Obama's Budget Request Endorses the Glass Ceiling

[Nikki Stone1]

From the esteemed Chronicle of Higher Education

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Obamas-Budget-Request/21030/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

February 3, 2010, 10:00 AM ET
Obama's Budget Request Endorses the Glass Ceiling
By Diane Auer Jones

...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....

[frazzled]

1. Oh, my heart is bleeding

As a feminist, this argument fails to impress me in the least. Sometimes it is the woman in a couple who earns more, so combined incomes of $250K or more are neutral with respect to gender. You might as well say this is discriminatory to gay marriages, where two incomes can exceed $250K. (To my gay friends: if you worry about taxes this much, reconsider getting married.)

In the end, single family units earning more than $250,000, no matter how those earnings are apportioned, should be contributing a higher percentage of taxes. Period.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Mine isn't. I think Stupak and Nelson have proved that this White House doesn't like women

and while this may seem like a financial argument to you, I think there's more to it.

[frazzled]

10. Oh yes, we know how concerned about women Stupak and Nelson are!

They want to dictate to women what they can do with their own bodies. Epic fail here in trying to advocate for the OP's argument.

[Nikki Stone1]

3. And BTW, 50K is an experienced schoolteacher's salary

Just sayin.

[RoyGBiv]

4. Well said ...

This piece is written from an anti-feminist perspective from the beginning, implying that "women" are the equivalent of the "second" income earners.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Agreed, it's a dumb arguement. If a woman feels that her high-income earnings are being unfairly

taxed when added to her husband's, then she could always file as 'married filing separately' and pay the same amount that I do as a single filer.

[DevonRex]

7. But, but, but...

:rofl:

Great point.

[gcomeau]

6. Oh what a load of complete bullshit.

It is a simple, plain, "if you make more than $250,000 a year combined you have higher goddamn taxes" criteria. There is absolutely not one single fucking thing about it that has anything to do with gender biases.

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....

That's the stupidest thing I've read on the forums in a week, and ther is some incredibly stupid shit posted in these forums.

If you make more, you get taxed more. Period. That's all. It doesn't matter if you're male or female. it doesn't matter if it's the husband or the wife who is the higher income earner.

MORE INCOME = MORE TAXES. FOR EVERY-FUCKING-ONE.

It's that simple. And articles like this one trying to pretend it is anything else just to avoid rich people having to pay higher taxes pisses me off no end.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. People, look who wrote this steaming pile! Diane Auer Jones of the G.W. Bush administration.

http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/05/05222007a.html


President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate Diane Auer Jones to serve as Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education. The White House today released the following statement:

The President intends to nominate Diane Auer Jones, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the Department of Education. Ms. Jones currently serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary Education at the Department of Education. Prior to this, she served as Deputy to the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. Previously, she served as Director of the Office of Government Affairs at Princeton University. Earlier in her career, she served as Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education at the National Science Foundation and as an Associate Professor at the Community College of Baltimore County. Additionally, Ms. Jones is the former Chair of the Intellectual Property Working Group within the Council on Federal Relations for the Association of American Universities. Ms. Jones received her bachelor's degree from Salisbury State University and her master's degree from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

[DevonRex]

9. OMG. Somebody brought Bush bullshit here to trash Obama?

I wish I could say I'm shocked.