All For One & One For Only One.

     Perhaps you've read about some of the pissed-off  people here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave who earn more than $250,000.00 per year and intend to scale back their money-making efforts by dropping clients or laying off people because they don't want to pay (marginally) higher taxes. 

     These people live among us:

     A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law...

     "We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

     "We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

     The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

     "This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."  ...

     Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan. 

     "I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."

     Those dopes were in an ABC News report which Jonathan Chait of The New Republic suggests was also written by dopes:

     I've seen a lot of dumb news reports in my life, but I'm not sure anything can quite match this one from ABC News. The premise of the report is this: Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000, so the reporter has gone and found people who earn a little more than that sum who plan to decrease their income so that they come in underneath the magic line.

     Now, the obvious objection here is that the tax code doesn't work that way. A tax increase affects the marginal dollar that a person gains. That's means only every dollar over $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate. Obama is not proposing a tax system whereby somebody who goes from $249,999 to $250,000 suddenly becomes poorer. Nobody has ever enacted a tax hike like that in the history of the United States.

     And here's Newsweek's Daniel Gross, with a lesson in kitchen table economics for the "We're All Socialists Now!" brigade:

     Say you're a CNBC anchor, or a Washington Post columnist with a seat at the Council on Foreign Relations, or a dentist, and you managed to cobble together $350,000 a year in income. You're doing quite well. If you subtract deductions for state and property taxes, mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and other deductions, the amount on which tax rates are calculated might total $300,000. What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you'd pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you'd pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise? That dentist eager to slash her income from $320,000 to $250,000 would avoid the pain of paying an extra $2,100 in federal taxes. But she'd also deprive herself of an additional $70,000 in income! 

     Aren't the people with money supposed to be good with money?

     Thanks to Jason Linkins of HuffPo for the heads-up. Read Gross's Newsweek piece here.