One doesn't have to be rich to oppose taxes for the rich. Even if those higher taxes would somehow benefit you through a reduction in your taxes. You can disagree with an increase in taxes in principle. For instance, I don't think more taxation is necessary in any income group. How about reducing military or social insurance spending? Problems abound, but the point is, it's not totally outrageous to oppose taxes for the rich even if you only make an average income.
of course not -- but the subject was Joe the Plumber. He certainly framed his question as one of self-interest rather than one of principle, so the question of misunderstanding ones self interest is applicable.
""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?""
The answer to his question is A.) No, you're not buying that company. And B.) Yes, each dollar you made above 250K would be taxed at a 3% higher rate than normal, if you did. So $3,000 per $100,000.
Misunderstandings abound about economics. It does not mean all opinions flow from misunderstandings, but many are colored by them. Most people (regardless of their opinion on taxes and spending) do not realize that federal revenues as a percent of GDP are at 20 year lows. Which is not surprising, as taxes have been cut systematically over the years.
Yet people generally "feel" like the federal gov't is taking in more than ever as a percentage.
I now see why my post got downvotes. I was unaware that JtP as a specific situation was about mistaken self-interest (originally I thought it was solely about generic blue-collar appeal for McCain/Palin).
The problem isn't that he's supporting cuts for someone in a different bracket, it's that his own reasoning has him in the bracket which he's not in. He's opposing tax laws that don't directly affect him based on the misunderstanding that they do directly affect him.
