[quote=pri_dk]Of course we cannot come to any final conclusions using sdr’s data point, not without knowing more specifics about the individuals and their jobs (and I don’t want to know more.)
(BTW, “line worker” is a very common term – what a ridiculous nitpick…)
But there is an interesting fact relevant to the number. These folks are making above $250K, the income used in the recent tax and healthcare debates as the threshold for “rich people.”
Accounting for the cost of benefits, their total compensation is probably around $300K – well above the “rich” threshold.
According to many of Obama’s policy positions, these people should pay more taxes, because right now they aren’t paying their “fair share.” (And, BTW, I have supported these positions all along.)
So, for those us that are left-leaning on tax policy, we have to acknowledge that our position is that these people are in fact doing quite well, and should pay more in taxes. The rules should apply to everyone.
So I agree that sdr’s little anecdote makes a point:
People can become “rich” working “line” jobs in the public sector.
That is a red flag, to be sure.[/quote]
Of course they should be paying more in taxes! I’m a firm believer in progressive tax rates. History shows that higher marginal tax rates did NOT “stiffle” economic growth, innovation, business investment, etc. As a matter of fact, our economy has performed best when money (without a debt offset) is flowing freely through the economy. You can’t have that when “the rich” own all the wealth.
IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”
