Maria Bartiromo Warns That Obama Will Hike Taxes, Says Someone Earning $200K/Year Is "Not Rich"

In the latest issue of Avenue magazine — a "glossy, lifestyle magazine that chronicles the lives of Manhattan's affluent and socially powerful" — Maria Bartiromo warns the New York elite that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for higher taxes (via Page Six):

He's going to take the capital gains tax at 15 percent right now all the way up to 25 to 28 percent," the "Money Honey" tells Avenue. "Sell anything, like a home or stocks, and make a profit . . . [almost] 30 percent of the profit will go to the government instead of 15." 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."

Comments

[Teritt]

Doesn't she remind you of the 'Lars and the Real girl ' doll, only with highlights?

[ccpostman]

Emily Mortimer???

Maria's eyes look to much like a racoon's with rings around them. Looks like she just woke up.

I like the looks of Rebecca Jarvis better.

http://www.reportercaps.com/

[Teritt]

I meant Bianca - the actual doll.

[skahimself]

Lets do the math:

200,000 x .35 = 70,000

200,000 x .39 = 78,000

It's an 8k difference. Really, thats a big deal? Get over it.

Secondly, if you're making 200k a year - get yourself an accountant, a financial planner, or someone who can tell you how to invest that money? Wanna know why? They will show you what to deduct, how to deduct, how to invest, and pretty soon you're going to be paying next to nothing in annual income tax.

The more you make, the more you can make "disappear" into non-taxable, or tax deductable, entities and BAM! lower tax bracket here you come.

People who bitch about tax rates have no fucking clue how to handle their money and deserve to have it taken from them.

[antaeus]

Here it comes: the arrogant dismissal of people who actually think they are already taxed too much and who dare to suggest that it shouldn't go higher.

Now you must really and truly be rich if you can toss around a number like $8,000 and call it "no big deal."

It's this kind of talk that turned lifelong Dems into so-called Reagan Democrats in the '70s and '80s. Keep it up.

[GrainOSand]

Let us not forget the other wedge issues that caused the Reagan Dem phenomenon.

At 200k per year, if you are managing your money properly and not living beyond your means, then 8k is a pittance. It is only not a pittance for 200k earners who are leveraged to the hilt trying to maintain a lifestyle of fantasy. One real scenario where an 8k loss would hurt would be for a situation involving a sick dependent whose medical bills are absorbing a lot of the family income. Mr. Obama has a plan for that too. As far as the veiled threat, I personally would have no problem seeing John McCain sitting on top of the powder keg that is America that may blow at anytime. If Obama wins, he would only be blamed for what the GOP has wrought over decades of misguided polices. If the economy continues its downturn and if Iraq takes another step towards hell in a hand basket, those who hate Obama now would cry that it was his fault even though he had nothing to do with the creation of that being decried. Therefore, feel free to vote your wedge issues because no matter who wins the potential for all to be royally screwed is a clear and present danger.

Solutions do not originate at the top or in the front of the line; they originate from the grassroots crop and the invaluable stock of an open heart and a developed mind.

[torrrep]

Same could be said about the millions of "poor" Americans who can afford to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, a case of beer a week, and many other things that are not essential to life. I don't know how many times I went to someone's home as a paramedic and they have the 50 inch plasma tv sitting on the wall. The cadillac escalade with the $4,0000 rims sitting in the driveway, kids walking around with play station portables and cell phones, and they hand me the welfare card for payment. If $8,000 is such a petty difference then maybe you wouldn't mind increasing your taxes by $8,000.

[antaeus]

Thank you. When one of those types visited my apartment and saw my 11-year-old TV, he told me I really needed a new flat screen, because, "Really, they don't cost that much."

People love to spend other people's hard-earned money. It's just sooooo easy.

[Politiking]

Obviously, you don't know anything about socio-economics. A straightforward math calculation of percentages does not necessarily apply in reality of life especially if the people who are making the money in the bracket of 200k are two working parents who have children and support their parents. You must be single and have no clue on what you are talking about.

[sf94127]

What is the incentive for a working couple to work their hearts out if their reward is higher taxes?
200K BEFORE taxes now is not livin large, anymore, especially in the large urban centers.

Neither Obama or McCain are talking about reducing the bloated budgets of the military; about 40% of tax revenue is going to the defense of some kind. Obama won't touch that much; he does not want to appear weak on defense. So he attacks the upper middle class; arguably the segment with this least sympathy from the truly wealthy, blue collar, and poor.

[woodchips]

The vast majority of Americans don't make anywhere near $200k per year and most never will. One effect of the Bu$h tax cuts has been to drive up taxes and fees at the state level to compensate for cuts in funding from the federal level. The result is that, in many cases, the overall tax rate paid by the middle class far exceeds the rates paid at the top levels.

One rationale for tax cuts at the highest levels has been that the rich pay more, so they should get a bigger cut. If so, then the reverse is also true: Cuts at the top levels contribute more to the national debt, so they should make a larger contribution to paying it back.

[swift goat pet for truth]

$200K may not be rich, but it IS in the upper 2%.

And as for raising the mariginal rate for Fed taxes of a family making $200K in LA or NY to 39%, boo hoo hoo.

Personally, I want to see taxes raised for those making $1 mil to 50%.
And those making $5 mil to 90%. Then maybe those corporations could afford to give raises to those who are making less than $60k.

[torrrep]

Those corporations would be out of business because no one would wok for them. Then all of your
poor people would be in the soup line. That's an ingenius plan you have. I love how liberals are always so generous with someone else's money.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Wha???

I am not sure where to begin.

I think I will mention the top 3 exporting countries.

#3 - USA. Huge country. lots of resources, lots of people.

#2 China. Low cost of labor. Lots of investments. Lots of People.

And the number one exporting nation in the whole wide world IS .....

Germany. Socialist, liberal, 5 guaranteed weeks of vacation, relatively small, socialist, liberal, Nationalized health care, socialist, liberal GERMANY.

Gee, why is that?

Well, whatever we do, we certainly should not try to examine, nevermind duplicate whatever success they have had.

[SingingBird]

Ahhhh Goatie......Under your plan there would be no incentive to create wealth and then everyone's taxes would be raised across the board.

What is needed is an equitable and fair plan......not a plan to penalize the most fiscally productive members of society.

Your plan reminds me of Atlas Shrugged....

[dasimms]

$200,000 is not rich but it sure is not poor try living on 40,000 a year or less. People at the top and certainly corporations always have tax shelters and the people at the bottom bare the whole tax burden.
Everyone should be able to thrive. Greed at the top is responsible for the suffering of the average person. This is the change we are all in need of.

[LCRover001]

Bottom line is the tax cuts were made to create jobs and stimulate the U.S. economy.

Those tax cuts were made to create jobs and put money into businesses.

Did that happen? Yes, but unfortunately it didn't happen in this country.

The big picture is this: did those cuts improve our economy? NO, they keep it limping along but it was not a real fix.

It kept limping along because the 1% who have been making a killing off of this kept it there. Meanwhile the middle class has been outsourced into near extinction.

The result of this is what we have today. The U.S. economy can not remain strong off of 1% of its citizens. The other 99% of us have to be able to contribute. Right now with such a high cost of living, crumbling housing market and low job rate it is imposable to keep the system going. These tax cuts have built a house of cards.

There are fewer jobs in this country now than when these tax cuts were made. Wages for the workers that remain have remained stagnate. Money is not being put into American factories it is being used to build and upkeep factories in foreign countries.

The result of these tax cuts have not been an improvement of America’s economy but the improvement of China’s and India's.

Looking at the situation the economy is in today these tax cuts were a dismal failure.

[SingingBird]

LC....great post. Just a few points to add. While everyone is talking about tax cuts, I don't see anyone discussing the hidden tax....inflation. Part of all this needs to be a return to sound fiscal policy outside of tax cuts. One of the reasons everyons is paying $4 gal is because interest rates have been dropped incredibly low.

Oil is traded in the world market in US dollars. When we lower the interest rate and run up our debt (can we say Iraq war), it drives the value of the US dollar down and thus the cost of core goods (oil) up.

The second part is small businesses. While it is great that people are discussing major corporations, please don't forget that over 50% of the jobs supplied come from small businesses.

Overall there should be a balanced approach....fair pay for fair work and an equitable tax system.

[BushBites]

Of course, if you sell that house and put the money into a new house within 2 years, the tax is zilch.

Funny she didn't mention that, the lying piece of garbage.

[SingingBird]

Exactly BushBites.....there is no capital gains on primary residences owned longer than 2 years.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"if you sell that house and put the money into a new house within 2 years, the tax is zilch."

It is no longer necessary to "put the money into a new house within 2 years" or any other time period. If you qualify to exclude the gain from the sale of a house that you have lived in for two of five years ending on the date of the sale, the amount is excludible. You can spend it anyway that you want.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p523.pdf

[txgal44]

Someone has told her she's cute and now she thinks she's all that! Calm down honey! You're not THAT cute!

[candidpsychiatrist]

And they say Obama is an elitist!

[roberto328]

This person, is an idiot. If you make $200,000 a year and are struggling, your an idiot. I'm not being sexist here, any male or female who thinks $200,000 a year is not an adequate amount of money to live on, your an idiot.
You don't buy a McMansion, you don't give your kids I-phones and you don't eat out everynight, and trust me you will live comfortable life in America.
This person should stick to something she knows more about,like having an affair, which she did.

[Darsan54]

Totally agree here !! I have seen articles in various financial and news magazines with subjects complaining they can't live on hundreds of thousands per year. I know people who live fairly well on way less than $25,000/year. They have decent houses, eat well and entertain friends and relatives. They would like more security but it doesn't make them unhappy. Our little Money Hunny needs to figure out what the real world is like.

[antaeus]

And where are these folks residing? Toledo? Terre Haute? Morgantown?

[torrrep]

If you are living well then why are you complaining?

[antaeus]

And I suppose you live in NYC or LA. And have children and a home there, plus an elderly parent you support. And don't forget student loans, as Mrs. O has famously pointed out (another idiot?)

And please, the contraction for "you are" is "you're."

[roberto328]

antaeus, nice try, I work two jobs, live in Cali and support my Mom, so I speak from experience, BTW I paid off my student loans by cutting grasses. So again, you make $200,000 a year and can't make it, "you're" an idiot. Nice Try, very easy to beat you in this argument.

[blueskybigstar]

It goes to show you how out of touch the media is. They need some sensitivity training. They need to hang out with normal people during their time off. It goes to show you that class is a huge issue in America, the haves and haves not. If the media is this out of touch, how can we expect them to cover the issues that matter to the majority of the American people?

[JustAProgressive]

Bartiromo is too quick with her political opinions. She and Larry Kudlow are too transparent. Most of the CNBC people stick pretty well to economics and financials. And when they wander into politics, they often get stuck in traditional Republican - Democrat stereotypes.

[oceanlover]

Any self respecting journalist would not cater to corporate bosses who insisted on her being labeled,
"The Money Honey." It speaks loudly to the fact that she's been bought and paid for. Consider the source.

[blueskybigstar]

Many of things that people call sexist, I question, but this "money honey" thing is about the most sexist thing I have ever heard. She should get some respect.

[calijon]

she loves the name even copyrighted it for certain marketing purposes. this isn't the medias doing.

[stimpy]

It would be sexist if her qualifications were being ignored because she is attractive. But she's just using her beauty to qualify herself as an economist.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Yes well, raise taxes, so what? Clinton raised taxes, and I recall the economy did pretty well. More than well actually, the economy back then was great! Nothing at all like the Bush economy.

[tdpubs]

I never understood why people would revolt when they need to do their patriotic duty and invest in their country but think nothing when the corporations take us from $1.35 a gallon to $4.00 a gallon for gas. Some people are really brainwashed. If we can have a great new awakening in this country for technological accomplishment and social reform, we might be able to recover.

If the media continues to brainwash our people into thinking that they can live "rent free", in this country then we'll never invest wisely. We can determine what our tax dollars are used for .. it's called voting responsibly.

[mamacat]

The voice of the rich and powerful has spoken. As Dubya spake in Michael Moore's movie, "this is my base."

Dubya's policies have enriched the top 2% disproportionately, so, any action to reinstate a fairer tax policy will of course disproportionately effect the super-rich, aka, those who can easily afford to pay a little more.

Why is it that whenever the GOP talks about the need to do something about the awful mess the budget is in, they immediately talk about slashing social security, and never about asking the uber-rich to bear a fair share of the tax burden? Social Security benefits are already too small to live on, while a slight increase in taxes (on those most able to pay them) will mean, what, one fewer Porshes or BMWs in the driveway this year?