Bend over here it comes again

[Skull Pilot]

Democrats want to impose "surtax" to finance health care - WSJ.com

Jason Furman owes an apology to Michael Boskin, the Stanford economist who wrote a year ago on these pages that Barack Obama would raise American income tax rates nearly to 60%. Mr. Furman, then in the Obama campaign and now at the White House, claimed this was wrong and that Democrats would merely raise taxes back to their Clinton-era level.

House Democrats are now proving that Mr. Boskin had it right, and before it's over even he may have underestimated how high taxes will go. In the middle of a recession and with rising unemployment, Democrats have been letting it leak that they want to raise U.S. tax rates higher than they've been in nearly 30 years in order to finance government health care.

Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate.

In addition, many more smaller business owners with lower profits would be hit by the Rangel plan's payroll tax surcharge. That surcharge would apply to all firms with 25 or more workers that don't offer health insurance to their employees, and it would amount to an astonishing eight percentage point fee above the current 15% payroll levy.

that's more than a 50% increase!!!

And this from that no good tax cheat Rangel

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/09/tax-cheat-rangel-caught-on-tape-why-dont-you-mind-your-goddamned-business/

Here's the ugly income-tax math. First, Mr. Obama has promised to let the lower Bush tax rates expire after 2010. This would raise the top personal income tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and the next rate to 36% from 33%. The Bush expiration would also phase out various tax deductions and exemptions, bringing the top marginal rate to as high as 41%.

Then add the Rangel Surtax of one percentage point, starting at $280,000 ($350,000 for couples), plus another percentage point at $400,000 ($500,000 for couples), rising to three points on more than $800,000 ($1 million) in 2011. But wait, there's more. The surcharge could rise by two more percentage points in 2013 if health-care costs are larger than advertised -- which is a near-certainty. Add all of this up and the top marginal tax rate would climb to 46%, which hasn't been seen in the U.S. since the Reagan tax reform of 1986 cut the top rate to 28% from 50%.

States have also been raising their income tax rates, so in California and New York City the top rate would be around 58%. The Tax Foundation reports that at least half of all states would have combined state-federal tax rates of more than 50%.

Mr. Rangel also wants to apply his surcharges to investment income like capital gains. So the combined effect of repealing the Bush tax cuts and the new surcharges would be to raise the tax on stock appreciation by at least 60% -- to as high as 24% from 15% today. President Obama has been worrying about a capital squeeze on small businesses, but raising the capital gains tax would only further starve them of funds.

Democrats claim these tax increases on the rich won't do any economic harm.They should read the work of Christina Romer before she became chief White House economist. Ms. Romer and her husband, David Romer, a Berkeley economist, have published multiple studies on the impact of tax policy changes over the past 100 years. One of their findings is that "tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output." In other words, tax hikes are an antistimulus.

Another implication of the Rangel plan is that America's successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and for that matter than most companies around the world. The corporate federal-state tax rate applied to General Electric and Google is about 39% in the U.S., and the business tax rate is about 25% in the OECD countries. So the U.S. would have close to the most punitive taxes on small business income anywhere on the globe.

Mr. Rangel and House Democrats are also banking on the idea that raising tax rates by 20% will raise 20% more tax revenue, but that's like telling Wal-Mart it can raise prices by 20% and get 20% more profit. When taxes on the rich rise, their reported income tends to decline. The last time the top federal income tax rate was 50%, the richest 1% paid only about 25% of all income taxes. Today, at a 35% rate they pay nearly 40%.

A new study by the Kaufman Foundation finds that small business entrepreneurs have led America out of its last seven post-World War II recessions. They also generate about two of every three new jobs during a recovery. The more the Obama Democrats reveal of their policies, the more it's clear that they prize income redistribution above all else, including job creation and economic growth.

Be prepared to be in this recession for another ten years.

Here's a little real world arithmetic for you courtesy of:

http://www.michaelgraham.com/post/2009/07/15/How-Does-It-Feel-To-Be-Rich.aspx

You’re a small business owner who has somehow managed, in this terrible economy, to earn a whopping $300,000 in income. In other words, you’re one of the elite “rich!”


And as a reward for this hard work, here’s what President Obama wants to do for you.


First, he wants to raise your Social Security taxes, which are currently charged on only the first $110,000 or so of your income. Your new SS/payroll tax under the Obama plan: At least $24,000, right off the top. No deductions, no adjustments—just pay up.


Now it’s time to figure up your income tax and, thanks to President Obama and congressional Democrats, you’ll be paying a federal tax rate of 39.6%, which will cost you $118,800. How does it feel to be livin’ large?


But wait—there’s more! In order for Barack Obama to “save” all that money by reforming health care, he’s going to need $1 trillion in new taxes. Your share is a 1% surtax, or a modest $3,000. (Don’t complain—some folks will pay a 5.4% surtax at a minimum cost of $54,000. You’re not paying that…yet.)


Your federal payroll/income tax “Obama magic” tab? A mere $145,800.


That leaves you with a richie-rich take home pay of a whopping $154,200! Whoo Hoo!


And you know what you get to do with that? Pay your Massachusetts income tax of $15,900! (Not to mention property or sales taxes.)

Just have your limo driver drop it off at Deval’s place on your way to the Cape. After all, with $139,000 burning a hole in your pocket, you’re probably off to Nantucket every weekend!

Now riddle me this.

Why if all a small business owner who actually creats jobs and deals with the everyday stresses of running and owning a business, not to mention the financial risks and legal hassles who can earn 300K a year continue to do so if all he is going to take home is 139K

Shit he can probably get that in a 9 to 5 punch the clock 2 coffee break, hour lunch breaks, no working weekends holidays or nights job that doesn't create jobs for other people?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Not thinking that Democrats won't raise taxes is like thinking water would never run down hill. The only question is "How much?" You don't think all of this crap Obama is trying to do is going to be free do you? Do you really believe that "taxing the rich" will really pay for this? If you do, you have another think coming. Standby middle class. Prepare to get out those checkbooks! Get ready for a National Sales Tax.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not thinking that Democrats won't raise taxes is like thinking water would never run down hill. The only question is "How much?" You don't think all of this crap Obama is trying to do is going to be free do you? Do you really believe that "taxing the rich" will really pay for this? If you do, you have another think coming. Standby middle class. Prepare to get out those checkbooks! Get ready for a National Sales Tax.

don't forget higher taxes on bad for you foods, gas, home heating oil, electricity, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum

 

[sealybobo]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

 

[sealybobo]

Not thinking that that Republicans would double the debt is like thinking water won't run down hill. The only question is "How much?" You don't think all of this crap Bush was trying to do was going to be free did you? Did you think Iraq would be free? Standby middle class. Prepare to pay for what Bush did. And keep in mind what Bush did didn't work. Get ready for a National Sales Tax.

Exactly.

 

[auditor0007]

Democrats want to impose "surtax" to finance health care - WSJ.com

Jason Furman owes an apology to Michael Boskin, the Stanford economist who wrote a year ago on these pages that Barack Obama would raise American income tax rates nearly to 60%. Mr. Furman, then in the Obama campaign and now at the White House, claimed this was wrong and that Democrats would merely raise taxes back to their Clinton-era level.

House Democrats are now proving that Mr. Boskin had it right, and before it's over even he may have underestimated how high taxes will go. In the middle of a recession and with rising unemployment, Democrats have been letting it leak that they want to raise U.S. tax rates higher than they've been in nearly 30 years in order to finance government health care.

Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate.

In addition, many more smaller business owners with lower profits would be hit by the Rangel plan's payroll tax surcharge. That surcharge would apply to all firms with 25 or more workers that don't offer health insurance to their employees, and it would amount to an astonishing eight percentage point fee above the current 15% payroll levy.

that's more than a 50% increase!!!

And this from that no good tax cheat Rangel

Michelle Malkin » Tax cheat Rangel caught on tape: “Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?”

Here's the ugly income-tax math. First, Mr. Obama has promised to let the lower Bush tax rates expire after 2010. This would raise the top personal income tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and the next rate to 36% from 33%. The Bush expiration would also phase out various tax deductions and exemptions, bringing the top marginal rate to as high as 41%.

Then add the Rangel Surtax of one percentage point, starting at $280,000 ($350,000 for couples), plus another percentage point at $400,000 ($500,000 for couples), rising to three points on more than $800,000 ($1 million) in 2011. But wait, there's more. The surcharge could rise by two more percentage points in 2013 if health-care costs are larger than advertised -- which is a near-certainty. Add all of this up and the top marginal tax rate would climb to 46%, which hasn't been seen in the U.S. since the Reagan tax reform of 1986 cut the top rate to 28% from 50%.

States have also been raising their income tax rates, so in California and New York City the top rate would be around 58%. The Tax Foundation reports that at least half of all states would have combined state-federal tax rates of more than 50%.

Mr. Rangel also wants to apply his surcharges to investment income like capital gains. So the combined effect of repealing the Bush tax cuts and the new surcharges would be to raise the tax on stock appreciation by at least 60% -- to as high as 24% from 15% today. President Obama has been worrying about a capital squeeze on small businesses, but raising the capital gains tax would only further starve them of funds.

Democrats claim these tax increases on the rich won't do any economic harm.They should read the work of Christina Romer before she became chief White House economist. Ms. Romer and her husband, David Romer, a Berkeley economist, have published multiple studies on the impact of tax policy changes over the past 100 years. One of their findings is that "tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output." In other words, tax hikes are an antistimulus.

Another implication of the Rangel plan is that America's successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and for that matter than most companies around the world. The corporate federal-state tax rate applied to General Electric and Google is about 39% in the U.S., and the business tax rate is about 25% in the OECD countries. So the U.S. would have close to the most punitive taxes on small business income anywhere on the globe.

Mr. Rangel and House Democrats are also banking on the idea that raising tax rates by 20% will raise 20% more tax revenue, but that's like telling Wal-Mart it can raise prices by 20% and get 20% more profit. When taxes on the rich rise, their reported income tends to decline. The last time the top federal income tax rate was 50%, the richest 1% paid only about 25% of all income taxes. Today, at a 35% rate they pay nearly 40%.

A new study by the Kaufman Foundation finds that small business entrepreneurs have led America out of its last seven post-World War II recessions. They also generate about two of every three new jobs during a recovery. The more the Obama Democrats reveal of their policies, the more it's clear that they prize income redistribution above all else, including job creation and economic growth.

Be prepared to be in this recession for another ten years.

Here's a little real world arithmetic for you courtesy of:

The Natural Truth | How Does It Feel To Be Rich?

You’re a small business owner who has somehow managed, in this terrible economy, to earn a whopping $300,000 in income. In other words, you’re one of the elite “rich!”


And as a reward for this hard work, here’s what President Obama wants to do for you.


First, he wants to raise your Social Security taxes, which are currently charged on only the first $110,000 or so of your income. Your new SS/payroll tax under the Obama plan: At least $24,000, right off the top. No deductions, no adjustments—just pay up.


Now it’s time to figure up your income tax and, thanks to President Obama and congressional Democrats, you’ll be paying a federal tax rate of 39.6%, which will cost you $118,800. How does it feel to be livin’ large?


But wait—there’s more! In order for Barack Obama to “save” all that money by reforming health care, he’s going to need $1 trillion in new taxes. Your share is a 1% surtax, or a modest $3,000. (Don’t complain—some folks will pay a 5.4% surtax at a minimum cost of $54,000. You’re not paying that…yet.)


Your federal payroll/income tax “Obama magic” tab? A mere $145,800.


That leaves you with a richie-rich take home pay of a whopping $154,200! Whoo Hoo!


And you know what you get to do with that? Pay your Massachusetts income tax of $15,900! (Not to mention property or sales taxes.)

Just have your limo driver drop it off at Deval’s place on your way to the Cape. After all, with $139,000 burning a hole in your pocket, you’re probably off to Nantucket every weekend!

Now riddle me this.

Why if all a small business owner who actually creats jobs and deals with the everyday stresses of running and owning a business, not to mention the financial risks and legal hassles who can earn 300K a year continue to do so if all he is going to take home is 139K

Shit he can probably get that in a 9 to 5 punch the clock 2 coffee break, hour lunch breaks, no working weekends holidays or nights job that doesn't create jobs for other people?

While we need healthcare change, the cost of that should not be placed soley on the wealthy. Employer plans should be shared cost plans where the employee must pay a share, and I believe that share should be half if you are going to make employers responsible for the health of their employees.

What irritates me is that those of you who argue against any change are always lying to everyone. You state that someone earning $300,000 will pay $118,800 in income tax. This is not correct, nor is it even close to being correct. Tax rates are progressive, and the higher rates are only charged against income over certain levels while the lower levels of income are charged at a lower rate. Someone earning $300,000 per year will most likely pay a total rate of around 27%, not the full 39.6% that you state. And for those who are self-employed, there are many ways to hide a great deal of income. You can purchase a very expensive car and only be taxed for personal use of the vehicle at the much lower mileage rate.

I just hate when people outright lie when trying to make their points. And what we all know is that higher rates don't mean greater revenue from those earning the most. In the end, it is those in the middle who can't find all of the write-offs who end up paying the most in the end as their real rates jump.

 

[Bern80]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

 

[sealybobo]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

Is taxing the wealthy over 50% realistic Bern?

Isn't he the one that 2 years ago suggested we bring back the draft?

You must not know Charlie Rangle operates.

But expect taxes to go up Bern. You want to fight two wars and get tax breaks? And you wonder why we can't afford anything?

Yes, taxing the rich and cutting out waste will solve a lot of our problems.

 

[driveby]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

Sealy is the dems house slave, any logical pov will fall on deaf ears ..........

 

[Meister]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

These are the words of a full blown socialist. Thanks Bobo

 

[sealybobo]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

Sealy is the dems house slave, any logical pov will fall on deaf ears ..........

Want to bet they don't raise rich people's taxes 50%?

So then you are crying for nothing. You are exxaggerating. On purpose or not, I don't know.

 

[sealybobo]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

These are the words of a full blown socialist. Thanks Bobo

Hey, Democrats socialize the profits and the losses. Republicans socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

You get fucked when the GOP does that, Didn't you know brainwashed fool?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Democrats want to impose "surtax" to finance health care - WSJ.com

Jason Furman owes an apology to Michael Boskin, the Stanford economist who wrote a year ago on these pages that Barack Obama would raise American income tax rates nearly to 60%. Mr. Furman, then in the Obama campaign and now at the White House, claimed this was wrong and that Democrats would merely raise taxes back to their Clinton-era level.

House Democrats are now proving that Mr. Boskin had it right, and before it's over even he may have underestimated how high taxes will go. In the middle of a recession and with rising unemployment, Democrats have been letting it leak that they want to raise U.S. tax rates higher than they've been in nearly 30 years in order to finance government health care.

Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate.

In addition, many more smaller business owners with lower profits would be hit by the Rangel plan's payroll tax surcharge. That surcharge would apply to all firms with 25 or more workers that don't offer health insurance to their employees, and it would amount to an astonishing eight percentage point fee above the current 15% payroll levy.

that's more than a 50% increase!!!

And this from that no good tax cheat Rangel

Michelle Malkin » Tax cheat Rangel caught on tape: “Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?”




Be prepared to be in this recession for another ten years.

Here's a little real world arithmetic for you courtesy of:

The Natural Truth | How Does It Feel To Be Rich?

You’re a small business owner who has somehow managed, in this terrible economy, to earn a whopping $300,000 in income. In other words, you’re one of the elite “rich!”


And as a reward for this hard work, here’s what President Obama wants to do for you.


First, he wants to raise your Social Security taxes, which are currently charged on only the first $110,000 or so of your income. Your new SS/payroll tax under the Obama plan: At least $24,000, right off the top. No deductions, no adjustments—just pay up.


Now it’s time to figure up your income tax and, thanks to President Obama and congressional Democrats, you’ll be paying a federal tax rate of 39.6%, which will cost you $118,800. How does it feel to be livin’ large?


But wait—there’s more! In order for Barack Obama to “save” all that money by reforming health care, he’s going to need $1 trillion in new taxes. Your share is a 1% surtax, or a modest $3,000. (Don’t complain—some folks will pay a 5.4% surtax at a minimum cost of $54,000. You’re not paying that…yet.)


Your federal payroll/income tax “Obama magic” tab? A mere $145,800.


That leaves you with a richie-rich take home pay of a whopping $154,200! Whoo Hoo!


And you know what you get to do with that? Pay your Massachusetts income tax of $15,900! (Not to mention property or sales taxes.)

Just have your limo driver drop it off at Deval’s place on your way to the Cape. After all, with $139,000 burning a hole in your pocket, you’re probably off to Nantucket every weekend!

Now riddle me this.

Why if all a small business owner who actually creats jobs and deals with the everyday stresses of running and owning a business, not to mention the financial risks and legal hassles who can earn 300K a year continue to do so if all he is going to take home is 139K

Shit he can probably get that in a 9 to 5 punch the clock 2 coffee break, hour lunch breaks, no working weekends holidays or nights job that doesn't create jobs for other people?

While we need healthcare change, the cost of that should not be placed soley on the wealthy. Employer plans should be shared cost plans where the employee must pay a share, and I believe that share should be half if you are going to make employers responsible for the health of their employees.

What irritates me is that those of you who argue against any change are always lying to everyone. You state that someone earning $300,000 will pay $118,800 in income tax. This is not correct, nor is it even close to being correct. Tax rates are progressive, and the higher rates are only charged against income over certain levels while the lower levels of income are charged at a lower rate. Someone earning $300,000 per year will most likely pay a total rate of around 27%, not the full 39.6% that you state. And for those who are self-employed, there are many ways to hide a great deal of income. You can purchase a very expensive car and only be taxed for personal use of the vehicle at the much lower mileage rate.

I just hate when people outright lie when trying to make their points. And what we all know is that higher rates don't mean greater revenue from those earning the most. In the end, it is those in the middle who can't find all of the write-offs who end up paying the most in the end as their real rates jump.

Only about 1/3 of the cost of this estimated $1.5 trillion plan will be paid by the tax increase on high income Americans and nearly half the cost is still unfunded even after the reduction in money for Medicaid is added to the expected revenues from this tax. The reduction of money for Medicare is irrelevant since Medicare is funded by a dedicated payroll tax that cannot be used to fund this health care bill. So it is a certainty that if this bill passes we will have either more taxes or more deficits and it is a certainty that the middle and lower classes will pay for much of this.

But that's not the end of the bad news for the middle class. Contrary to Obama's claims that his health care overhaul will make US companies more competitive, the requirement that inusrance companies accept people with pre existing conditions at standard rates will cause the companies to increase standard rates to cover their increased costs, and this will mean both employees and employers will pay more for health insurance under this plan than they do now, meaning US companies will be less competitive than they are now and workers will have less money to spend on things other than health insurance than they do now. Both of these things will have negative impacts on our recovery from the recession and the creation of jobs.

In addition, because a key component of Obama's plan to hold health care costs down is to pay providers as little as possible for their services, there will be little incentive for them to invest in new facilities or equipment or technologies or to hire more workers, despite the increased number of patients the bill will provide for them, so the tax money diverted from other uses to pay for this plan will likely have a less positive impact on economic growth and job creation than its alternative uses would have had.

Considering that we can only guess about when this recession will end and that nearly all economists expect a slow and uncertain recovery from it when it does end, if this bill leaves workers with less to spend because of higher health insurance premiums, makes US companies less competitive because of higher health care premiums and diverts money from uses that will have greater positive impact on economic growth and job creation, even if you think the bill is fair, is it a smart thing to do right now?

 

[Bern80]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

Is taxing the wealthy over 50% realistic Bern?

Isn't he the one that 2 years ago suggested we bring back the draft?

You must not know Charlie Rangle operates.

But expect taxes to go up Bern. You want to fight two wars and get tax breaks? And you wonder why we can't afford anything?

Yes, taxing the rich and cutting out waste will solve a lot of our problems.

Allowing the problems with the economics of the issue to slide for a moment, what moral justification do you believe there is for the rich pay for the healthcare of those that can't afford it.

And in terms of the war, we're actually fighting like 1.5 if you want to get technical. in a year we're suppossed to be only fighting one if that. What will your excuse be then for government bloating itself?

 

[Bern80]

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

Sealy is the dems house slave, any logical pov will fall on deaf ears ..........

Want to bet they don't raise rich people's taxes 50%?

So then you are crying for nothing. You are exxaggerating. On purpose or not, I don't know.

Keep up bobo. We're not talking about adding 50% on top of what they pay now. We're talking about the rate their income is taxed at as being over 50%

 

[sealybobo]

That's not really a refutal of the post Sealy. Stop dodging. Is what Mr Rangle says, accurate? If so, you don't actually think taxing the wealthy over 50% of their income is going to help the economy in a recession do you?

Is taxing the wealthy over 50% realistic Bern?

Isn't he the one that 2 years ago suggested we bring back the draft?

You must not know Charlie Rangle operates.

But expect taxes to go up Bern. You want to fight two wars and get tax breaks? And you wonder why we can't afford anything?

Yes, taxing the rich and cutting out waste will solve a lot of our problems.

what moral justification do you believe there is for the rich pay for the healthcare of those that can't afford it.

And in terms of the war, we're actually fighting like 1.5 if you want to get technical. in a year we're suppossed to be only fighting one if that. What will your excuse be then for government bloating itself?

Don't we have a progressive tax now? Are you suggesting our tax system is immoral?

The Democratic government is going to bring back some of the social programs that the GOP killed in order to spend the money on the things they like to spend money on. Homeland security, defense, military. The GOP are smart to waste/steal money in the name of these things. Its a lot easier to fool the American people when you are blowing money on Defense.

Anyways, the Dems programs cost a lot less than the GOP fraud did/does.

If we can afford to fight the Iraq war, we can afford to get single payer. We will even save money. And when we just let Bush's tax cuts expire, we should be ok. Also close some of the bs loopholes they created.

And Obama will give tax breaks to them via their business'. Fuck giving them personal tax breaks so they can run them overseas. And you wonder why we are broke.

So we will save money in a million different areas and we will balance the budget when the dust has finally settled. PLUS, we will bring back social programs that the GOP killed.

Will we also pay off the debt? Hell no. Will we take over the Federal Reserve? Hell no. Not enough Americans are smart enough to insist. And you tea baggers are insincere.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy is the dems house slave, any logical pov will fall on deaf ears ..........

Want to bet they don't raise rich people's taxes 50%?

So then you are crying for nothing. You are exxaggerating. On purpose or not, I don't know.

Keep up bobo. We're not talking about adding 50% on top of what they pay now. We're talking about the rate their income is taxed at as being over 50%

Aint gonna happen. If Rangel said it, you must not realize he says shit like that in order to be provocative. He gets sick of nothing getting done so he throws out a really controvercial solution and looky how it gets people talking.

So now we have a starting point. If not 50%, what would be acceptable to you? Nothing is not an option.

Rangel is a genious. He stole this from Karl Rove and Tom Delay. They started every debate from as far right as they possibly could. So a compromise always ended up being a righty solution.

Well if 50% is too much, what is ok with you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is taxing the wealthy over 50% realistic Bern?

Isn't he the one that 2 years ago suggested we bring back the draft?

You must not know Charlie Rangle operates.

But expect taxes to go up Bern. You want to fight two wars and get tax breaks? And you wonder why we can't afford anything?

Yes, taxing the rich and cutting out waste will solve a lot of our problems.

what moral justification do you believe there is for the rich pay for the healthcare of those that can't afford it.

And in terms of the war, we're actually fighting like 1.5 if you want to get technical. in a year we're suppossed to be only fighting one if that. What will your excuse be then for government bloating itself?

Don't we have a progressive tax now? Are you suggesting our tax system is immoral?

It is immoral. it is immoral to take one man's property under the threat of violence and incarceration and give it to another is it not?

it's funny what would be deemed illegal if done on a small scale is condoned on a mass scale.

if me and 5 of my friends walked up to a mansion on the hill and ransacked the private property of a person only to give his belongings and money to those who "needed" it because he clearly had too much, we would be breaking the law.

but people like you and "leaders" like Obama believe doing that very thing is legal and if the property owner getting robbed refuses to comply, HE is called a criminal and thrown in jail.

What is wrong with that picture?

 

[Meister]

This is a very quick and sloppy reply, but hey, you guys were saying last year that with free markets American labor needs to get used to not making as much money as we used to be making.

Remember you guys said that factory workers were making too much and all Americans were spending too much? Well, if you cut their pay and they stop spending, expect a long hard recession. But BFD. I went to a right wing motivational seminar yesterday and smart people are taking advantage of the sitution. Anyone who's complaining is just making excuses and whining.

So, if people need to get used to making less, and a lot of them are paying off a house that isn't even worth what we are paying, then expect that we aren't going to be buying shit for the next 10 years as we get our shit right. The speakers at the seminar said that people should just hunker down and take advantage of:

Tax Opportunities
Every American should own a business
Don't rely on just the income from your main job.
Start an internet company
Invest in the stock market (and they showed us how to make millions instead of thousands in the next 20 years.).

I'm so motivated and excited about my future!!!

So anyways, if we are going to be making less, then we need something to offset that, and that is free healthcare.

And because Skull seems to be doing just fine, we need to raise his taxes to pay for the people who took the pay cuts.

Its called spreading the wealth. Thanks Skull.

These are the words of a full blown socialist. Thanks Bobo

Hey, Democrats socialize the profits and the losses. Republicans socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

You get fucked when the GOP does that, Didn't you know brainwashed fool?

You suck up to anything Barry does, or say. Your head is so far up his ass, and your calling me brainwashed? I laugh at you because your an ignorant twit.

 

[chanel]

I really like the robin hood analogy. But I think most wealthy people can live with paying 50 percent. One cent more and they will rebel. There will be seminars on "Tax Cheating" and "How Not to Make 250K"

And as far as robbery of anothers property I would not be surprised to see a 100 percent death tax if the libs stay in control for the next decade. After you're dead, who will stop them?.And the half that pays no taxes will be moving into your home.I'm certain they will consider that "fair" Ditch diggers have a "right" to a swimming pool too right?