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

[rollingdivision]

Obama is for taxing people who have high earning in any given year. He is not for taxing people with huge amounts of wealth or the rich. So Warren Buffet's and Bill Gates billions will be safe as will Soro's billions. Obama is just after those who earn money not the truly wealthy who have fortunes already if he was Obama would be proposing a wealth tax!

[RichLiberal]

You are correct. Obama is after the upper middle class, who really should be called the upper working class since that's who they are.

Many of them support Obama, because they are clueless about economics and have no idea how this country really works.

In addition to that 5% tax increase on the over 200K crowd, he is going to add another 6% on the over 100K crowd when he raises the social security cap.

These are all things Hillary explicitly spoke against. It is one of the major differences in the 2 candidates but the media was so busy with their moronic smear campaign that nobody knows what's really going on.

[vippy]

I take Obama's suggestion over Hillary's any day. Her plan sucked, her healthcare
would have involved the IRS for collection. No thank you. There was plenty on the
net for those who don't understand.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

Spoken like a bitter elitist

[Daly]

actually Obama said that the incease would be dependant on how the economy is doing.

"Obama, speaking later to reporters after touring a hospital in St. Louis, called McCain's comments misleading. The Illinois senator said he would cut taxes for 95% of America's households, while letting the Bush tax cuts lapse on the highest-earning 5%."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mccain11-2008jun11,1,7026071.story

Be careful when reading because they present some bad ideas as owned by Obama but it is really McCain's take; and heck; ole Mc does not even know what came out of his mouth 5 minutes ago.

[Repub4Obama]

And if you're self-employed or a small business owner, there will be a net 15% tax increase from SS and medicare, as there is not an employer-paid portion. I'm not looking forward to it, but I know it's necessary to do something. If we don't increase the money going in to SS, we have to decrease the money going out. I'm writing off streamlining and efficiency as an option of course.

Besides raising the SS cap, the only other quick fix is to raise the retirement age to 73 or so, or to just tell everyone under 40 that they won't get benefits but have to pay in anyway. Neither would be well received.

[vippy]

The recent report from the IRS is depicting that 25% of the ones making over $ 200,000 did NOT pay any taxes at all. It really makes me angry, since I make half as much and I paid dearly, and
there was nothing to deduct at all. Yes, I could live well with $ 200,000. But I bet this idiotic
girl does not make that kind of money either, just spouting words .... like the rest of the news
who one no longer can trust to be reliable or the truth!

[Repub4Obama]

If you have nothing to deduct, then you should A) Buy a house B) have a kid or adopt one C) start a small business and D) get a rental property.

If you are *consuming* jobs and *consuming* housing, you are in a much different tax position than if you are creating jobs for others and providing housing for families.

Just do a few things differently, and you too will pay no Federal income tax. You'll still have to pay 15% for soc. security and medicare tho.

If you don't like paying tax, then start acting like a Capitalist instead of a 9-to-5 worker bee.

[morbie5]

If Obama increases the capital gains tax it is going to effect a lot more than "rich people."

[XME]

Actually, Obama has proposed that the increase be based on how much the "gains" are...so that it would only be imposed on people making substantial amounts.

Unfortunately, part of the problem is that many don't look into the details proposed by candidates and base their opinion on what the media, often biased, or their opponents' ads claim. Very important for voters to do some research!

[Jason357]

Despite my views about CNBC, the hatred here and the haves versus have-nots mentality is shocking. That's why the founding fathers didn't set up a straight majority vote...because people would all vote to rob someone and split the loot if they could. What freaking right do you people have to vote that me or anyone has to pay a larger percentage of their income than you do?

[sixletters]

I don't know where to began.

[UncommonSenz]

"What freaking right do you people have to vote that me or anyone has to pay a larger percentage of their income than you do?"

Because if you want better schools, safer roads buildings and food supply, no lead in imported toys, a mortgage market that isn't a ponsi scheme, levees that don't fail, and a military to protect all that, then you have to pay for it.

If you are among the top 3.5% of earners, you need to pay your way.

[1099]

The top 3.5% earners do pay their way. That group get's taxed at a higher tax rate on considerably larger income figures than the average national income of $44K. Do the math.

[kimbari]

Don't worry, honey. I'm sure with all that dough you have, you'll be able to pay someone to find a loophole for you to slither through, funds unscathed.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

Bob Cratchit called, the paycheck you wrote him bounced...

[tea in the harbor]

Let's see now, $200,000 a year and about 30 years in a career, that would be $6,000,000, yup, sounds rich to me!
And a perfect example of how insulated from the real world those in this income bracket are.
Their America must be a fine place to live, I saw it once in a movie!

[Daly]

don't forget the stock options, compound interest an other perks that must go along with that nice salary. Parade Magazine publishes a "what america earns" report each year and youd be hard press to find hard working jobs that can afford to take a family of 4 to a sports event.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_04-13-2008/1What_People_Earn

[1099]

I guess taxes and inflation don't factor in during your 30 year career?

[Agent420]

I am too dumb to figure out if I am rich or not. If I made 200k/yr, then that would be about 100/hr. I only get, after working for over 50 years, 760/month. That works out to be about 5/hr. So 200k is about 20 times what I get. I guess 200k _IS RICH_
I think the tax rates need to go back to what they were in what Raygun called the golden years, the middle 50's, where the top rate for making over 250k was 89%. That sound fair to me and others in my position but I'll bet anyone doing better will not like it.

[MDTERP]

Let's see. Twenty five years of formal education and 100K worth of debt to start my "real job" at 30 and work 80 hours a week to earn eventually 200K a year so you can take 89% in taxes? My kids aren't in private school and my house is 25 years old and needs a new roof. I am not rich and I earned every stinking penny by working 3 jobs while putting myself through undergrad. I've been an Independent for years but if you guys plan on taking more of my very hard earned income that may change. Thanks for opening my eyes.Talk about the politics of envy. If I had that money I'd be set, well go do what it takes to earn it.

[1099]

Actually Reagan dropped the tax rates considerable during the last 7 years of his presidency. The tax rate for the highest personal income bracket dropped from around 70% to 29%. Carter is the one who jacked up the interest rates. On a sidenote - someone shouldn't be penalized for making a lot of money. A 70% tax rate is ridiculous no matter what someone makes in this country. It's simply Un-American.

[kellygrrrl]

anytime I hear someone spout this tired old MEME about Tax Hikes I reply:

"So how is this economy working out for you?"
"Making any money in the market this year?"
"How much did you spend on your last tank of gas?"
"Those Tax Breaks really worth it?"

[tbone99]

I saw Kerry say on a Sunday am talk show that Obama was going to end taxes for people making under $50K.I thought that will win over those waitresses and west virginians!.But when I researched it on his website - the truth was only SENOIRS making $50 k would be exempt.

Quite a difference, especially when you consider they are less likely to be raising children( childcare expenses etc), driving to work and schools( gas prices) their homes are more likely to be paid for and some of them llve in communities just so they don't have to contribute to schools.

I thought it was quite disingenuous of Kerry to put that out there, and i really don't understand targeting senoirs as the only ones deserving of tax exemption.Those living on S.S. are exempt anyway.

[ApolloniaCreed]

Kerry was on ABCs This Week, and I'm not sure how you can possibely interpret what he said as stated above. That's ridiculous... it would make MOST AMERICANS tax exempt.

[tbone99]

Thanks for the clue _ i replayed the piece and kerry said Citizens making $ 50K that are retired.But I still don't undrrstand why THEM?

[GolfingDevil05]

I'd like to find out for myself if $200,000 per year is "not rich." What a burden it must be.

[AtomiClash]

I thought this "money honey" was supposed to be good with numbers. What the hell? We should all be so poor.

[nibblybits]

She powwows with CEO's who make tens of millions a year. So in comparison, she thinks $200K is dirt poor. You should hear how she thinks it's a travesty that politicians want to close the loophole that allows hedge fund managers to pay only 15% on their income tax rates. She gets really worked up, as though Steven Schwarzman of Blackstone is out there curing cancer, instead of spending $50 million on his birthday party.

[Daly]

today I planted veggies to feed my family - wonder how many $200k persons are growing their own food.

[Bluejay00234]

Exactly.

[oafishcad]

If you can't live rich on 200K, then you're pretty damn stupid.

[SMP]

One could only WISH to be $200,000 "poor" ugggggggggg....only the rich are yelling about this...too bad..so sad

[biglover]

Too bad. Everyone should pay their fair share. Goodness knows, us working folks have been paying the bulk. And, I am in favor of Obama's proposal to raise the ceiling for social security deductions. Now after $90,000 they don't take it out. I never understood that. Of course, I am lousy when it comes to these things.

[NightRider]

Make $200k and spend $200K....then NO, you are not rich.... The lifestyle of most New Yorkers working the Street.

Save half that per year....YES, you are on your way to being rich.

[aperezfl]

Almost anyone who watches CNBC earns at least that much. The vast majority of people don't have money to piss away in the stock market.

[bujeeboo]

She filled in on the McLaughlin group one night to balance out the "Right" opinion. Folks. She's another toxic conservative. Get over your crushes now.

[arvay]

Bartiromo has taken the news slot devoted to upper-scale business types who respond well to fawning coverage -- from Lou Dobbs, (on a different network) who's moved on to anti-immigrant diatribes and populist fear-mongering.

Personally, I think the collagen remark is a cheap shot -- people like Bartiromo need to be intellectually dissected, not slammed with gender-based insults. Her idea that people who make $200,000 a year aren't "rich" is almost self-satirizing. This is good fodder for, say, Colbert on the Comedy Channel or Jack Cafferty on CNN.

I'd trust their comedic talents to handle this one.