The other day I posted this anout CEO pay.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9077938According to the AFL-CIO, in 2009, the average American worker made a little over $32K. In a one income household, that's not much at all. In a two income household, we'd be talking $64K, whioh would work for a family of four in my part of the world, but would leave the same family in dire straights in New York, DC, Boston, the Bay Area, or LA.
That lead me to think about the upcoming debate over the Bush tax cuts. I have no problem extending cuts, or cutting further for families with incomes $75K or less. To me, the argument gets into where the upper end line should be drawn. Put more simply -- when are you actually wealthy?
For example, is a two income household with $250K in income wealthy? In Omaha, the answer would be "yes", but I suspect in a lot of those urban centers I mentioned above, you have double income homes with two professionals, and they would argue that they are middle class.
At the other extreme are CEOs and hedge fund managers making in excess of 2000-3000 times what the average worker makes. I can't see how raising the top median rates on these earners constitutes grevious injury. Is there any substantive difference, for example, in earning $20M after tax than earning $30M after tax?
So my question today is whose tax cuts should expire? Should the whole thing be allowed to end? Should we extend for the middle class, and where do we draw that line? Should we look at redrawing the current tax tiers that were brought to us by Reagan?