MSNBC: Upper-income people under Obama: Greater tax burden. Under McCain: TAX CUTS

[Amerigo Vespucci]

President must decide who'll bear tax burden
If Obama wins, upper-income people are likely to shoulder more

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25839495/

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer

In 2004, ten million more people filed tax returns than voted in the presidential election.

But whether you're a voter or not, the outcome of U.S. elections affects the tax burden of all Americans.

What’s going to happen to your tax burden under a new president?

The short answer is this:

* If Obama wins, upper-income people will almost certainly end up shouldering more of the burden.
* If McCain wins, upper-income people might get a tax cut, but only if McCain can persuade what’s likely to be a Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with him.

[JaneQPublic]

1. Would it kill them to mention that middle-income folks would do better under Obama?

[Kber]

7. How about defining "upper income" while you are at it.

[Mz Pip]

2. I'd be more than

happy to have my taxes go up if it meant no McCain. Whatever tax increase I may get won't even come close to what I've lost over that past 7 years on my IRAs and the decline in value of my home. More of the same will cost me more than any tax increase in an Obama administration.

[Median Democrat]

3. I don't see a reference to "upper middle class"

I see a reference to upper-income folks.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

10. fixed n/t

[Buck Rabbit]

4. Your headline is incorrect.

Upper Income was used in the MSNBC headline and article. Not Upper MIDDLE Class. They are not the same.

[ieoeja]

5. That title has a disconnect.

First half talks about who shoulders the burden. Second half concerns tax raise versus cut. Ultimately they mean the same thing. But it is like using two different tenses. Better titles would have been:

Under Obama: greater tax burden on the upper middle class. Under McCain: on everyone else.
Under Obama: upper middle class gets tax increase. Under McCain: tax cuts.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. I hate these loose definitions...

What qualifies as "upper middle class"?

And does it account for various elements of standard of living?

There are certain income levels above which everyone can agree you are "upper class" 7 figure type incomes...

However, family income of 200,000 per year in Los Angeles, NY or San Fran is VASTLY different than 200,000 per year in Lincoln Nebraska, etc.

"Upper middle class" tends to include these grey area income levels, which, if you tax harder, WILL greatly impact people, especially those living in expensive urban areas.

The article seems to state it is "upper income" people alone, but the title makes it sound worse.

[margotb822]

8. Good. Finally.

Check out this website: http://www.lcurve.org/ and see how wealth is distributed. The fact is those taxes will rise on 1.5% of the population. The other 98.5% will see a decrease. Frankly, that seems pretty fair to me.

[bullimiami]

9. nowhere in that article does it say 'upper middle class'

this is your subject line

""MSNBC: Upper middle class under Obama: Greater tax burden. Under McCain: TAX CUTS""

it is deceptive. hopefully just a mistake. the article says "upper" nowhere "upper middle".