President Obama’s FY 2011 budget request to Congress is an insult to the American people, and especially the 10 percent of the people who will pay more than 70 percent of the cost of this not-so-little spending spree. If we remember back to the hope-and-change campaign trail — it seems like so long ago — President Obama told us that he would not increase taxes for people who make make less than $250,000 a year.
Of course, those of us who have actually worked with the federal budget knew full well that he could not pay for all of the other programs he promised without increasing taxes on those with incomes at or above $80,000 per year, but the campaign trail provides some latitude when it comes to truth and the details. Within months of taking office, however, the promise had morphed from $250,000 per person to $250,000 per family.
Person … family … what difference does that make? Well, in major cities where two incomes are required to support even a modest lifestyle, which includes sending non-financial-aid-eligible children to college, the difference is significant. Still, President Obama made it clear that he was going after those wealthy $250,000 a year families in a big way. Never mind that the top one percent of earners in this country, despite earning only 22 percent of the income, already pay 40 percent of the taxes, or that the top 10 percent of earners account for 47 percent of the income but pay 71 percent of the taxes (not to mention a significant portion of philanthropic contributions). These families are rich and he is going to make them pay.
Given the morphing of the promise, the current federal debt, and the appetite to keep spending, I was not shocked to learn that the Obama budget request includes new taxes for families earning $250,000 per year and above. However, what did make my head spin, especially given all of the Obama yakking about glass ceilings, is the way that the tax proposal penalizes second-income earners (presumably women) of even moderate means.
That an individual can earn up to $200,000 without suffering an additional tax penalty (set conveniently just above the earning level of a Member of Congress), but a second earner in a family suffers additional tax burdens at the level of $50,000 a year is preposterous! I supposed that some smart White House staffer did his or her homework and learned that the average Congressional spouse earns under $80,000 per year (which would keep the combined household income for members below the $250,000 threshold). After all, it is members of Congress who will decide which parts of the president’s budget request to support, and which to throw away.
Mr. Obama’s tax proposal not only acknowledges that the glass ceiling exists for women and endorses its continuation, but actually penalizes those few women who have broken through the ceiling and risen above the artificial salary limit it sets, especially if they are married to an equally successful man (or vice versa — to be fair, successful men who are married to successful women are also penalized when compared to their single male counterparts or those who are married to lower-earning wives).
This proposal essentially tells talented women who are married to successful men that they may as well stay home or work part time since the added stress and expense associated with full-time work just cannot be justified given the lower proportional take home pay. Or, viewed another way, a single woman who earns $199,000 per year will have a lower proportional tax liability than her colleague who earns $150,000 per year, but is married to a man who earns $100,000 per year. This is absolutely unacceptable and sets women back by decades in their fight for equal pay for equal work.
I am no feminist, and I do not think that I should receive preferential treatment because of my gender, but the fact that a woman’s income would be taxed at a higher rate because she is married to a successful spouse, or vice versa, is one of the worst public policy proposals I have heard in years … and I have heard many.
If President Obama wants to impose additional tax burden upon families that earn over $250,000 per year, then the policy should tax individuals at $125,000 per year. Of course, such a proposal would never make it through Congress since all members and many staff earn well above this level.
Heck, I’ll bet that even some of you academics would wince at the idea of increased taxes for $125,000-per-year earners since this includes many of you, and I’ll bet that some of you don’t think of yourselves as being very wealthy, especially given the number of years you spent in school, thereby deferring your income-earning years. Believe it or not, there are people who are top earners in business, medicine, and government who also feel underpaid relative to their level of educational attainment and job responsibility, not to mention the debt they incurred to earn the degree necessary to compete for their job.
Another alternative would be to keep the individual limit at $200,000 per year, and set the family earning limit at $400,000, which makes a lot of sense if you really do believe that women should enjoy earnings that equal those of men. I know that marriage penalties are so much fun, but they really make very little policy sense since just about every researcher in the country will tell you that the benefits of marriage on the well-being of children, communities, and society are sizeable.
As Congress reviews this budget request, I hope members will have the good sense to understand that equal opportunity should include, for a second income earner, the opportunity to retain an equal proportion of his or her earnings as do first-income earners.
Shame on you, Mr. President, for this unjust attack on women and shame on all of the feminists in Congress (Senator Mikulski, we’re looking to you for help on this one) if you sit back and allow this to pass without challenge. This sort of proposal does make one wonder if perhaps Mr. Obama isn’t trying to use tax policy to push women out of the work force voluntarily so that his troubling unemployment rates will go down and so that men will find less competition from women for the few jobs that do exist.
35 Responses to Obama’s Budget Request Endorses the Glass Ceiling
rbannist - February 4, 2010 at 3:14 am
Ms. Auer-Jones is dead on. If Congress could enact anything that was straight-on legislation without all kinds of turns and twists filled with little gimmicks to look out for themselves or their most favored pork rind suppliers, perhaps we would be less cynical of their efforts. Perhaps she should consider running against Senator Mikulski. If a Republican can win what had been Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts and a Kennedy could not get elected governor in Maryland, someone with pragmatic values and keen insight could help form new consensus in DC. Can anyone imagine a person speaking with this honesty and clarity in the US Senate. In the meantime, here’s hope her insightful blogs are read on Capitol Hill. It’s not like some of her ideas we’ve seen wouldn’t make some Republicans squirm too.
lseatts - February 4, 2010 at 8:13 am
It is truly amazing how many arm-chair critics there are of the Ombama administration. It is so easy to criticize a situation in which you are not charged to fix. I would ask that Ms. Jones submit a budget proposal that would fix this mess that President Ombama inherited. I would like to hear your comments after you sit in President Ombama’s seat.
lseatts - February 4, 2010 at 8:14 am
By the way I spelled Obama’s name correctly–my computer my keyboard or computer must be having a moment.
11332462 - February 4, 2010 at 8:46 am
Ms. Jones may be right on the merits of the issue — I’m not a tax expert and her concerns certainly are worth serious consideration. But she does a disservice to her argument by adopting a tone of conspiracy and cynicism that reveals a dripping contempt for the Obama administration. Obama wants to force women out of the work force? Really. Essays suffused with such anger make it easy to dismiss the argument as the product of a partisan or ideological enmity that will not hesitate to exaggerate or distort the facts.
respondon - February 4, 2010 at 8:49 am
This opinion piece is mystifying to me. So far as I can tell, the author objects to the notion of joint filing for married couples, which has been a fixture of our tax regime for many decades, probably as long as we’ve had an income tax. It is, of course, strictly optional: married couples may file separately.Alas, the only reading of this piece that makes any sense is that the author is working backward from a priori opposition to the budget, for the usual conservative reasons, and has alighted upon some progressive-sounding language in which to couch her opposition. It’s pretty bizarre stuff.
amysfried - February 4, 2010 at 8:51 am
Ms. Jones claim that the tax policy supports a glass ceiling is without any support. It seems to rest on the assumption that women make less than men, yet that is not true in over 40% of marriages. In fact, most of my academic women friends make more than their male spouses or partners. Given that the evidentiary basis for the entire piece is incorrect, so are the conclusions drawn.Even if the idea that women in academia necessarily make less than men were true, how does that possibly support the argument that this buttresses a glass ceiling? Tax policy does not govern what jobs women seek or gain in academia. There are many studies about women’s advancement in the academy and none have found that to be a factor.
11216800 - February 4, 2010 at 8:53 am
I agree with most of what Ms. Auer-Jones writes, and want to comment on two areas of her post:”Well, in major cities where two incomes are required to support even a modest lifestyle….”It is NOT only in “major cities” where 2 incomes are required. I can tell you from first-hand experience that it is also in the small towns all over this country.”This sort of proposal does make one wonder if perhaps Mr. Obama isn’t trying to use tax policy to push women out of the workforce voluntarily so that his troubling unemployment rates will go down and so that men will find less competition from women for the few jobs that do exist.” I would venture to say that most men would not compete for my job, or for many of the jobs that women hold, so that blows that theory. And additional tax burden will not “push [us] out of the workforce (voluntarily),” it will only result in us taking on more work so we can earn as much as possible to send our kids to college and maintain a certain lifestyle which ultimately leads to less time with our families which is certainly not the ideal scenario.
amysfried - February 4, 2010 at 9:02 am
The idea that Obama might be “trying to use tax policy to push women out of the workforce” is thoroughly bizarre. This is the president who signed the Lily Ledbetter Act as his first bill to sign into law. Unlike the previous president, he has supported legislation to ensure that women are paid equally to men. There is zero evidence that he opposes women working outside of the home. Given the fact that his grandmother was the main breadwinner in his home and his mother was, for the most part, a single mother, he has a good deal of personal experience with women working and providing the “first” income.Finally, the vast majority of households earn no where near $250,000. This provision would affect about 1% of U.S. families and the additional tax applies only to the amount above $250,000. This is called a marginal tax.In brief, this piece lacks logic, evidence and context.
respondon - February 4, 2010 at 9:18 am
Amy: you have to admit that apart from lacking logic, evidence, and context, it’s a really strong piece.
dialektik - February 4, 2010 at 9:24 am
It should come as no surprise that a former Bush appointee (assistant secretary for postsecondary education) would consider taxes on the wealthy an evil to be uprooted. As for her figures, the top 1% of Americans earn above $410,096 a year and have an average tax liability of 22.45% (for figures, see http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) What’s wrong with that? Of course the extremely wealthy should pay a disproportionate share of the taxes. They also benefit disproportionately from the government’s function. After all, the top 1% reaped two thirds of income gains in the last economic expansion (see http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908).
ianative - February 4, 2010 at 9:27 am
I agree with the earlier responder who mentioned the tone of the essay interfering with the message. It’s obvious that the writer would find fault with anything Obama did regardless of the outcome, so I’m pretty sure the only ones who’ll be convinced by her arguments are those who already agree with her to begin with. It would be nice to hear a well-reasoned argument about the issues without the snarky, contemptuous language employed by this writer.
lauren1 - February 4, 2010 at 9:47 am
“I am no feminist…”–what is the problem with that term, which simply means a person believes in equality between the sexes?If you’re not a feminist, you really don’t have the qualifications to write an article complaining of the treatment of women. If you understood feminism, you’d know that it’s fundamentally about the rights and safety of the large numbers of women who work at low-paid jobs–not as a ruse to justify the excessive salaries and lifestyles of the elites.
speaktruth - February 4, 2010 at 9:50 am
The fatal flaw in this piece was revealed here: Ms. Jones pretends to be concerned about glass ceilings but proclaims “I am no feminist”(par4)! As pointed out by others, her argument is contrived. She is completely out of touch with the lives of the VAST majority of Americans, who, indeed, are two-income families earning far under $250,000 and not living in big cities–or if they are, not in her neighborhood.
coppocg - February 4, 2010 at 9:58 am
Sexism rears its head in the piece by Ms. Jones along with other problems. First, it is sexist to assume that the “second” earner is female. That is increasingly NOT true in America. Secondly and more important is that few of us (maybe we were not smart?) assumed that Obama’s campaign level of $250,000 was per earner. I assumed it was per tax form and that still appears to be the case. If Ms. Jones wants to file her taxes as an individual rather than jointly with her husband, then let her do it. I am one of those people that could be affected, but I don’t have a problem with paying higher taxes than those who help keep a university and society functioning, but have harder time living day to day.
csmomaha - February 4, 2010 at 10:12 am
I have to agree with lauren1. What is it about the word “feminist” that makes Ms. Jones so adamant that she is not one? Feminism is NOT about “preferential treatment” for women, rather it is about equal rights and combatting discrimination. As others have pointed out, her opinion piece is based on faulty assumptions and she does women as a group no favors.
seiu615 - February 4, 2010 at 10:15 am
The writer has such a high income that she’s ludicrously unaware that a QUARTER-MILLION DOLLARS a year for a family is huge income!! — far higher than the average American income. My husband and I together earn $40,000 a year (and I work two jobs); we have two children. Even so, I would be HAPPY to pay higher taxes IF that would mean health care coverage and jobs for millions of Americans. Yet the writer is complaining about taxing those making $250,000 a year while people go without jobs, healthcare, sometimes food and heat? She is completely in a different world from most Americans. To the writer I say: Relax. You will still be very rich. Your article failed to point out that taxes will only go up very slightly (2% or 3%). As a feminist, I urge all people to support higher taxes on families making over a quarter-million dollars a year. The money will go to help struggling poor families, most of whom are headed by women. Sorry, but logically, no matter how you twist Obama’s budget proposal, it’s impossible to make it into an anti-woman proposal.
lwell - February 4, 2010 at 11:33 am
seiu615 – Your post concerns me, as it appears you actually believe that more taxing of rich will somehow end poverty. I would strongly disagree and ask you to search the history books for proof from any “socialized” country to prove your point. Contrary to 50% of this country’s opinions (left-leaning vs right-leaning), taxing others more and more to “cover” expenses for others less fortunate, just perpetuates and increases social programs…which the last time I looked aren’t doing any better now than when they were developed. We still have global poverty and the rich are still rich..especially in “socialized” countries where corruption seems to abound in the governments.I suggest we (America) stay the course and calm the storms of taxation. Let those with the means to do so, willingly contribute their wealth where and when they choose. Taxing the rich doesn’t eliminate poverty…never has and never will…but it does create a climate of hopelessness and helplessness among our poorest…as they habitually look to government for everything…and our richest devise other ways to invest elsewhere.The last time I looked, we are still a democracy and we still have a Constitution that guarantees individual rights of freedom, liberty, and prosperity! Just my two cents worth, respectfully submitted. By the way, I only earn $40,000 per year myself, and am a single mother with two in college (PhD and Masters levels).
respondon - February 4, 2010 at 11:46 am
lwell: I’m pretty sure that several European countries (not to mention Canada) have both higher tax rates and lower poverty than the USA, so unless you’re arguing a complete lack of linkage between those features, your missing some very obvious examples. And I’m not sure why you would look to corrupt statist regimes, which (with the qualified exception of Italy) are all lower- and middle-income countries, rather than the non-corrupt statist regimes of wealthier countries that would be the obvious counterxample to the USA.
bekka_alice - February 4, 2010 at 11:59 am
Coppocg and lauren1 both caught things that annoy me about this piece. I make 10% more than my husband – why should we file with his name as head of household? And disclaiming feminism is a trite and poorly-considered knee-jerk response to people who would discredit anything to do with womens’ progress by labeling it feminism with the meaning “strident” as if to support womens’ rights is negative in itself. Inane.
11159995 - February 4, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The righteous indignation the author of this piece expresses rings hollow for reasons many of the previous commentators have noted. There is an ideological subtext here that essentially says, let us high wage earners alone and we’ll make sure that the rest of you who earn less will benefit from the “trickle down” of our investments. That’s baloney, as it hasn’t proved to be true for a very long time. It’s hard to feel sympathy for someone who obviously feels little sympathy for the downtrodden in this country. And I think it would be a good thing if the second wage earner concluded that the payoff of working wasn’t worth it, so that a better option would be to do some volunteer work that would actually contribute to helping other people directly.—Sandy Thatcher
suomynona - February 4, 2010 at 12:10 pm
This article is a joke. As others have picked up on, the assertion ‘I’m no feminist,’ drips with more ignorance than scorn. Anyone who treats feminism as a monolithic concept doesn’t know what they’re talking about, and any blanket assertion like ‘I’m no feminist’ should be treated with suspicion. DAJ might not be a bra-burning radical or a director at NARAL, but I would hope she believes in equal rights for women. Using feminism as a stand-in, based on a stereotype, for antagonism and extremism is laughable in this case: DAJ complains about a glass-ceiling, but lord knows she couldn’t possibly admit to raising an issue that falls well within the umbrella of ‘feminism,’ in fact one that has been expressly raised and fought against by various feminist movements. DAJ isn’t a feminist, right, but she sure loves it when feminisms produce ideas that she can get behind and rant about. Jus so long as she doesn’t have to alienate bigots and their bigotry by identifying loosely with ‘feminism,’ even as she attempts a feminist argument. But she’s only being honest, I suspect. She only *attempts* a feminist argument. But the truth is DAJ is not a feminist. She assumes that women are necessarily secondary earners. She assumes that it’s women who would retreat to the household rather than men, should Obama’s grand conspiracy theory to force some Americans out of jobs and into domesticity to bolster employment figures (my gosh, what’s next? 9/11 truth articles?). And she attempts to spin a mundane and longstanding tax scenario into a large-scale government attack on women. She’s right about one thing: there’s nothing feminist about this article.
11216800 - February 4, 2010 at 12:39 pm
To lwell, post #18. Right on!
johnfarley - February 4, 2010 at 12:54 pm
This has got to be the silliest opinion piece I have ever seen in the Chronicle. Trying to make an effort to get the wealthy to pay their fair share into an attack on women’s rights wouldn’t cut it in any freshman class on logic. The fact is that, even after the Bush tax cuts expire (they should already have been eliminated, since they are one of the biggest things that got us into the deficit mess, BEFORE Obama even became President), these households will be paying substantially less in taxes than they did under the “great tax cutter” Ronald Reagan. I’d favor taxing these folks at an even higher rate than obama proposes – heck, why not raise it back to what it was under Reagan? That would be much better than passing massive deficits on to our kids and/or having 45,000 Americans die every year because we “can’t afford” a national health care system like every other industrialized country has.
johntoradze - February 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
This is a contemptible rant that belongs in a drug-addled diatribe by Rush Limbaugh. I have little doubt that he will make use of it to rile up his addled masses yearning to be crushed under the boot-heel of the elites. And lo! But doing a quick Google on “families making over $250,000″ yields a drivel-tribe by … You guessed it! Rush Limbaugh! “$250,000 a year is not Wealthy” Oh, Diane, you poor overprivileged baby. Is Rush making you feel all snuffly about your right to drive a fancier car? This piece is utterly contemptible because of the position of the writer, who purports to be an educator and educated. An educator is supposed to be dedicated to helping others learn over feathering his or her own nest. An educator is expected to be honest. Someone who is educated is also expected to be able to put forward an argument that holds water. This article does none. It is based on a lie, expands that lie, and winds up in orbit around Pluto. Diane claims in her pompous drivel that Obama changed what he said by “changing” the ceiling from $250,000 per person to $250,000 per family. She implies that Obama wanted originally to put a ceiling of $500,000 per couple. But this, dear readers is a propagandists lie. Obama never intended that, and he did state during his campaign that he meant family. I do not know actually, of a single instance wherein he said “per person” and I suspect Diane just made that up. Even if he did say it once, it was a mis-speak, and is not meaningful. Furthermore, as another poster pointed out, Diane committed another lie by implying that married people could not file separately. They can do so anytime they want. But they are taxed at a higher rate. Boo, hoo. Diane then pullulates about how terrible and unfair it is for a family making $250,000 a year to have to pay THE SAME TAX RATE THEY DID IN 1999! Somehow this article winds up with imbecilic drivel about “feminism”. This non compos mentis non-sequitur simply has no meaning in the context in which it is used. Thus, analyzing the article, it is clear that Diane is purely and simply a vicious propagandist for the extreme right wing that seeks to cause our nation to fall into ruin by destroying the financial integrity of the US government. She seeks to increase the gap between the wealthy and privileged and everyone else, without regard for impact. Diane, you are just another henchwoman of Rush’s “Oppression, Inc.”
johntoradze - February 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Really, Diane. How DARE you!
kimchronicle - February 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm
To 11216800 and Mrs. Jones, two incomes would be required in large and small cities to maintain your high society lives, but the majority of us, have incomes well below $100,000 and survive in small towns and large cities. If my family had an income of $250,000 in any city, I would be living large…but I don’t need to eat at the fanciest restaurants, buy the most expensive clothes, own luxury cars and have a huge house in a gated community. I am getting by, barely…and I would welcome more taxes with my six figure income. Quit your crying.
rockyfordfan - February 4, 2010 at 3:17 pm
To #18 -Amen. Why is it presumed that higher income individuals or families in this country should pay a higher percentage tax than others? Do they receive more government services for that additional tax? Every American receives the same rights and services provided for in our Constitution. Why not pay a fee, the same fee for all, and eliminate the complexity of the tax code and all of the useless time and money spent in this country trying to minimize the tax bill? That’s the real question. By the way, yes, two spouses can choose to file separately, but if any of you had actually done that you would know it’s not that easy. In most cases, the total tax liability when filing separately is greater than the tax liablity filing jointly (well until now that is). The accountants of the world will love this.
speaktruth - February 4, 2010 at 4:27 pm
See: “You’re Rich. Get Over It. Why people who make $250,000 or more a year can afford a tax hike” on Slate yesterday, also Newsweek, by Daniel Gross. http://www.slate.com/id/2243529/
suomynona - February 4, 2010 at 8:22 pm
rocky,”Why is it presumed that higher income individuals or families in this country should pay a higher percentage tax than others?”The answers to this question are pretty straightforward:1) Given that, as any red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist would tell you, the system will always have winners and losers and income gaps, the money has to come from somewhere. A flat-tax scheme is not economically feasible.2) Given that, as an red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist would tell you, the system will always have winners and losers and income gaps, and the country as a whole doesn’t believe entirely in leaving our fellow citizens out in the cold. In other words, social darwinism is not feasible either.3) Wealth is a privilege, and like most of our privileges, it enjoys tremendous protection from our government and support from our citizens. Wealthy Americans should be thankful for their ability to pay taxes. They should be thankful that we live in a country, unlike some countries, where means are redistributed through violence rather than through the democratic consent of the people. One of the problems with being rich: club members are in a very, very small minority.
macheath - February 5, 2010 at 11:25 am
Diane Auer Jones once again buries a potentially interesting policy issue (marriage penalty, taxes) under a load of bs that protects her former boss George W. Bush. Obama isn’t doing great but he inherited an economy from Bush that was literally–literally–on the verge of collapsing into a depression. And he now has a Congress where 40, now 41 Republicans refuse to vote on anything, bringing any sensible public policy to a grinding halt. Obama’s biggest PR mistake has been trying to be reasonable and bipartisan, and getting kicked repeatedly for his troubles. In contrast, Ronald Reagan ran against Democrats all his career, and throughout his eight years as President, blaming them for everything.
rbannist - February 8, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Some of the criticism directed at the honorable Diane Auer Jones is simply hateful and disgusting from critics who probably know nothing about her life’s work, her contributions, or the sum total of her values and beliefs. Call her what you will, here is one of the most incredibly squeaky clean people in all of DC with no corporate connections, IOU’s to any political factions,or anything controverisal short of her brief tenure at OSTP and then serving as Asst. Sec. for Post Secondary only to resign for substantial philosophical policy differences toward the end of the Bush administration. Ad hominen attacks and invoking strawmen while trading in vile insults does nothing to futher one’s arguments but only illustrates how unprepared some of her opponents are to debate her ideas responsibly. As a person from Diane Auer Jones community interested in civil discussion of issues, I would suggest #25 johntoradze steps way over the line lumping Ms. Jones material in with that of Rush Limbaugh and using his horrible drug addiction that resulted from treatment for chronic severe back pain never having any prior intent to abuse drugs to further stir up negative sentiment in this debate. This is poor discourse for even an amateur cheap-shot artist. Diane Auer-Jones is a person from a modest working class background who worked her way through college had many lofty aims thwarted by lack of income or finances who blasted through numerous glass ceilings with her hard work and innovative ideas working as a Biology professor at a community college and opening two small businesses none of which a rich spouse or parent shelled out the bucks to support. In the last decade, she has turned her attention to Washington where her meteoric rise is due to her ability to get results and is clearly her own person. For those who think she’s so anti-women, among her accomplishments was setting up science camps for Middle School aged girls to stimulate their interest in science, a field where our nation needs many more brilliant minds where women are under represented.How sad it is that so much of the criticism directed at her has nothing to do with HER positions but simply using her as a whipping post for an agenda critics assume she represents. Her honest pragmatic idealism is pretty hard to take by doctrinaire elistists and harded cynics in a world where Ms. Auer-Jones is a refreshing voice of reform and new bold ideas.How sad it is that a free thinker like Ms. Auer Jones is subjected to such vicious personal attacks by folks who clearly don’t know much about her simply because she questions some policies and ideals of the so called “progressives” those who claim to be the guardians of tolerance and fair play as long as their subjects dare not question any nuance of thier ideology or their beloved leaders. Only people with very weak ideas who can’t stand on their own must find it necessary to attempt to villainize Diane Auer-Jones. They must be scared to death that her ideas are convincing and that her hard work will lead to results above and beyond what she has accomplished so far.
rbannist - February 9, 2010 at 1:52 am
To: #17,seiu615 and others who report knowledge of Ms. Diane Auer-Jones income and social status:Could you please disclose what Ms. Diane Auer Jones’ income is as you’ve noted she is “very very rich” and “The writer has such a high income that she’s ludicrously unaware that a QUARTER-MILLION DOLLARS a year for a family is huge income!!” Was something missed when she applied for her Federal jobs? Did she amass huge wealth during her tenure as a biology professor at a Baltimore County community college? Were the two businesses she started, Holistic Wellness Center and Good N Good For You such blockbuster entrepreneurial successes she was able to convert selling them into huge wealth. She then worked for NSF then the House Science Committee. Those salaries are of public record. Would those be sources of great wealth? From late 2002 to late 2005, she worked for Princeton University as head of Govt. Relations — that probably paid pretty well. From there it was on to OSTP and Dept of Ed. Those salaries are publicly posted and far less than $250 thousand a year. Which leads to her present job as President and CEO at Washington Campus a little over one year. Perhaps now she might be getting into that territory. Her spouse works in an administrative post in the Federal Government. She’s probably made a few extra bucks in speakers’ fees but compared to Hollywood stars, big name athletes, media figures, and elected officials — her fees are probably quite modest. So looking over her resume and biographical information she has shared in speeches and postings where between shoveling snow as a 9th grader for a few bucks living in a modest apartment with one parent, working her way through under grad and grad school often working two or more jobs, and her professional responsibilities hence has she amassed such tremendous wealth? Our research did find that Ms. Auer-Jones did live in “Paradise” but that was a working class row-house community just outside of Baltimore for most of her working life. In this era where full disclosure and sunshine is desirable, perhaps we can find out a little more about this writer’s financial background as it might color her perspective on the tax system.Clearly, Diane Auer Jones is becoming an ever increasingly influential writer and speaker who is gaining a greater following. The accusations against her are far-reaching and harsh. This writer is reporting what his knowledge and research on Ms. Auer-Jones reveals. She is very highly thought of in her community in Baltimore County, among educators who’ve worked with her going back many years, and on the campuses of CCBC, UMBC, and Salisbury.
isugeezer - February 10, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Given that the median income in this country is $40,000, it’s obscene for a person making more than $100,000/year to complain. Poor Diane. WAA WAA WAA.
cragie - February 14, 2010 at 9:48 am
During the 1990s and 2000s there was a bipartisan effort to phase out the so-called “marriage penalty” (in the federal income tax code) even though it had nothing to do with marriage. It was good politics for leaders of both parties to rail against the “marriage penalty” but poor economics. I am sure that many, if not most, politicians understood that the cause of this inadvertent effect was the progressive tax code, not “marriage.” But it simply sounded better to go on TV and say that they were “pro-family.” Most Americans understand the federal tax system well enought to understand that someone earning $40,000 who is fortunate to receive a pay increase of $40,000 is going to be paying well more than double the previous amount of taxes to the IRS. The federal income tax is progressive — not as much as it used to be, but still progressive. Now, let’s instead say that someone earning $40,000 per year marries someone who earns $40,000. They would be paying more tax than before, not because the tax code was anti-marriage, but because the tax code is progressive. Despite Ms. Auer-Jones’ argument, a tax system must assume that a household earning $80,000 per year is capable of handling more taxes than a household earning $40,000 per year. In addition, most costs are reduced. As far as costs that are increases, such as children, the tax code already has many deductions and credits to accommodate this. If Ms. Auer-Jones wants federal child care centers, then she is in the wrong country. In any case, in an example of doing the politically-expedient but fiscally-irresponsible thing, Washington phased out most of the aspects of the so-called “marriage penalty” during the 2000s. It is not clear what else Ms. Auer-Jones wants done.
rbannist - February 21, 2010 at 9:47 am
It’s incredible to see the contempt for hard work and success that many of those who opined negatively against Diane Auer-Jones’ insightful discussion of current plans to raise taxes. Just what is it that people have against success, achievement, and hard work?While surely some in society might deserve higher wages, don’t start the crying for poor teachers, for instance. Teachers with advanced degrees and 20 plus years experience in much of Maryland earn over $80,000 and their starting salary isn’t too bad either. Sadly, the pay system is based on seniority not achievement. Merit pay would address that, wouldn’t it?The sarcasm and contempt for Ms. Auer-Jones and ludicrous arguments that people making over $100,000 to complain is obscene, WAKE UP!!!Talented people who get results are in high demand, are harder to find, and generate more income for their employers — that’s why they make more money.Leave their income in their own hands, it generates more money in the community than letting it be seized by the government where enormous overhead, waste, lack of cost/benefit review and so-so much more brings back very little in actual return.Look at where the money has gone in recent big ticket spending legislation and follow the earmarks. The Republican majority quickly lost that status because the public judged them as out of touch and not watching the budget, and how to the Democrats respond?Instead of clamping down and tightening the belt, it’s been one massive spending orgy!People in all walks of life who actually pay taxes largely pay too much. A tax system that puts the burden of cost closer to those who benefit from the expenditure would certainly make more sense. If a person makes $40,000 a year and the tax rate was 25%, that would be $10,000 a year in taxes. Someone making filthy rich money, $250,000 a year, if the tax rate for that income were 25%, that person would fork over $62,500 a year. That’s one heck of a bigger chunk of change than the poor exploited proletariat! Ah, but now let’s push the tax burden up to 39% and pass out the pillage to more standing in line for government pork!!! Meanwhile, start slicing up just how far $250,000 really goes, and where the person makes that money spends or invests that money, the return to their community quickly becomes obvious. Suppose this person runs a small business. A good portion of that $250,000 might be others’ salaries on which they pay taxes. They might hire people to cut their grass, look after their children, or serve purposes like tuition for private school for their kids. Their income is supporting more taxation for those wage earners as well while at the same time providing work.How many of these people are small business owners? How many of them might have a second dwelling that provides property tax to another community? How many of them give generously charities and other foundations in their community?Look in the mirror you whiners and deal with reality, what you do for a living just isn’t in as high demand or creates the kind of profitability that the market finds you worth making more than you do. If you don’t like it, make the sacrifices, work harder, and get a job that pays more. If you can’t do that, don’t have the talent or motivation, that just furthers the argument that the people who make lots of money have certain gifts that put them in a position to compete for those higher paying jobs.Before you point the finger at this writer as being one of those spoiled rich people, he has never earned more than $50,000 a year after years of making below $40,000.How pathetic and sorry some of you critics must be to show such open contempt for a person like Diane Auer-Jones who has made tremendous sacrifices, contributed significantly, and is pretty darned smart and creative. When it comes to earning money, a person with her ability and ability to get results could be earning far more than she must currently earn as President of a non-profit educational enterprise in corporate America. If she were the greed-freak some of you imply, she’d surely be flocking to one of those places to strike it rich.It’s easier to be jealous and feel contempt for those who are more capable than we are. Just if we love football and know the game inside out, we could never dream of having Peyton Manning’s talent and earn the millions he does. In fact most of us wouldn’t make it through one practice session in the NFL. We’d be hauled off on a stretcher. Somebody like Ms. Auer-Jones probably earns more what a back-up player on special teams earns; however, her example is enough to remind many, their talents and abilities are probably not as great or if they are, they’re not motivated enough or willing to take the risks to pursue a job that pays six or seven figures a year. Rather than ripping a person of considerable talent and accomplishment, that energy would be better directed at examining tose who levy taxes, look where they’re wasting our money, and demand total accountability for every dime of our money they take from us. If you think the so-called rich are your piggybank to tax to death for your special interest little boondoggle all the logic and reason in the world would surely fall on deaf ears. You can be greatful for what you have and live a happy life or see a world of perceived injustice and hate those who are working hard to make the world a better place for all of us.