How do we change this? Where even to begin?

Excellent post, Ezra. My wife and I make together about $150K a year -- we both work in "the information field" -- and while we don't feel wealthy, I realize we are relative to most of the country. I'm taken aback by the $250,000 floor on Obama's plans. As hard as it is to admit, yeah, people making what we do can afford to pay a bit more in taxes, and we should.

One of your best posts. Seriously.

But this whole thing about "how can they tell what my life is like" is a fallacy anyway. American Presidents have always spent large amounts of time in "elite" classes by the time they were elected, even if they originally were born into humble backgrounds. Truman was part of city machine politics and a Senator before being picked as a VP. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Yale grad and then governor for years... What did Kennedy have in common with any blue collar worker?

I argue that what has changed is that cable television and access to the internet (think of how many of the "racist voters" the media has dug up talk about reading stuff on email) - or possibly combined with years of cumulative experience with TV - has changed the *expectations* of voters.

Yeah, but if your boss, or the owner of your small business makes enough to have his taxes increased, what if he decides to fire you to make up the difference? Just saying you need to look at all sides of the issue. A modest increase in the top tax rate should be implemented along with drastic cuts in spending. But Obama wants raise capital gains taxes. That, will kill the economy. Always has, always will. COLD HARD FACT: Neither McCain or Obama really have a handle on classical economic theory. With McCain, he tinkers and things may get worse. With Obama, potential for economic closure for years.

Always has, always will? I think you need to show your work on that one, u4prez.

I think you will find that most "undecideds" like Snodgrass are low information voters - they are not listening fully. Barack is not going to get the money for his tax cuts by taxing personal income of the top 5%, he is going to get that money by closing corporate loopholes and by not giving massive tax credits to those corporations, which is the McCain plan.

It's like the woman who asked the question about the environment at the debate. She said later that neither candidate had talked about environmental issues. That is just not true. The problem, for her, is that it has become a secondary issue, but one tied directly to the energy issue. Obama's call to expand alternative fuel development is equally about energy and the environment; driven both by fiscal necessity and environmental concern.

In the end, I think, people like her will end up simply not voting. So it is not always a matter of which way the undecideds will break, but whether they will bother at all.

Good post. I do agree that both candidates now reside in the exclusive atmosphere of the elite, but Obama at least can remember what it is like for many of us--scrimping to get by, problems obtaining health care, paying off college loans. McCain and Bush never had these worries and have no clue what the "real world" is like for most people. Remember, Obama actually owns only one car and one house and can remember where they are.

In response to Alanc9
Cap gains rate raise in 1934 to nearly 40% plunged the country back in to depression after short rebound.
1976 to 1981 top rate again nearly 40%, rate was cut to 20% for 82 until 87, economy explodes. Hong Kong had a budget surplus in mid 1990s, lowered capital gains tax rate, and surplus grew, along with the economy. From 1940's to 1967 capital gains taxes were steady. Increased in 1968, through '82. Again, progressive income tax rates can keep deficit and debt down, cap gains increases always, and I repeat, always shrink the economy. Do we really need to be shrinking the economy right now? And why risk the backlash of any tax increase. No, history shows us we are much better off cutting spending, and truly liquidating bad businesses and debt.

To most of the country, no one makes $100,000 a year.

Thank you, Ezra. The six-figure-income people in most of the US? Perhaps a lawyer you know. Perhaps a medical specialist. The school principal, possibly. The realtor.

This is the problem with the American definition of 'middle class' that begins with 'slightly poorer than you' and ends with 'slightly poorer than a millionaire'.

And Dan, you sort of miss the point: if the only people you know who earn a six-figure income are the ones you see on the television, then it's relatively easy to jump to the conclusion that the only people who you see on television make a six-figure income.

If the people you see on television are the people you work around, then taxing people with six-figure incomes means taxing your friends and colleagues.

The weird thing? This doesn't seem to translate to other countries so much. You might have displays of cultural elitism from the UK media -- particularly in the arts and leisure section -- but not so much economic elitism.

That's partly because there's a big dividing line between basic and higher-rate income tax that crrently kicks in at around $60,000, and the presumption is that anyone who's in that bracket (80th percentile or so) is doing pretty damn well, thank you.

Krugman has made the point that the real story of the last few years isn't the people making $100K, it's the people making millions, the top fraction of a percent. That's where the bulk of recent productivity gains have actually gone.

The person making $100k, while comfortably upper-middle class, is probably dependent on a salary for most or all of his/her income and has little or no capital gains or other unearned income. A person with a salary income in the high 5 figures pays the highest marginal tax rate of any income in the whole economy, if you include social security. In fact, the annual 3-5% increase in the SS wage base means that the person with an income of $100K or so has actually had a net federal tax increase during the Bush years.

$100K isn't that much, especially on the coasts. For instance, more than half of all reform Jewish households make more than $100K, according to the Pew US Religious Landscape Survey. http://religions.pewforum.org/

Ezra, do you really believe that Obama's health care and other spending plans mean that Ms Snodgrass would to live in a $500 apartment in a dangerous neighborhood? Do you really think that's "absolutely right"?

Bill Clinton was able to raise 70% of his 1993 tax increase on those earning over $200K. What makes you think Obama can't do the same?

This is from memory, but Michelle Obama was asked early in the campaign if Barak was doing this as a trial run and would make another, more serious run later. She said that as far as she was concerned this was it. If he waited 8 years it would be too long since he had shopped at the south side Target and he wouldn't be worth a damn as President.

Also, to clarify, the numbers on Ezra's chart are household income, not individual income, and the typical household in the top quintile has two incomes. So that household making $100K could be 2 teachers in a good school district.

About 15% of US households make $100K or over (Ezra's graph shows $150K but he talks about $100K, which is substatially different). 15% is more than the percentage of the US population that is African American. While definitely a minority, it is hardly a negligibly small fraction of the population.

It's important, on this one, to sort out personal income from household income.

$100k is a lot for an individual; while it's high for a household, it's an a-teacher-and-a-cop income in most cities. Most people don't think of a married couple, public school teachers with children, as "the rich"--and in many cities, that couple makes close to $100K.

Some good points here but come on. Columbus is the 15th largest US city. It's home to the government of the 7th largest state and a major public research university. I'm sure it contains some wealthy people who can tolerate being that far from salt water.

I agree there are problems with definitions of middle class and it doesn't surprise me that people think $100K is a lot. But the problem with using straight dollar figures is that it ignores cost of living. The median income in MA is $59,963. That a huge difference from Columbus Ohio.

I don't understand your criticism, Ezra. Is it that Obama's plan is strictly political because of the number he gives? What if that number were $100K? Would it be any less politically motivated? Don't forget that Obama's tax plan is going to cut Ms. Snodgrass's tax bill by $1K. I'm not going to pretend like that is life changing or anything. But there are other considerations in Obama's policies (e.g. healthcare) to suggest he is taking a balanced approach to reviving this economy.

And the idea that elites can't sympathize with with the poorer folks just isn't right...otherwise there would be no Democrats!

Are you even factoring in cost of living? Look at houses prices on the coastal cities. Talking about income and not cost of living is ignorant.

I really don't agree with a lot of this for several reasons, and first off I would note that this is household, not individual income. If you have a two-income professional household, chances are it's over $100,000. This isn't a "tiny percentage" according to the graph you put up which puts it near 20%. This kind of reflects my family. We spend nearly $20,000 a year on child care. It is a comfortable life and we are very blessed, but it is not a luxurious life. If there is room for more income stratification, it should be at the higher levels -- I am not sure why people making $200 million/yr. should be paying the same % of their taxes as people making $200k/yr. I also think that for the same reasons families with $100k/yr. are rich to Ms. Snodgrass, she doesn't realize how much money there is at the top. There may not be as many families, but they sure do have a lot of money -- 12% of the wealth, according to Mr. Packer.

I join tyronen's and Adrock's points (above). I'm not sure I follow your argument completely. You say that Snodgrass is right about the "substance" and that Barack's "dance-on-stage" populist tax cut is somehow "untrue." Am I misreading you?

I completely agree with the overall criticism of Packer's article and why Barack's tax policy might SEEM untrue or incredible to someone in Ms. Snodgrass's shoes. But, why can't Barack go forth with his policy and prove the naysayers wrong? Are you saying that Snodgrass will turn out to be right? That Barack will ultimately have to raise taxes across the income scale?

None of us has a crystal ball and I, for one, don't pretend to know the details of revenue generation from income taxes, but I don't see why that's a necessary conclusion.

While the point about income is valid, the logic in her political uncertainty is disturbing and we should be questioning the conclusion. How can she cling to suspicion of a candidate who would be an unequivocally more progressive leader for the country. If she feels like politicians aren't speaking to her, get in line, but withholding support from the vastly superior option as it relates to these specific (and legitimate) gripes is just not thinking anyone could beleive in.

To directly rebut Ms. Snodgrass's point that there aren't enough people making $250K to generate sufficient tax revenue, you should prepare a pie chart of the aggregate national taxable income with slices for people making over $1 million, $500K to $1 million, $250K to $500K, $100K to $250K and $0 to $100K. Since the first 3 slices will be more than half the pie, that would show Ms. Snodgrass that extending tax increases to incomes below $100K wouldn't generate very much additional revenue.

It also would be interesting to see a comparison between each category's share of taxable income versus its share of taxes (income and payroll).

i get what ezra is saying here vis a vis ms. snodgrass and her worldview. i came from a place where we couldn't fathom knowing anyone who made $250,000/year, and no households that made $100,000/year. the point that a two-professional income family easily makes that is a valid one, but not all areas have economies that are suited to support two professional incomes.

i get what she's saying. i'm not saying it's right or accurate, but in her mind it makes no sense to tax a tiny number of hypothetical extremely rich people that she is only taking someone else's word even exist. so she is suspicious.

Wonderfully put.

The truth of modern class warfare is that if you don't think there's class warfare going on, you're on the losing side and just don't know it.

Now, me, all I've ever wanted was the same chance to be successful anyone else seems to get, but I've never seen a yearly salary above $32,000. I used to think the media elite regarded me with disdain. I would seem they don't regard me at all.

This is a superb piece and I'm going to use it in my logic class as an example of "availability error."

It's also one of the few pieces I've read in the progressive media/blogosphere that elicits the genuine, rational if uninformed concerns of working class people and takes them seriously. Snodgrass makes perfect sense: she just doesn't realize how many people's household income is over $250,000 or how much money would be raised by raising their taxes.

That's easy to fix: tell her. Follow up the proposal to roll back tax cuts for $250,000+ households with factual information: "There are x households in this category and the tax policy being proposed would raise $y--so there will be no need to raise anyone else's taxes."

Maybe some visual aids would be helpful. Show WHO would have their taxes raised, what percentage of people in various occupations. So, for example show pictures of nurses, firefighters, policemen, secretaries and auto mechanics and show that only a minute percentage of them would find their taxes raised. And next to that show hordes of lawyers and politicians who would have their taxes raised under this new plan. Or maybe show the percentage of Californians who would get a tax hike vs the number of Kansans would.

What a great pedagogical tool this would be.

Here's a good assessment of both candidates tax policies and their consequences on income inequality: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/human-rights-cartoon-104-inequality-in-the-us/

What did Kennedy have in common with any blue collar worker?

Navy service in WW II, on a small boat where officers and non-coms lived together.

Roman Catholicism.

Ezra, that would be a lot more informative graph if you swapped the axes and graphed the actual frequency for each income bucket.

Ezra, I am sympathetic to your argument, but believe the floor of Obama's plan, as propounded by a candidate, is better set at $250,000.
1) As commenters point out, depending on where one lives, many, and I suspect most households with a gross of $100-150K would see themselves as middle class. There are a lot of blue-collar households comprised of construction workers, nurses, dental technicians, teachers, police, firemen, postal workers, mid and low-level managers and shopowners that fall within this range.
2. I think that most families with a gross income of $150-250K would consider themselves middle to upper-middle class, but not rich, especially with the current costs of health care, college, and declining home values.
3. With Obama's plan, he doesn't alienate anybody rational - i.e. If you think you're not rich and make over $250K - you don't count - and it is easy to delineate without getting into gray areas.
4. AFTER he's president, and AFTER the plan goes through the legislative process, I doubt he'd veto it just because the tax neutral point dropped a bit, but for now, he's getting a lot of votes from houses earning $100-250K, regardless off they previously identified themselves politically.
5. Not too long ago I would have said I wish we lived in a time when more leaders could be as honest as Biden and say, no, scream, that it is patriotic for the wealthy to pay more taxes. Unfortunately, I may be getting what I wished for, and we are entering into a period that is so economically challenged that it will be necessary for our leaders to tell everyone that sacrifice is patriotic.
6. I strongly disagree with McCain's contention that you don't raise taxes during a recession. I agree that you don't tax those who are impacted by the recession, but you sure as hell tax the super rich and the oil companies at least.

I think that rather than presenting the remedial information in graphical form - useful, memorable, but not quotable - you need it in soundbite form.

For example (picking numbers out of the air):

"I'm proposing to tax the most unneeded 1% of all the dollars in this country. Not people - dollars. Make less than $250K? You don't own a single one of those dollars - yet there are X billion of them, sitting around doing nothing but breed. They don't feed people or house them; they don't do their share of the work. So I'm going to tax them. I'm going to take the laziest and least productive 1% of all US dollar bills, and reassign those bills to better uses. Including, if you make less than $250K, cutting your taxes."

The case for progressive taxation is the case for not every dollar being equally useful - so let's use that, plus some personification tricks, to make a soundbite that Ms. Snodgrass can really take to heart.

I had said this before and will again.

The solution to solve the cost of living issue is to adjust tax bracket based on the locality adjustment for the federal employees. If federal employees in San Francisco get a 32% locality pay increase, than adjust the tax brackets in those area accordingly.

The tools are already there, all that is required is the political will.

That graph makes no sense.

Let's all just take a moment to recall that Hillary Clinton criticized Barack Obama's tax promises from the Charlie Gibson side of the divide, not the Snodgrass-Klein side. If Barack Obama were not promising to cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of taxpayers, he would be defeated at the polls roundly. Republicans own the tax issue, even though their concerns are for those making far MORE than $250,000. I'm unclear as to what Ezra is actually calling for as a change to Obama's tax plan. Should he be advertizing FEWER tax cuts for the middle class, STEEPER tax hikes for the top 3%, or BOTH?

Wow. Get out of the midwest. In Oklahoma, $35,000 a year is a lot. In Manhattan, it's unsustainable. You think Obama has a bias -- this is a NATIONAL tax. It would very much cut into the middle class in areas where wealth is more highly concentrated. For each state, then you can talk about $100,000 being sufficiently high but to use that figure everywhere would cripple some local economies.

wow.. we really are whiners. 100,000 isnt a lot? No matter where yo live, thats a lot. We're such spoiled people in this country that we cant even take a neutral look at our lavish lifestyles and environment and even appreciate it anymore.

Thats a cop and a teacher salary.. ya and I know several cops personally, and have 2 teachers in my family. The cops both own homes, 3 large vehicles, 2 of them SUVs, 1 boat for 1, 2 boats for another, and many personal RVs like motorcycles.

I work across from the police station and see them drive to and from work everyday. Guess how many of them drive economy cars? 1. ..and he is quite obviously a rookie as he looks to be barely out of college. (Or hes an excellent vice undercover guy. :p )

Teachers get decent pay for what they do. Remember that our education system started with farmers reaching into their own pockets to pay for teachers to educate their children. No One really wants to pay them more nowadays, they just want someone else to pay them more. How many rallies, fund raisers, bake sales, car washes and events are held to help out extracurricular activities like school sports and music? How many of those events take the money and give it to a teacher? Ive known a lot of shool systems in the US and the answer in each has been Many and none. Follow the money, we value band trips more then teacher salaries.

Nice thing is about the whle Barack tax plan is that he has one with real numbers in it. McCain always cants on about not raising taes, and even cutting them. Yet he never explains how hes going to pay for them. He apparently just wants to drive us further into debt so that there is no middle class when the tax man finally comes to get his due. ..and his version of the future that tax man wouldnt be uncle sam, but Joe China.

In Oklahoma, $35,000 a year is a lot. In Manhattan, it's unsustainable.

$35K isn't "a lot" anywhere. But there are a hell of a lot of people living in Manhattan right now making about that much, so I don't know how it's "unsustainable" there.

AHA! Now we KNOW, Klein, that you're America hating commie socialist scum. Not that there was ever any doubt, comrade, but now that the mask has been thrown aside we must insist that you accompany us for a little...talk. So tell us, Mr. Klein: who are your friends? And how much money do they make, per annum gross? Including that Tag they got from Uncle Phil for nailing the LSAT's? C'mon, Klein, don't make us get rough....

I can't believe I got this far down the thread without any pushback on u4prez's "capital gains tax cuts always stimulate the economy."

In fact, of all types of tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts are the least likely to have any stimulus effect. This is not surprising. To stimulate the economy you need to increase spending. The best way to do that is to give a tax cut to people who spend the largest proportion of their money--the poor.

Capital gains tax cuts can have a very short term "unlocking" effect as the wealthy shift assets to take advantage of newly lowered rates, but you can also get the same effect immediately by letting people know you will shortly be *raising* the rate.

Here is a paper that was produced for Congress talking about the effects of capital gains tax cuts:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS21014_20030129.pdf

"Yeah, but if your boss, or the owner of your small business makes enough to have his taxes increased, what if he decides to fire you to make up the difference?"

If the tax increase is on the boss's income (from which business expenses are deductable) then there's no reason for employing you to be profitable before the tax increase and lossy after the tax increase. The only way this makes sense is if your employment by the small business owner had always meant reduced profits, but the owner kept you on as a form of charity, and with the tax increase he decides he can no longer afford to charitably employ you at cost to his own pocketbook. This scenario isn't impossible, but I suspect it's pretty rare -- most employees of small businesses are employed because their work, even subtracting their compensation, leaves the business (and its owner) richer.

For a policy change to change employment, it has to change what business practices are the most profitable. Taxing the income of the owners doesn't really affect that, except insofar as the owner has less money to invest in capital projects and such. (An effect pretty much the same as the crowding-out effect of deficit spending on investment.)

I've lived in Oklahoma, 35K is alot. If you're single! The biggest concern I have is I don't see anyway this doesn't slow down the economy. At a time when you need capital in the stock market you encourage it to go elswhere by raising capital gains. For me, I make well over 250K and I employ 10 people. If Obama's plan goes through I'm eliminating 2 jobs from the 10, bottomline. Two decent paying full benefit 45K jobs, but I guess they will get a tax break though, which is comforting to them.

And to follow on Safron's point, proposing capital gains tax cuts as a stimulus for the year when the US will see some of the largest capital losses in the past five decades goes beyond foolish to ludicrous. How can anyone seriously propose to fix a problem with a tax cut that does not take effect for most people until after the problem has been fixed?

Spending is partially what got us into this mess though. Making 35K a year and living like you make 250K.

"cap gains increases always, and I repeat, always shrink the economy"

Complete nonsense. It depends on the size of the increase and the state of the economy. That's why you had to cherry-pick your examples, not to mention completely ignoring other factors.

Not to get all defensive, but Columbus is anything but a "hollowed out community in the Rust Belt". It never has been a typical Rust Belt city, and it has basically nothing but statehood in common with places like Youngstown or Toledo or Cleveland.

For one thing - and maybe I'm wrong about this and somebody can explain why to me - wouldn't the median income of a city be depressed by the fact that the city has WELL over 50,000 full-time college students living there? And wouldn't that possibly lead someone who's forgotten that to be misled about the socioeconomic picture they conjure about that city?

Let me get this straight, jenga... Your business is carrying 25% more manpower than is necessary, and you can wring that productivity out of the remaining 8 workers? You must be eiter the best or worst business owner in town—I can't quite figure out which...

In addition, am I to assume you make so much money that Obama's rate change will cost you $90K?

And because of that, you'll send two of your employees (and their families) out on their asses to recoup that income?

Nothing personal, but you sound like a real dick.

Ezra's posts on income quintiles bring out the po' mouth every time.
Do all of you whining about cost of living not realize your income is also higher due to location?

People don't fire workers because the minimum wage goes up, or because taxes do. For the most part, businesses only hire as many people as they absolutely need to to function. Sometimes they don't even do that, which is a big part of why turn-over is so high in small businesses. To put it simply: Small business can't afford to fire people. Chamber of Commerce BS is just that, BS.

Teachers are not blue collar. They strictly work with their brains, have summers off, and in many states
MUST have Master's Degrees. In many suburbs they make 50-80 K. Stop lumping them in with construction workers. Teachers often make more than other professionals.

A good post for sure but I always feel you need to look at the wealthy's contribution to the tax base. A friend here in Canada makes 500k a year but roughly 40% of that goes to taxes. So in income taxes alone she's making a 200k contribution to the tax base... pretty substantial for one person. I think the real question is how is this money spent? Is it going to programs that give lower income people opportunities? Or is it being spent proping-up companies that have failed/useless wars?

Government should empower people.

For me, I make well over 250K and I employ 10 people. If Obama's plan goes through I'm eliminating 2 jobs from the 10, bottomline.

This makes no sense. Presumably your income derives from the earnings of your company. Presumably your employees are contributing to your company's top-line revenues. Your goal seems to be to retain your salary at 2002-2008 levels of taxation under a new tax regime. By eliminating 2 out of your 10 employees, you're going to take a hit on your revenues, and I don't see how you're going to make it up elsewhere.

In any case, this argument from McCain doesn't make any sense. "Small businesses" that McCain says is gong to be hit by a tax increase are really just shlubs like me filing a Schedule C when we work for ourselves. And, honestly, if I'm making $250,000 in Schedule C income, it's really only fair that I pay more taxes just like the lawyer or executive who gets a $250k salary.

Keep in mind that those individuals earning $125K or so are mostly likely paying a significant percentage of those wages to cover student loans. These people also spend a great deal of their time keeping their skills up to date - time that they can't spend mowing the lawn or sometimes even attending school functions with their kids. And these people also have to live in high-cost areas that have those high-paying jobs.

The $250K figure is what two professionals with a good amount of experience can expect to make. But it took six figures worth of education and 20 years of experience and hard work to get there. Everybody hates lawyers, but these are really the nurses, engineers, IT workers and other people who help make our society work.

These are the self-made professionals, and to ask them to contribute more than the already vastly greater amount they do currently is not politically astute. I think that's where the $250K figure came from, and I'm glad to know that Mr. Obama isn't an idiot.

No, I'm not a republican. I'm a democrat, I think healthcare should be everybody's right - if we can afford it. But a sane tax structure is part of political stability. The truly wealthy may have a lot of people, but it's the professionals that have the day to day power in our society.

One problem with Packer's article is that he vastly understates how much of the national income accrues to those in the top 2%. It is not 12%, but is in fact closer to 30%, if you include capital gains (look at the numbers and it is easy to convince yourself of this fact). The top 1% alone made 23% of our national income in 2006, only exceeded by the record 24% share set in 1928 (the numbers for 2007 are not yet in). Our revenue problem would easily be solved if those at that income level paid more in taxes.

One myth that gets in the way of doing this is the Laffer Curve. Recent evidence shows that cutting marginal tax rates does not increase tax revenue but decreases it. For example, consider the last major increase in marginal personal income tax rates (1993) and the last major cut in marginal tax rates (2001-2003). In 1993, the top federal marginal personal income tax rate was increased from 31% to 39.6%. The first year this tax increase was implemented tax revenues increased by 4% in real terms. In 1999 real federal personal income tax revenue had increased 64.2% above what it was in 1992 (seven years later) before the tax increase. Between 2000 and 2003 the top marginal federal income tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 35%. In 2003 real tax revenue was 27.1% below what it was in 2000 before the tax cuts. In 2007 real federal personal income tax revenue was still 2.5% below what it was in 2000 (seven years later).

Another myth that is popular is that capital gains tax increases hurt economic growth. Top capital gains tax rates were at their lowest in our nation's history (12.5%) during the four worst years of the Great Depression from 1930-1933 when the economy contracted at an average rate of 7.4% a year. In 1934 the top capital gains tax rate was increased to 31.5% and again to 39% in 1936. From 1934-1936 the GDP expanded at an average rate of 10.9% per year. When the top capital gains tax rate was at its highest, in 1976 and 1977 (40%), the economy expanded at an average rate of 5% per year. By 1982 it was lowered to 20% and remained at that level through 1986. The economy grew at a respectable but hardly awe inspiring rate of 4.4% from 1982-1986. Under Bush it was lowered to its current rate of 15% in 2003. From 2003-2007 the GDP expanded at a rather mediocre rate of 2.8%. Low capital gains tax rates have a poor record of promoting economic growth, and high capital gains tax rates do not seem to deter it.

but Obama at least can remember what it is like for many of us--scrimping to get by, problems obtaining health care, paying off college loans.

That may be true, but he's been making (with Michelle) $200,000+ for all the years for which he's released tax forms. While he struggled, he made the money he is now trying to classify as "people who can afford to give more".
Ditto Biden. He says his net worth is low, he donates very little to charity, but his family income is in the range of the people he'd tax more.

They are the perfect arguments against their own rhetoric.

Here's a link to Obama's tax returns.

AGI per year:
2000 $240,505
2001 $272,759
2002 $259,394
2003 $238,327
2004 $207,647
2005 $1,655,106
2006 $983,826

So you can see that while Obama has talked about being worried about paying for his daughters' college, and his house payments, and paying off his college loans, he was making at, above, or near the amount he wants to classify as rich.
Obama seems not to think he personally had a lot of money to spare during those years.

that was me.

2 out of 10 is 20% not 25%, so you now have two reasons to talk to my accountant. One is to learn math and the other is to find out if I'm the worst businessman in town. If you look at my W2 I think he would tell you otherwise. I've had many a discussion with my business manager, we feel we will have more than enough motivation in the current climate to get increased productivity from the remaining 8. I like making what I make though and am more than happy to keep the same employee climate that we have now. Heck, I plan on giving everyone a raise and go buy myself an Escalade if McCain is elected. Change the tax equation and I will change that outlook as well, which will either include shrinking the workforce or across the board cuts and I'll probably buy a Volvo or Audi, whatever has the most overseas parts.

In lieu of a trackback:

Spread the wealth around!
Observationalism
http://observationalism.com/2008/10/17/spread-the-wealth-around/

Summary:

McCain laid into Obama's line about "spreading the wealth around," which he wants you to see, Daniel Nichanian notes, as "code words for socialism".

Considering the state of the economy, his warnings may not resonate with voters. They do, however, play right into media preconceptions.

The pundit class lives in a prosperous bubble of its own, which has skewed its perspective on typical standards of living. (Watch this Fox News clip with a sobering illustration of this.)

These news professionals determine in what terms voters hear of socio-economic proposals, so their elite perspective constitutes a real obstacle for progressive economic politics.

Quotes of this post:

" Earlier this month, Ezra summarised the phenomenon well: "The problem is, elites have an availability bias. They know a lot of folks who make over $100,000. Charlie Gibson wasn't being malign when he [..] "

" This is what Ezra calls "The Rich Man's Populism of the Political Class": "But because of that, the elite class reacts harshly if a presidential candidate proposes to raise taxes on folks making, say, over $100,000 a year [..] "

Does anyone remember the national dept? Now at over ten trillion. 10,000,000,000.00 Is that not enough? Our yearly budget is around 3.2 trillion, and that sends us into debt because its at least 500 million more that the govmnt. brings in. The first thing we need to do to strengthen our economy long term is to pay off this debt. We literally can't afford national health care while we are so far in debt. And, the problem is not that people are not paying enough taxes. The problem IS the government and the irresponsibility of our elected officials. We should all be able to agree on this, regardless who you are voting for. We can argue all day about who is rich and who is not. That's just what they want us to do. The real problem is that the people we keep electing forget who they work for, and they use other peoples money to try to convince people to vote for them. The government has got to stop blowing our money. Just imagine what we could do if we had no national debt, or better yet, a trillion dollar rainy day fund. The last stimulus package didn't work, and another one won't work, either. The government has got to be responsible with our money. Sadly I don't see it happening, and that sucks.