You know, I'm not an economist, so I'm just going to make one comment. Something to think about. The idea that if you don't have money you clearly don't work "smart" is ridiculous. That's what, to me, it sounded like was being said. Think about a school teacher forexample. They make nothing, but work their butt off. They deserve some to be able to feed their kids. My point was that many many doctors will never come close to making enough money to be taxed more. They are the ones who will really struggle to get out of debt, and they will benefit from the extra help.
The school teacher example is age old. One could very well make the argument that being a school teacher isn't "working smart" in many instances. Some districts support school teachers more than others, and teaching is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes over an industry. I am EXACTLY saying that from a financial perspective, working hard and not making enough money to feed yourself is not working smart. People who choose to accept a position for some other purpose than making money are clearly within their right to do so, and I am certainly not saying that making money is the only reason to work. However, none of this justifies a dispropotionate tax on a certain group of people.
My wife is a former teacher. They are often underpaid, but her problem wasn't so much with her paycheck as with the beauracracy she had to put up with to do anything. Teaching pay is actually not horribly dissimilar to what other jobs that require similar training pay. Starting teachers down here in south Florida begin right around $40k/year, which is about average for someone with a bachelors degree. They work hard early in their careers and it gets easier as they move along with often pre-made lesson plans. They often get summers off, as well as most student breaks, and they never lose a weekend unless they choose to create an assignment that requires weekend grading. It is nearly impossible to get fired, the standards to get the job are relatively low, and there is always someone to replace you when you are sick. There is no call, hours at work are less than 40 (Though a lot of work is taken home), and you never miss a holiday. There is no malpractice, you are usually protected by a union, and raises, while small, are promised.
I'm not advocating underpaying teachers, but I will clearly argue that there are vast differences between teachers and physicians. More importantly, these differences do not change the fact that working for less than you are worth is not smart and that social goods shouldn't be funded by selectively attacking a specific successful social class. The fact that the government makes working as a teacher not a smart financial move due to funding is a clear argument that the government doesn't understand money and should pay more for quality. It is not an argument that we should pay more because other people choose to take a job that doesn't pay well.
As another aside, all income based points to set a higher tax rate at are arbitrary and bogus. Every single person in the US with a minimum wage job makes more money than the VAST majority of people on earth. Most of us are overflowing with luxuries that we call necessities. We simply beg for what we need while paying for what we want. I don't know a teacher outside of a few overpriced metros without a car, a cell phone, a place to live that is atleast decent, air in the summer, heat in the winter, and the ability to go out a few times per week. By this argument, we should all feel lucky to do so well and happily turn all of money over to the government for whatever it deems necessary.
