Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » BOO HOO
  • BOO HOO

    Filed at 5:57 pm under by dcobranchi

    The Tax Foundation just sent out this breathless announcement:

    Democrats’ Health Care Plan Pushes Top Tax Rates Over 50% in 39 States

    Couples Earning More than $1 Million Hit with 5.4% Surtax

    Washington, DC- A third updated Tax Foundation report shows that 39 states would see top tax rates exceed 50% under a health care funding plan announced today by House Democrats.

    The latest proposal – one of several floated on Capitol Hill in the past few days and the third analyzed by the Tax Foundation since Friday – would impose a surtax of 1 percent on married couples with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $350,000and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000); 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000 and $800,000); and 5.4 percent on couples earning more than $1 million (singles beyond $800,000).

    Are we really supposed to feel pity for folks who earn $1M+/year?

    25 Responses to “BOO HOO”


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 14th, 2009
    at 7:47 pm

    How is that even possible nowadays, unless you’re on FOX News or steroids or both?


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    July 15th, 2009
    at 7:46 am

    I discussed this with DH and we decided we did feel bad about it.

    We feel bad that they are not being taxed even more! 🙂

    Nance


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 15th, 2009
    at 9:32 am

    While we’re at it, how about all the House and Senate folks start paying into social security and participating in this new health deal instead of keeping their own special gold-plated health and retirement coverage?


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 15th, 2009
    at 9:48 am

    So 99% (99.3 to be exact) won’t pay a dime of this. Hurray, we’re too poor!?

    Seriously though, I saw something interesting in the San Francisco Chronicle, about how different states would contribute more or less to this cost because of their differential proportion of very wealthy, investment-income taxpayers.

    For example, almost three percent of taxpayers in Connecticut but only one half of one percent in West Virginia. Sounds fair to me.

    So how do you think your state fares on that list? Suppose it turns out that blue states supporting this plan are willing to pay almost all the cost — isn’t that as it should be? Then should the red-state millionaires be smoked out and told to shut up about the little working guys they supposedly are so concerned about helping?


    Comment by
    Mary
    July 16th, 2009
    at 4:46 pm

    I did the math. That’s an extra $54,000 on top of their already high taxes. If they are in the 35% bracket, that makes their taxes $404,900. Which means they are left with a net income of $595,100 annually. By giving generously to charity and contributing to their IRA’s, they could lessen that significantly.

    I think I could live pretty comfortably on $595,100 a year. Not sure, but I’m willing to give it a try.


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 16th, 2009
    at 6:53 pm

    Or think of it this way. I would be THRILLED to pay a five-point-four percent surcharge on our AGI for our family’s health insurance (a really good coverage and care) — it would be less than we’re already paying!

    So say every American did that, fine, and we’re done! Health care reform paid for. Next?


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 16th, 2009
    at 6:55 pm

    And I’m not counting out-of-pocket either. That’s just for the premiums. I heard on the radio all our costs together, nationally, is more like 17%.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 20th, 2009
    at 4:01 pm

    You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give toanybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

    I think we should make the 40% that are not paying any taxes at all start paying taxes instead… Have them pay 5% of their salary instead of 0%


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 20th, 2009
    at 4:11 pm

    You really think people pay no taxes? How bout 14% SS? Or 7% sales tax? Or franchise taxes? Or taxes on their telephone, cable, electricity, etc.?

    Overall, our tax structure is very flat.


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 20th, 2009
    at 4:12 pm

    I find it very funny that the GOP/conservatives only scream about the federal income tax and forget about all of the other regressive taxes that the poor pay.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 20th, 2009
    at 4:57 pm

    But you must admit that the federal income tax is the BIGGEST tax! Which is why it’s talked about so much.

    “Overall, our tax structure is very flat” REALLY?
    Break about a calculator and tell me how someone making 1 million and taking home 500,00 after a 50% federal income tax compares to someone making 20,000 and taking home 20,000 after 0% income tax!

    50% = 0% doesn’t sound too flat to me!


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 20th, 2009
    at 5:28 pm

    Like I just wrote in response to your comment on the photoshopped picture of Palin’s baby…


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 20th, 2009
    at 7:02 pm

    well. nice response then.


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 20th, 2009
    at 8:46 pm

    Reality is that a family making $20,000 can’t afford a home to take it home TO — so fussing over their “take-home pay” seems ironic if not downright churlish, wouldn’t you say?


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 20th, 2009
    at 8:55 pm

    The average effective tax rate for the top 1% of incomes is 31.4%. So Ruben’s millionaire keeps $686,000. And, of course, he’s still pretending that poor folks pay no taxes at all.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 4:56 pm

    A parent teaches a child not to steal, faith teaches one not to steal (thou shalt not steal), even laws are passed to punish those who steal. But if the government passes tax laws to fund programs that are for the “Public Good” then thievery by government is seen as virtuous and necessary.

    I think this all boils down to “what is my tax money being used for?” To bail out irresponsible companies like AIG, GM? And companies life Ford who were financially responsible get no bail out, are not likely to get picked to supply police cars and state owed vehicles because “Government Motors” will more than likely fill that demand. I’m a bit of responsibility junky. They should have let GM fail, AIG fail, the banks fail. There are companies out there that would have loved to have picked them up at a bargain.


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:19 pm

    Have you ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons?

    Your thesis that all public goods represent governmental theft is ridiculous. Do you have a police force where you live? Do you drive on roads paved by the gov’t? Will any of you kids go to a community college or public 4 year university? Do you enjoy breathing clean air and drinking clean water.

    All of those are public goods that are paid for, in one way or another, by the public.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:31 pm

    I don’t believe I used the words ALL public goods. I believe I even made specific examples of what I had grievances on.

    I agree that Government has to pay for the needs of the state. But when did it becomes governments business to bail out GM? AGI? Pay for someone else healthcare? Someone else’s food? Is that governments responsibility? Is that my responsibility? Your responsibility?

    Let’s take a look at California. You do know they are handing out OIU’s to their creditors? Why? free daycare, food, housing, and a general welfare mentality that eventually let them to brokesville!

    I like what Germany did. Germany adds everyone on welfare to a website/databse were potential employers can browse resumes and hire people in the database. If the wefare recipient turns down the job, the state cuts off their welfare support…. I’d like that to happen in the US.


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:36 pm

    But if the government passes tax laws to fund programs that are for the “Public Good” then thievery by government is seen as virtuous and necessary.

    I believe this implies “all.”

    Let’s take a look at California. You do know they are handing out OIU’s to their creditors? Why? free daycare, food, housing, and a general welfare mentality that eventually let them to brokesville!

    No. The state is broke because they have a constitution that requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes and the GOP is slightly over 1/3 of the legislature. All GOP members refuse to raise taxes. CA actually has one of the lowest effective tax rates and service levels in the country.

    It’s really amazing how wingnutty some people are. But facts are stubborn things and reality has a well-known liberal bias.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:44 pm

    But even if this is true. Why higher taxes vs. lower spending?

    What make you think the governement can spend the money better than you can?

    I agree that Government has to pay for the needs of the state. But when did it becomes governments business to bail out GM? AGI? Pay for someone else healthcare? Someone else’s food? Is that governments responsibility? Is that my responsibility? Your responsibility?

    Why did you completely avoid this paragraph?


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:51 pm

    I agree that Government has to pay for the needs of the state. But when did it becomes governments business to bail out GM? AGI? Pay for someone else healthcare? Someone else’s food? Is that governments responsibility? Is that my responsibility? Your responsibility?

    It happened on 7/4/1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. What did you think that “promote the general welfare” clause meant, anyway?


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:54 pm

    But even if this is true. Why higher taxes vs. lower spending?

    Not if. They just cut something like $23B from the budget. Why? Because they couldn’t raise taxes. And so the public school budget will be obliterated. And health care for the poor. And public parks. And police and fire protection. And a bunch of other public goods that Republicans seem to think are all paid for by governmental theft.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:54 pm

    Well. I guess we can agree to disagree. If you believe that is governments role, then there is nothing I can say to dissuade you.


    Comment by
    dcobranchi
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:58 pm

    But you have your 1st Amendment rights. Go ahead– petition the gov’t for the redress of your grievances. But don’t expect anything but opprobrium and derision for your efforts. Ayn Rand isn’t exactly a folk hero to most folks.

    OTOH, you have no 1st Amendment rights here. And I believe these conversations have gone on long enough.


    Comment by
    Ruben
    July 22nd, 2009
    at 5:59 pm

    Do you home school your children? What’s you annual budget? We just spent $750 in supplies/books/curriculum to teach our two children for this upcoming school year. Did you know that on average public school systems spend over 10K per child, per year to educate that child? I think government schools can do better. Parents need to do better.

    Our founding fathers didn’t have public schools and they didn’t do too bad….