Swear to God you can't make this up. Dems are the rich evil or not?The Link " ne irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1 is that the it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for pro-tax Democrats. Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports. Mr. Nadler’s bill would “require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average.” In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act." Gee based on rich Dem posters on here who say over and overthey are really glad to pay more in taxes I would think the Dems in this guy's district would tell him to drop it, right??. This Dem ploy reminds me to ask if parts of Fla are still exempt from losing Medicare Advantage in its current form. And how about the La Kickback? is that still going to happen?
I seriously doubt this gets much support in the house. And no need to make blanket statements across the board for one party based on the views of a few of their reps. cnnmoneytalkback.blogs.cnnmoney.cnn.com/2010/08/05/bush-tax-cuts-which-side-are-you-on/ What is actually more interesting discussion point is what Tim Geithner has come out and stated this week. It is about time he has stepped and taken a leadership role in terms of economic policy. He wants to repeal the bush tax cuts, but only for households making over $250k. He said we simply can't afford to borrow hundreds of billions each year to pay for these lower taxes. Fact is that federal spending is enormously high and we are dealing with 2 large military engagements in the middle east and upcoming healthcare reform. We simply can't pay for this with the current tax structure. My view point is to raise taxes. Then only lower taxes when it coincides with a decrease in federal spending. Thus the rich would be more likely to really push for a decrease in federal spending on a macro level.
Back to the topic of the thread. I am surprised about the bill. It surprises me in the same way that it surprises me that politicians are pushing to not give US citizenship to babies of illegals. No matter your political leanings, it is a dumb action to pursue in an election year. Obviously, many politicians are looking at their re-election rather than looking at their party as a whole or the country as a whole.
as i have said a thousand times liberalism as an ideology is for everyone except the liberal. they want to force upon the masses that by which they have no interest in following themselves.
This type of behavior is why most people with wealth are holding right now to see what Barry et al deal them. Seems most people are always in favor of raising OTHER people's taxes not theirs. As a business owner, when times get tough you reduce expenses. I remain amazed how people have no clue about whose taxes will be raised and the cause/effect that will have on the economy and jobs. If you want me on board, state a plan that cuts expenses, especially wasteful spending. Then ask me to chip in along with everyone else in the country.
These dillards apparently don't think we're paying attention. Its scary that Adler would actually think this makes sense.
Taxes are already increasing Jan 1 for anyone with a health spending account or money invested in the stock market.
they have already increase 700 bllion since he took office. that is even before he raises them again on Jan 1. Many of these are a direct violation of his pledge that no one making less than 250k would see their taxes increase one dime. Democrats Have Increased Taxes by $670 Billion and Counting… List Includes 14 Tax Hikes Totaling Over $316 Billion on Middle Class Families April 14, 2010 Since January of 2009, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have enacted into law gross tax increases totaling more than $670 billion, or more than $2,100 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The list of tax increases includes at least 14 violations of the President’s pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples. LEGISLATION TAX INCREASES ENACTED  New tax on individuals who do not purchase government‐approved health insurance *  New tax on employers who fail to fully comply with government health insurance mandates*  New 40% excise tax on certain high‐cost health plans *  New ban on the purchase of over‐the‐counter drugs using funds from FSAs, HSAs and HRAs*  Increase the Medicare tax on wages and self‐employment income by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% surtax on certain investment income (for individuals over $200,000 and couples over $250,000)  Increase, from 7.5% to 10% of income, the threshold after which individuals can deduct out of pocket medical expenses*  Impose a new $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions *  New annual tax on health insurance *  New annual tax on brand name pharmaceuticals *  New 2.3% excise tax on certain medical devices *  New 10% tax on indoor UV tanning services *  New tax on insured and self‐insured health plans *  Double the penalty for non‐qualified HSA distributions *  Eliminate the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy  Limit the deduction for compensation to officers, employees and directors of certain health insurance providers  Require information reporting on payments to corporations  Impose additional requirements for section 501(c)(3) hospitals  Make “black liquor” ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer credit  Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments  Other revenue effects  Tobacco tax increase and expanded enforcement authority* $65.515 “Stimulus” Public Law 111‐5  Repeal guidance allowing certain taxpayers to claim losses of an acquired corporation .Federal Unemployment surtaxes extended through June 2011 *  Delay of rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2018 (worldwide interest allocation)  Delay of rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2021 (worldwide interest allocation) TOTAL = $670.341 BILLION AND COUNTING… *VIOLATES PRESIDENT’S PLEDGE TO NOT INCREASE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS I will not raise taxes one dime on those making less than 250k...oops
I love the term "American worker." yea, those of us who work 70-80 hour weeks are NOT workers. The pure fact is that both sides of the aisle have spent us into oblivion. As for what is a fair percentage, drop everyone down to a flat tax. Whatever rate you assess, then learn to live within your budget. It is actually very simple and those of us who came from nothing, worked hard, put ourselves through college, and invested in a business that creates jobs are sick of people telling us that they need more because they failed to do the aforementioned. If you should pay more taxes because you make more, should you pay more for your whataburger than the guy standing beside you?
Oilfield, please tell us how you have a problem with the budget during the Clinton years, and how the years before and/or after were better in your eyes. www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
there was never a surplus. it was a projected surplus which BTW we were projected to have another budget surplus starting in 2013, but Barack spent all that already. Again you could tax people at a rate of 100% and still not make a dent in the deficit. The problem is spending. not revenue. There is no tax rate that can produce a revenue stream to sustain our government at this point, but yeah letting the people keep 50% of what they make sure sounds like pandering to the rich. Gosh what greedy ********. Fear not however, Obama is going to raise marginal rates that for some can approach 70% that should make you happy. At least until you see that even then we have trillion dollar deficits profected for every year of the tax payers best friend's reign of idiocy. but hey, you can get more money outta those greedy rich people so everything should be unicorns and pixie dust from here on.
I'll answer. First of all, I would like to see our tax structure more focused on consumer goods/services, whether produced here or purchased abroad/ imported. Second, I would exempt the first X dollars spent per person annually from taxation. Third, I would look for guidance to the profligate Reagan years at the height of our cold war against the USSR. Per capita federal spending ranged from $5,500 to $6,500 in 2005 dollars during that period (source). I would peg maximum total federal spending at the top of that range, $6,500 per capita in 2005 dollars (= just under $2 trillion total). I would set tax rates as best to try to garner 110% of that in revenue, tapering down to just enough to cover expenses once we repay our debt and establish reserves of 30 days mean operating expenses. With a GDP of $18 trillion and a population of 300 million, for example, we would need just over 11% of GDP to fund the government. Consumption is just over 2/3 of GDP so effective net tax rate would be about 18%. Accounting for exemptions and incomplete collections, a nominal rate of about 25% would likely be required. Those either in poverty or living frugally to improve their lot would pay no tax to the federal government: no payroll tax, no nothing. Employers would be able to give everyone making less than six figures a 7% pay increase instead of using that money on payroll taxes. Capital would flow freely as capital gains taxes vanished. Corporations would trip over themselves to produce their goods in a jurisdiction that collects no corporate income tax even without lobbyists and loopholes. The rich would pay 25% tax every time they lived rich and 0% every time they put their wealth back into investing in businesses or hiring employees or feeding the homeless. Of course, my ideas will remain DOA until more people let go of the desire to make the rich pay and until legislators unentangle themselves from the lobbyists bribing them legally and otherwise to prop up and customize our system of loopholes and boondoggles.
