Two incomes

As long ago as April of 2008, both leading Democratic presidential candidates had defined "the rich" as households earning more than $250,000.

In a televised debate on April 16, both candidates promised not to raise taxes on anyone but high-income taxpayers.

Bought beer, gasoline or cigarettes, lately?

But more to the point, here we have the beginnings of today's move to close government budget gaps by further "taxing the rich," with "the rich" defined as households earning more than $250,000.

Examining 2005 Census data about such household reveals some interesting patterns.

The typical number of wage-earners in the bottom fifth of households -- those earning less than $18,500 -- is none: They're on welfare.

Households in the second and third fifth of the income spectrum -- earning $18,500 to $55,300 -- tend to have a single wage-earner.

But households in the "wealthiest" 40 percent of American households -- households that enjoy incomes of $55,300 and up -- tend to contain two wage earners. Seventy-three percent of these households consist of married couples, while among the top 5 percent of American income-earners -- households earning more than $157,100 -- more than 85 percent are married couples.

On the other hand, down at the bottom end of the earning spectrum -- households earning less than $18,500 -- only 19 percent are married couples. And even in the group earning $18,500 to $34,700, only 39 percent are married couples.

These numbers should provide one piece of valuable information to those who stand in opposition to the Marxist doctrine that it's perfectly just and moral to covet -- heck, to seize under threat of force -- "as much as necessary" from "the rich" in order to finance every opportunist political scheme the kleptocrats on the Potomac can dream up.

The people who Barack Obama and Harry Reid and the Democrats now want to punish are those who have gotten ahead by getting and staying married.

Now, any economist can tell you that what you reward you get more of, while behaviors that are punished grow more scarce. Do we really want to send a message to the next generation of Americans that should you decide to get a good education, get married, both find good-paying jobs, work hard, save money, and invest in the stocks and bonds of companies that build factories and create jobs, the almighty state will insist that more and more of your hard-earned wages and savings must be seized, because after all, "You're rich," and the rich have more than they deserve? Has no one thought where such a further attack on married "two-income" families -- already carrying the bulk of our tax load -- could lead?