERP]

We have humor, it is not funny, it is sexist. Always the line of ths sexist...can't you take a joke? You're so sensitive....

[MDTERP]

amen

[DeniseD]

200K a year can be rich or not depending where you live!!! If you live in New York City or San Francisco, you can't even buy a descent home on that amount of money. When I was living in the Bay Area in the late 80s and early 90s a 50 year old house, less than 1000 sq. ft. that was falling apart at the seams was over $300,000. I can't even imagine what it would be worth today!

[kdogg]

you seem to miss the point. only 3.5% of the population makes 200K a year or better. that means that they are a very small majority of the population and they are far "richer" then the majority of the population.

you use a bad example to try and prove your point. houses may cost alot more 200K but but almost no one can go out and purchase a house outright in cash anyways. not even "rich" people.

[mntnguy]

agreed and they do not live in homes that any reasonable person would say they need 5-6 bedrooms they will never use 8 cars they will never drive so please go cry to someone else about 200,000 not being rich your no going to convince anyone in the other 95% half we know better it is called money management!

[soylentgreenleftovers]

I hate to tell you, but there's a whole country between NYC & SFO.....you should get out & see it sometime

[Yuma]

I hear you!!

[bettygg]

The cost of living varies from area to area but folks and jobs are free to locate to lower cost areas. That is a natural process that helps keep prices in line. We are a single country....ultimately 200k is 200k wherever you are.

[demfriend]

I actually watched her for one show on CNBC and decided if her thought process she had on the one show was typical I wouldn't rely on her for big money advice. It is mouth pieces like hers that has helped the negative speculations which has taken us down a bad road. That the enconomy has been talked to the death by these types who claim to know anything is what is sad about CNBC and the Fox crap show about money. We need some positive talk and actions not the old we are in hell and we will be in hell as long as I say we will be in hell is Maria's trash talk. You want to believe anything she says?