Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Scott Adams writes:

"Before you break out the tiny violins for my hypothetical doctor, allow yourself to imagine that he's got a mountain of college loans, his mortgage is underwater, and he's supporting three grandparents (one on his wife's side) who all need some form of senior care, and the doctor's parents, and his wife's parents, have no spare cash. The doctor's parents might also need help in a few years. Oh, and the doctor has two kids of his own, one of whom needs some sort of special care. That's what the real world looks like for the so-called Sandwich Generation. For this imaginary doctor, any extra tax burden takes money from four generations of his family who needs it and distributes the cash to strangers."

Imagine that instead of a doctor, we are talking about a hard working carpenter who makes about $40,000 a year, and of whom we could say "his mortgage is underwater, and he's supporting three grandparents (one on his wife's side) who all need some form of senior care, and the carpenter's parents, and his wife's parents, have no spare cash. The carpenter's parents might also need help in a few years. Oh, and the carpenter has two kids of his own, one of whom needs some sort of special care."

Why do the woes of the hard-working doctor demand more sympathy than the woes of the hard working carpenter?

"Why do the woes of the hard-working doctor demand more sympathy than the woes of the hard working carpenter?"

If that's what you drew from the article; you've missed the point entirely. The point Adams is making is that a doctor making $250,000 per year has a lot more in common with the $40,000 per year carpenter than he does with the truly rich.

This isn't about having sympathy for the doctor OR the carpenter; it's about understanding that both of them will be significantly hurt by higher taxes. Since no one is talking about increasing taxes on the carpenter, it's fair to question whether we've set the bar of "rich" far too low--or if two categories even make sense.

No I think you've missed the point. The doctor is making far more over the basic rate required to get by than the carpenter. The doctor's cries at night because he can't afford another Mont-Blanc pen and the carpenter can't send his kids to school. You have to understand that the doctor's needs are satisfied, not his wants.

Thanks, I finally see the overarching point, make all doctors become carpenters and all his needs will be satisfied. Problem solved.

Disregarding, for a moment, that you're completely overestimating the value of this hypothetical $250k per year income...

The answer is to punish the doctor? This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched. Why shouldn't people be able to get somewhat ahead? Why is the mentality that we all have to be exactly equal so long as we can lump your income with this mythical middle class?

bcrescimanno, I'm not sure what you are referring to. There was recently an effort made in the USA to allow Bush-era tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year (gross adjusted). Had that gone forward, the doctor making $250,000 and the carpenter making $40,000 would both continue forward without facing an increase in their income tax. Only those people with gross adjusted income in excess of $250,000 who would see an increase in the tax paid on their income in excess of $250,000, although these affluent people would continue to enjoy the Bush era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income they earn.

As it was, pretty much all of the Bush era tax cuts were extended.

As to this:

"This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched."

According to Wikipedia, only the wealthiest 1.5% make in excess of $250,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...

The poorest 98.5% of the USA makes less than $250,000 a year. Are you trying to define a portion of that wealthiest 1.5% as part of the upper middle class? If so, which part? Would you go into the top 1% and define that, too, as part of the upper middle class? Definitions matter, and it would be good if you could be precise.

I would add, my politically active friends are pushing for much higher taxes on the rich. Their focus is not on the poorest 99% of Americans, but the wealthiest 1%. And so, they focus on those making in excess of $350,000. I am curious if you regard that as within the range of the middle class?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com