Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Mark Warner is Unsure Who's Rich

Tim Craig

Democratic Senate candidate Mark R. Warner, who is worth an estimated $200 million, isn't sure how he defines "wealthy" when it comes raising taxes.

In his debate yesterday with Republican James S. Gilmore III, Warner said he supports rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Warner, who wants new revenue to reduce the deficit and invest in "infrastructure," has staked out a position similar to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Gilmore is opposed to all tax increases.

Obama's plans calls for higher taxes on couples who earn more than $250,000. When asked after the debate who he considers to be rich, Warner couldn't give an answer. But he said he thinks Obama's $250,000 a year threshold is too low.

"I think $250,000 may be a bit low because for one or two income earning households in Northern Virginia that seems too low, but that is one of the things we will work through," Warner said.

By Tim Craig  |  September 19, 2008; 1:08 PM ET
Categories:  Election 2008/U.S. Senate , Mark Warner , Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Webb Named One of Most Influential People
Next: Gilmore Suspends His Communications Director


Even if it is a two-income houshold, at $250,000 income the household is doing nicely.

And if that household is living paycheck-to-paycheck due to a large mortgage, it is because they choose to do so, not because they have to do so. Plus, Uncle Sam is subsidizing that mortgage nicely through itemized tax deductions for the interest paid on it.

To me, $250,000 is hardly "too low." What the percentage tax increase will be at $250,000 compared to what it will be at $2,500,000 is another matter.

Posted by: NoVA | September 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company