Isn’t it odd how women can look good in an outfit consisting of a black top and gray pants, but men look terrible in the same outfit ensemble?

With the presidential election in full swing, and the candidates finally whittled down to approximately two, the campaign promises/lies have begun to flow out of the candidates mouths like water from a fire hydrant. While the candidates from each party will promise a number of things, there is really only one thing that we can know for certain: Obama will raise taxes for the “rich.”

He may raise them for the middle class too (though he claims he won’t). McCain may raise taxes on the “rich” too. It’s hard to tell how they’ll really select Supreme Court judges, handle the troops in Iraq, or handle homeland security. But at least we can feel comfort in knowing that, no matter what other promises are fulfilled or ignored, if Obama wins, he will raise taxes on the “rich”.

Of course that isn’t much comfort for many of us. After all, Obama’s definition of “rich” is rather broad. He defines “rich” as earning more than $200,000 per year. I would tend to scoff at this definition, as someone making $200,000 is hardly partying during the summer at his 2nd home in the Hamptons where he goes each weekend by his private jet. Indeed, while this income might seem somewhat “rich” if living in rural Iowa, for someone living in a major metropolitan area such as San Francisco or New York City, this is barely above the minimum the cost of living. But I’ll get to this objection more later.

Obama claims that the tax will only effect the top 1% of wage earners, and while I don’t know much about income demographics, I find that somewhat surprising, given how many people are living in major metropolitan areas and are making at least this amount. But he believes that by raising taxes on this small number of people, he will be able to decrease taxes for people who make less than $50,000 per year.

Exactly how much Obama intends to raise taxes is complicated, because there are a number of different taxes he wants to increase. He wants a drastic increase in the capital gains and dividend taxes. He is also for increasing the amount of income social security tax is paid on (i.e. more than just your first $93k of income). And then there’s the overall federal income tax rate, which he also wants to increase for the “rich”. In essence, he intends to raise taxes on the “rich” any way he can.

And of course, this won’t hurt his votes very much. A large number, and probably a majority, of the “rich”, particularly those who earned their money through their own hard work, and thus, do not feel shameful for the money they have, are republicans. He’s not getting those votes anyway. Most of the remainder are the liberal rich, who apparently don’t care to give to charity themselves and would rather the government do it for them through taxes. And for any others, this is just some small fraction of 1% (according to his statistics). Surely he can afford to lose those voters while pleasing the other 99%, who he can claim will pay the same or less taxes. Isn’t politics great?

But surely politicians shouldn’t just take action because it only adversely effects a small percentage of people. After all, if that was an okay way to govern, then slavery would still be legal. Yet, this seems to be exactly what Obama is doing: he is alienating a very small minority of Americans – in this case those who he considers “rich,” instead of those who were black, like with slavery. Imagine if he said the same about some other minority group – imagine if he were to say, “Well, there aren’t that many Mormons in the nation. Let’s just raise their taxes and lower it for everyone else.” Clearly people would be outraged. But since it’s the “rich,” very few Americans, particularly very few liberals, really care.

Let me try to explain why the suggestion of his to raise taxes on the “rich” and lower those of the poor is so morally repugnant. Imagine an analogy, if you will, and see if your intuition provides the same conclusion. There are two twins. They are teenagers. One chooses to fold t-shirts at the Gap for 10 hours per week after school and earns $5 per hour. Another chooses to work a bit harder and mow lawns after school and earns $10 per hour for his 10 hours. Since working at the Gap is a pretty cushy job where you hang out in the mall all day with air conditioning and get an employee discount, it pays less than mowing lawns, which none of the kids want to do, because it involves manual labor. Thus, the second twin earns twice as much money each week as the first. Now imagine that their mother tells that second twin that he must give the first twin a portion of that money, because he earns more, and it is only fair. How would you feel about that if you were working hard, mowing lawns earning your money?

To make the example even more drastic, imagine that they both earned the same hourly wage, but that the second son worked 20 hours per week, while the first son only worked 10. And then imagine that the mother said that the second son still had to give the first son additional money in order to make things more equal, since his total wage is far more than his brother’s. Now imagine Obama as the parent, the second son as someone with an intense job that pays very well because of its intense 60-hour work weeks, and the first son a regular minimum-wage worker as a 40-hour per week waiter in a restaurant.

The analogy holds exactly as to Obama’s reality. Because the guy with the higher paying job (assuming he makes more than $200k) is going to end up paying far more taxes than the minimum wage worker, despite the fact that he worked more hours to get it. And let’s not even get into the argument of the fact that he might have gone to an expensive college to allow him to get a degree that got him the intense job, and he’s still paying back tens of thousands of dollars of college loans, while the waiter didn’t go to college at all and has no debt to pay off.

It really isn’t fair to discriminate against someone just because they make more money. Now if someone got money in an unfair manner, like stealing or cheating, then by all means, take that money away. But if you have a hard working person who takes his/her career very seriously and got to a level where s/he is considered a “high wage earner” by Mr. Obama, why is s/he being penalized?

Clearly Mr. Obama believes it okay because the higher wager earners “can afford it”. But does that really make it okay? Isn’t that a little like telling a woman who has 5 kids that she has to give one of her kids to a couple that can’t conceive because she already has plenty of kids and can afford to lose one?

But what makes this idea more ludicrous is that it doesn’t differentiate for different costs of living. If you’ve got someone living in San Francisco making $200,000 having their taxes raised so someone living in rural South Dakota making $50,000 can have his taxes lowered, that seems bizarre. The person with the $50,000 salary in South Dakota probably has approximately the same, or even a higher standard of living, because the costs are so much lower there than in San Francisco. If Obama really wants to raise taxes on high wage earners, he should at least normalize salaries based on cost of living. Otherwise, you can end up with these kinds of bizarre disparities.

Finally, is there any theoretical reason why a higher wage earner should be taxed at a higher rate than a lower wage earner? If you have two guys, one of whom makes $200k per year, and another who makes $40k per year, does it make any sense that the first would “owe” more money to the government each year than the other? Of course not. They are both individual U.S. citizens, so each theoretically “cost” the government the same amount for the services it provides such as making roads, providing for national defense, etc. Yet, not only does the higher wage earner pay a greater nominal amount if the tax rates are based on a percentage, but the bracket system makes even that percentage higher as well!

While I object to how Mr. Obama defines the category of “rich” to begin with, I have far greater an objection to the idea of raising the taxes of higher wage earners to lower the taxes of lower wage earners. It is a bizarre suggestion, with a multitude of objections that are hard to ignore. Yet, a frighteningly large proportion of people out there actually love the idea. It’s kind of scary, not only from the standpoint of a higher wage earner, but from someone who understands economics and how such a thoroughly terrible idea can cause even greater havoc to our already fragile economy’s current state.

April 18, 2008, 8:00pm

Cuisine: Italian (New)
Price Point: $$ Relatively Inexpensive

Website: N/A
Citysearch
Open Table

Gonzo is located on a quiet street in the West Village, where one would hardly believe that a restaurant of substance could be found. Yet, this is the West Village, and Gonzo reminds us of just that.

Through the rather inconspicuous entrance, Gonzo unfolds as a rather conspicuous space. While not haughty by any stretch of the imagination, the ambiance could hardly be called bland. I would describe the décor as having a “new Tuscan” feel. The restaurant has a very warm, well-kept, yet rustic feel.

The food mirrors this ambiance. While rejecting a cuisine that might be over-the-top, or trying too hard, Gonzo provides a subtle, yet delicious offering of appetizers, entrees, and desserts. We started with a wonderful selection of antipasta, including a variety of Italian cheeses and meats.

Reading other reviews, I quickly learned that Gonzo is somewhat known for its personal pizzas. So this is the entrée I chose, ordering up a mixed mushroom pizza. Unfortunately, I found the pizza less than the hype which it received online. While a good pizza, I found it only marginally better than what one might find at the California Pizza Kitchen. However, I believe that this experience is more a product of choosing the wrong entrée than choosing the wrong restaurant. Everyone else who I was with that night absolutely loved the food, and got, what seemed to be, far more delicious entrees.

And I was a bit more pleased with the desserts. I tried a number, and they were all quite good. While the wine list was only moderately adequate for an Italian restaurant, for a nice, above average neighborhood spot, it served perfectly well.

Conclusion

While some might criticize Gonzo for not blowing them away, I would argue that Gonzo probably never intended to. It serves its purpose well: It is a cute neighborhood restaurant with very good food and character to boot. While I wouldn’t call it a “must try”, I would say that, if you are in the neighborhood, and looking for a solid meal, you won’t be disappointed with Gonzo.

Ratings:

Food Quality: 7
Food Creativity: 7
Wine List: 6
Specialty Drinks: N/A
Service: 5
Ambiance: 7
Décor: 7
Overall Score: 7