Do you have any justification for that $50,000 figure or did you just make it up? Every time I've heard Obama talk about increasing taxes, the figure has been 5 times that amount.
I don't know where the $50,000 came from, but the idea that Obama's tax increases will reach way below the stated target income levels is right conceptually for several reasons.
1. If you look at Obama's taxing and spending proposals, the tax changes don't produce enough revenues to support the spending changes, let alone close the deficit. Shutting down Iraq completely provides some savings, but not nearly enough to close the gap. Moreover, the Iraq effect isn't nearly as big as even the raw numbers would suggest because a significant portion of what is now considered Iraq spending (soldiers' salaries, meals, equipment maintenance) wouldn't go away entirely if we brought them home, although some declines (reservists' salaries) would occur. In short, his numbers don't add up. Is he going to tell some special interest to whom he pandered with the promise of a special program that Christmas isn't coming after all, or is he going to redefine the "rich" down to a lower level of income? If the latter, how low? Probably not $50,000; but to get the revenue he needs it's going to be a lot less than five times $50,000. Run the numbers, and two times $50,000 is more realistic.
2. The Obama proposal, like all proposals to tax the "rich," has one fatally flawed assumption. It assumes that those "rich" will respond by saying, "OK, my taxes went up, I'll just live on less." What they do say is, "Obama is raising taxes, where can I put my money to escape them?" What makes this more peverse is that the truly rich can do this and live off their assets, which do not constitute taxable income to them. The people who can't are those that are just getting ahead, who are still trying to pay for their house and their kids' college education and maybe retire a few student loans. Michelle Obama herself admitted this when she talked during the primary campaign about how hard it was for Barack and her to make ends meet and pay off their student loans when they were trying to live on what then would have been abut $250,000 in Chicago. Funny how that same number means "rich" when Barack is talking about other peoples' incomes, but "poor" when Michelle talks about themselves. The tax rate increases will fall short of the projected revenues, because the assumptions regarding investment income won't happen because current levels and types of investment will change in response to tax changes. You see this with capital gains--raise the rates, tax revenues decrease; lower the rates, tax revenues increase--that's the historic pattern.
3. Moving investments away from things that get taxed inevitably means that fewer jobs get created. There's just no other possible result. Those people making $50,000 are right in the crosshairs on this one. The good news is your taxes are lower; the bad news is you don't have a job. Doesn't sound like a win to me. This also means that nationwide taxable income is less, so overall tax revenues are less, so you have to cancel spending programs that were promised to special interests, or you have to redefine "rich" down to a lower level.
4. Consider the case of your doctor. He finds out that tax rates are going up on people in his income bracket. He can go home and tell his wife, "Taxes are going up, so we need to live on less." Or he can fire a nurse. Or he can raise what he charges you when you go to see him. That doesn't really affect you directly, because your insurance pays it. Or maybe insurance just pays up to a certain amount, and you have to pay the rest, so it does affect you. And the insurance company spreads that cost out over everyone, and gets it back in premiums, so in the end everybody pays your doctor's tax increase. And that includes lots of people making less than $50,000. So your doc has three options. One of them has the "rich" paying more taxes. The other two take it out on people in the $50,000 range. Which one do you think he picks?
5. We are in a battle for world economic supremacy. In a world where a single weapon can devastate a huge city, the great powers of the future will be great economic powers rather than great military powers. Having the strongest military in the world is still prudent, as long as we can do so, but it doesn't guarantee success or prosperity. The best thing we can do to make life better for those making $50,000 a year, indeed for everyone, is to win the economic battle. Perot understood this, but I don't think any presidential candidate since has. We are not in a closed system, where the only consideration is taking money from our "rich" to pay our "poor." If we try to take too much from the "rich" they'll choose to be rich elsewhere. If we raise taxes on corporations, and Ireland lowers them, then some corporations are going to locate in Ireland rather than here. If we raise taxes on capital gains and Germany eliminates taxes on capital gains, then some people are going to invest in Germany rather than here. That means Ireland and Germany also get jobs and export sales that we don't, and we get to import things from Ireland and Germany. The same doesn't exactly apply to high income individuals because the US has this policy of taxing on worldwide income, but they can find ways to get income sheltered through offshore corporations. Won't happen in every case, of course, but if it happens in enough cases to cost us 1 or 2 percent growth each year, that will hurt big time over the years.
You got that right. That money would be offshore in a heartbeat ... just like me!