Taxing the rich seems to be a favorite hobby for those now in Washington, and their supporters. So who exactly are the rich? We repeatedly hear the figure $250k+, but who makes up that portion of the population... I sure don't.
Doctors? These guys are always reputed to be "rich"... but should we really be taxing them more?
Attorneys? Now some of these people definately got shorted in the "character and integrity" departments... that is, until you need a "good" one to sue that doctor for everything he has...
CNBC has a list of the "highest paying jobs" here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23918484?photo=2#15 is a podiatrist. They don't even average 1/2 of that "rich" figure.
#14 is an airline pilot. I definately don't want highly paid and trained pilots! I would like to know that every plane I board is piloted by someone compensated no better than my local postal worker.
#11 is a dentist. Their years of dedicated schooling and specialization is meaningless... I'd prefer they got paid $8 an hour just like a construction worker. That would attract quality people to this field for sure.
#10 is a CEO?!? And they average under $150k? That's not what firedoglake tells me...
#3 is Obstetricians. Who needs them? It's just a kid after all. Plenty more where they came from.
#2 is surgeons... What do they do that my car mechanic can't?
#1 is an anesthesiologist... because people really don't care if they do a good job or not.
But wait!?! Who is it that earns over $250k?
There's a bigger list from the gubbmint at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htmEven the government averages don't have a single profession that average that much money.
So who are those "Rich" people?
Are they the people who saved money instead of spending it... so that their investment income is significant? Who really wants to punish savings?
Are they the people who have made it to the tops of their careers? Those atheletes, actors, doctors, producers, attorneys, plumbers, business owners, etc. who are the best at what they do? Now you're talking about punishing success.
Are they the rare inheritors? The trust fund kids? Someone still worked hard and saved to build the original pot o' gold.
Before villifying a group of people, shouldn't we be putting faces to the tax brackets and deciding if it is really a good idea to judge people based on their income?