A tax by any other name still smells the same.

i feel so bad for rich people. it's so hard to be them with all these pesky peasants around.

All the independently wealthy Fark Independents™ are going to be hit hardest.

I've got your wealth redistribution right here.

I am more than willing to pay the extra tax if I can get $1 million a year, I won't even biatch about it.

Let me get this straight....

Wealthy people create jobs.

Taxing the wealthy to cover health care will reduce the number of jobs they can create. Ohnoes!

But wait.....this means that health insurance isn't something they need to pay for through payroll when they hire folks. Bottom line stays near the same. Yay!

And the taxes stay a flat percentage of your profits no matter how many people you employ, so maybe you can hire more workers because it won't increase your overall health insurance costs unless profits are going up, and then by a predictable amount? Maybe this isn't so bad after all!

And what's that you say? Health costs are likely to be lower because the government program won't be profit-taking or paying for advertising? Even better!

And no more situations where one of the workers falls sick with something really nasty and they come close to maxing out their insurance benefit and the insurance company raises rates on the employer for _everyone_ to recoup the loss and apply pressure to get rid of the worker in question so they can cancel the policy on them?

The problem isn't the tax exactly - it is that it is not indexed to inflation. So we will end up with a situation similar to the AMT we have now - a tax which is intended to hit only a small percentage of people gradually hits more and more as inflation pushes wages closer to the point at which the tax takes effect. Not that I'm a huge fan of large tax increases, but this particular problem is a bigger one than the tax itself.

misplaced apostrophes make baby jesus cry.

EatHam: The problem isn't the tax exactly - it is that it is not indexed to inflation. So we will end up with a situation similar to the AMT we have now - a tax which is intended to hit only a small percentage of people gradually hits more and more as inflation pushes wages closer to the point at which the tax takes effect. Not that I'm a huge fan of large tax increases, but this particular problem is a bigger one than the tax itself.

This is similar to issues that I have with all the healthcare proposals. This idea that if you make $250k/year you're somehow "rich" is just stupid. I'm all for raising taxes on the "rich", but by rich I'm talking $1million/year and up. $250k/year is just not that much money after taxes.

Whoa man, those poor, down trodden rich people. When, oh when, will they get a government that passes policies in THEIR favor?

Ahhh yes...a tax on the 'rich' that will have no effect whatsoever on the 'not so rich'.

Dancin_In_Anson: Ahhh yes...a tax on the 'rich' that will have no effect whatsoever on the 'not so rich'.

Surely the rich will then have less to trickle down on everyone else, leaving us destitute as a result of their lack of charity.

CPT Ethanolic: $250k/year is just not that much money after taxes.

seriously. that 0.9% of the population might might as well be on welfare.

CPT Ethanolic: This is similar to issues that I have with all the healthcare proposals. This idea that if you make $250k/year you're somehow "rich" is just stupid. I'm all for raising taxes on the "rich", but by rich I'm talking $1million/year and up. $250k/year is just not that much money after taxes.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, $250,000 a year is in fact rich. That's over $20,000 each month.

If that's not rich, then I'd like to be "not rich" too, because wow what a tough life.

Those poor rich people.

That's the problem with this country. Too many idiots refuse to tax the rich, no matter how much it will help them, because they are deluded enough to believe that one day they will be rich.

Dancin_In_Anson: Ahhh yes...a tax on the 'rich' that will have no effect whatsoever on the 'not so rich'.

...except help ensure they no longer are being bankrupted by medical expenses, reduce the cost of employment so more jobs are possibly created, allow them to move jobs without fear of losing their health insurance, and improve their general health by making sure they receive decent preventative care, you mean?

What this website really needs is a new meme poster that can just be inserted right at the top of these threads. I'm thinking about something along the lines of that "omg sharp knees I would not hit that" image, with the hapless nerd's face picture attached to his post, except that this time it would be some pimply-faced high school kid in a McDonald's uniform or something like that peering out from beneath his "XXX dollars isn't that high of a salary I don't think that's rich at all" comment.

Gamer Grrrl: CPT Ethanolic: This is similar to issues that I have with all the healthcare proposals. This idea that if you make $250k/year you're somehow "rich" is just stupid. I'm all for raising taxes on the "rich", but by rich I'm talking $1million/year and up. $250k/year is just not that much money after taxes.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, $250,000 a year is in fact rich. That's over $20,000 each month.

If that's not rich, then I'd like to be "not rich" too, because wow what a tough life.

It is a comfortable salary, but not a fabulously wealthy one.

horse-pheathers: Dancin_In_Anson: Ahhh yes...a tax on the 'rich' that will have no effect whatsoever on the 'not so rich'.

...except help ensure they no longer are being bankrupted by medical expenses, reduce the cost of employment so more jobs are possibly created, allow them to move jobs without fear of losing their health insurance, and improve their general health by making sure they receive decent preventative care, you mean?

No no no. If we tax the rich, say increase the top bracket by 3% (those making 373k will now be taxed at 38% instead of 35%) and use the added revenue to pay for health care for others, those others will not go bankrupt due to medical bills and therefore remain productive members of society (as everyone knows those making less put a larger percentage of their income into the economy and money moving is the driving force behind our economy).

That all sounds well and good to those of us with even the narrowest concept of what the f*ck we're discussing, but think of that poor, poor, wealthy fellow who went from an after federal tax amount of 242k to 231k. This person is out 11k. That could ruin him if he's terrible with money (which of course he isn't, because as we all know every wealthy person earned their wealth by working harder and being smarter than the rest of us) and it's 11k less that he has to pay his employees (because as we all know everyone running a business pays their employees out of a sense of charity, not because having employees is actually profitable if you know what the f*ck you're doing).

So in summation: any tax increase on the rich, for any reason, is basically raping the poor. The end.

EvilEgg: It is a comfortable salary, but not a fabulously wealthy one.

This is semantics.

But unlike other income tax rates, the new tax would not be indexed for inflation. As incomes rise over time because of inflation, more families - and more small business owners - would be hit by the tax.

If you vote for that, or if you support that plan, then you are an idiot. No, really - a certifiable idiot.

I Said: Surely the rich will then have less to trickle down on everyone else, leaving us destitute as a result of their lack of charity.

Newton's third law of motion can be applied to the tax code as well. Your hyperbole notwithstanding, it has been proven time and again that the target of punitive taxes are the least affected.

Pocket Ninja: this time it would be some pimply-faced high school kid in a McDonald's uniform or something like that peering out from beneath his "XXX dollars isn't that high of a salary I don't think that's rich at all" comment.

You should also make one that says "Because I don't make that much, nobody should!"

Since the Reagan Revolution, rich people have been REALLY reaming the shiat out of the lower classes on a daily basis. They get 3 trillion without any strings, but universal healthcare is some kind of bad idea because it's going to effect the bottom lines of these rich people's companies. They'll let taxpayers die of curable illnesses, and spend all the saved money buying Congressmen to represent their twisted world view in halls paid for by those taxpayers. Where are they losing out? Why are we supposed to relate to that kind of selfish, sociopathic behavior, subby?fark the rich.

Dancin_In_Anson: I Said: Surely the rich will then have less to trickle down on everyone else, leaving us destitute as a result of their lack of charity.

Newton's third law of motion can be applied to the tax code as well. Your hyperbole notwithstanding, it has been proven time and again that the target of punitive taxes are the least affected.

you'd figure people would have learned their lesson after that whole AMT mess....

*sigh*

But no. Despite the fact that NONE of the people targeted by the AMT got caught in it's web, people still wanna 'tax the rich'.

I Said: Surely the rich will then have less to trickle down on everyone else, leaving us destitute as a result of their lack of charity.

I feel that there is some sort of desire among Republicans to turn this country into some Dickensian nightmare where the grimy, unwashed faces of the poor wander through ruined urban settings and the rich look down on them haughtily from their golden spires.

EvilEgg: Gamer Grrrl: CPT Ethanolic: This is similar to issues that I have with all the healthcare proposals. This idea that if you make $250k/year you're somehow "rich" is just stupid. I'm all for raising taxes on the "rich", but by rich I'm talking $1million/year and up. $250k/year is just not that much money after taxes.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, $250,000 a year is in fact rich. That's over $20,000 each month.

If that's not rich, then I'd like to be "not rich" too, because wow what a tough life.

It is a comfortable salary, but not a fabulously wealthy one.

It's not fabulously wealthy, but it is wealthy. It's far beyond "comfortable salary." My husband and I earn just shy of $100,000, and we live very, very comfortably, and we live in one of the most expensive cities in the nation (DC). I can only imagine how "comfortable" we'd be if our income increased 150%.

/Husband is about to get laid off, which means life is about to get very interesting now that our income will be cut in half.
//Did I mention we live in one of the most expensive cities in the US? YIKES!

GurneyHalleck: Since the Reagan Revolution, rich people have been REALLY reaming the shiat out of the lower classes on a daily basis.

Since 1979, the effective tax rate on the highest two quintiles have increased, while the effective tax rate on the lowest three has decreased. Source CBO.

Dancin_In_Anson: Newton's third law of motion can be applied to the tax code as well. Your hyperbole notwithstanding, it has been proven time and again that the target of punitive taxes are the least affected.

When W. lowered taxes for only the wealthiest Americans, was that, in effect, a punitive tax on the rest of us?

And if we agree that those at the top wouldn't be too negatively affected, why waste so much time defending their plight?

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: I Said: Surely the rich will then have less to trickle down on everyone else, leaving us destitute as a result of their lack of charity.

I feel that there is some sort of desire among Republicans to turn this country into some Dickensian nightmare where the grimy, unwashed faces of the poor wander through ruined urban settings and the rich look down on them haughtily from their golden spires.

oddly enough, we're going to have the same result if we follow the Democrat plan. well...except the air will be slightly cleaner.

EatHam: GurneyHalleck: Since the Reagan Revolution, rich people have been REALLY reaming the shiat out of the lower classes on a daily basis.

Since 1979, the effective tax rate on the highest two quintiles have increased, while the effective tax rate on the lowest three has decreased. Source CBO.

The income gap has increased dramatically, which is the indicator that the rich are beating the piss out of everyone else. Not "doing better than . . " but, as GurneyHalleck said, "reaming".

We tax income, not wealth. And since we tax on a tiered system, the idea that raising taxes on the top 1% will cause some type of nightmare scenario is nonsensical.

EatHam: Since 1979, the effective tax rate on the highest two quintiles have increased, while the effective tax rate on the lowest three has decreased. Source CBO.

But it hasn't increased at the same rate as inflation. You kinda "forgot" to mention that. Wonder why.

I Said: We tax income, not wealth

We tax both.

I Said: the idea that raising taxes on the top 1% will cause some type of nightmare scenario is nonsensical.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what affects only the top (I think it's less than 1% actually) small percentage of earners today is going to affect a larger percentage of earners tomorrow. It's a dumb way of putting things - they should've indexed it to inflation.

EatHam: GurneyHalleck: Since the Reagan Revolution, rich people have been REALLY reaming the shiat out of the lower classes on a daily basis.

Since 1979, the effective tax rate on the highest two quintiles have increased, while the effective tax rate on the lowest three has decreased. Source CBO.

But real wages have stagnated for everyone but the rich.

GAT_00: But it hasn't increased at the same rate as inflation. You kinda "forgot" to mention that. Wonder why.

Because it doesn't have anything to do with anything. And it is an effective rate, which as I'm sure you know is a percentage, and actually does take inflation in to account.

I Said: We tax income, not wealth. And since we tax on a tiered system, the idea that raising taxes on the top 1% will cause some type of nightmare scenario is nonsensical.

I have a better idea - how about we stop bailing out failed companies? I'm tired of giving billions of dollars to save a company that some bozo ran into the ground, and then having them take government money and give themselves a pay raise while firing half their staff to 'save money'. Or do what CIT is planning to do - just ignore that 2.3 billion debt they owe 'we the people' after their bankruptcy.

you want to fix our budget issues? there ya go - stop giving money to rich people.

EatHam: Because it doesn't have anything to do with anything. And it is an effective rate, which as I'm sure you know is a percentage, and actually does take inflation in to account.

When your income has gone up 50%, a 3% tax doesn't faze you.

Weaver95: you'd figure people would have learned their lesson after that whole AMT mess....

*sigh*

But no. Despite the fact that NONE of the people targeted by the AMT got caught in it's web, people still wanna 'tax the rich'.

It's a generational thing I suppose.

I Said: When W. lowered taxes for only the wealthiest Americans, was that, in effect, a punitive tax on the rest of us?

My best years were 2002 and 2007 respectively. But I guess it will be better when the government pulls a shiatload of money from my employer and my customer base. I just won't know how well I'll have it.

EatHam: We tax both.

In what way? The owner of my company sits on hundreds of billions of dollars. Among other services we do the taxes on that and he pays taxes on what those billions earn, not on the money itself.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what affects only the top (I think it's less than 1% actually) small percentage of earners today is going to affect a larger percentage of earners tomorrow.

I disagree that the affect is going to always be negative if the affect on the top 1% (for argument's sake) is negative.

It's a dumb way of putting things - they should've indexed it to inflation.

Index the tax rate?

I Said: When W. lowered taxes for only the wealthiest Americans, was that, in effect, a punitive tax on the rest of us?

considering bush's tax cuts for millionaires (passed using the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation loophole, btw) are far and away the primary reason for our current massive deficit, i'd say you're right..

GAT_00: When your income has gone up 50%, a 3% tax doesn't faze you.

As I am sure you have noticed, while I don't like the idea of a large tax increase, I have said a couple of times that my biggest problem with this is that it is not indexed to inflation. So basically what is going to happen is that this will be around some years from now, and $500k is not the astronomically high figure it looks like today.

GAT_00: EatHam: Because it doesn't have anything to do with anything. And it is an effective rate, which as I'm sure you know is a percentage, and actually does take inflation in to account.

When your income has gone up 50%, a 3% tax doesn't faze you.

So how about when your income goes up 3% and you get slammed with a 10% tax? Look what happened with the AMT - it started hitting people it wasn't supposed to hit, all because Congress f*cked up their 'screw the rich' tax plan.

I Said: In what way?

Property taxes.

I Said: EatHam: We tax both.

In what way? The owner of my company sits on hundreds of billions of dollars. Among other services we do the taxes on that and he pays taxes on what those billions earn, not on the money itself.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what affects only the top (I think it's less than 1% actually) small percentage of earners today is going to affect a larger percentage of earners tomorrow.

I disagree that the affect is going to always be negative if the affect on the top 1% (for argument's sake) is negative.

It's a dumb way of putting things - they should've indexed it to inflation.

Index the tax rate?

Index the level at which ones income qualifies for this special rate hike. So if it's $500k today, and inflation is 3% for the next 20 years, that $500k will adjust accordingly.

Weaver95: I have a better idea - how about we stop bailing out failed companies? I'm tired of giving billions of dollars to save a company that some bozo ran into the ground, and then having them take government money and give themselves a pay raise while firing half their staff to 'save money'. Or do what CIT is planning to do - just ignore that 2.3 billion debt they owe 'we the people' after their bankruptcy.

you want to fix our budget issues? there ya go - stop giving money to rich people.

I agree with this partly. My opposition is that you can't let every financial firm explode all at once and then hope to have any type of standard of living for anyone in any country, considering how interconnected everything still is in the financial sector.

Here the gov. needs the power to, IF a company is deemed too big to fail and fails, take it over and liquidate it over time to mitigate the fallout to other companies and neighborhoods. But I think this is a discussion for another thread.

I Said: ere the gov. needs the power to, IF a company is deemed too big to fail and fails, take it over and liquidate it over time to mitigate the fallout to other companies and neighborhoods. But I think this is a discussion for another thread.
115 banks have failed so far this year. CIT is going belly up and we're going to lose our $2.3 billion dollar investment. I don't know how or why you think that all these bailouts aren't affecting government tax returns. The Fed is desperate for money - and why are we desperate for money? Partly because we're giving out BILLIONS to companies that have no intention of ever repaying the taxpayers for the loans we gave them.

I'd say that budget expenditures are indeed 'part of this discussion'.

Another 'part of this discussion' is the history of tax schemes that fail to take into account adjustments for inflation. Which is a big part of this plan. In fact, i'm wondering if that failure was intentional.

EatHam: Property taxes.

I see. However in most areas property taxes are higher than in others because that area provides better services (schools, police, sanitation, etc). While I see your point, the fact is these taxes are local and go directly to your town. You can live in another county or town if you want to avoid this. Although I'm only speaking about NY, I don't know if it's handled much differently elsewhere.

Index the level at which ones income qualifies for this special rate hike. So if it's $500k today, and inflation is 3% for the next 20 years, that $500k will adjust accordingly.

Ah ok. I don't mind that, but I think a higher tax bracket needs to be added (the highest is 373k, there should be one at, the lowest, 750k).

I Said: Ah ok. I don't mind that, but I think a higher tax bracket needs to be added (the highest is 373k, there should be one at, the lowest, 750k).

I don't like "special" brackets period, or special taxes (AMT). Just make the effing thing a bracket and call it a day. So what you said.

Weaver95: I don't know how or why you think that all these bailouts aren't affecting government tax returns. The Fed is desperate for money - and why are we desperate for money? Partly because we're giving out BILLIONS to companies that have no intention of ever repaying the taxpayers for the loans we gave them.

I agree that they are affecting the returns. And I do not like bailouts for a variety of reasons. But when faced with a major global economic collapse that was largely cause by the way the global financial system is structured, you need to stop the collapse, THEN fix the structure.

My idea for liquidation allows the market to punish the company for failing (it gets liquidated) while not radically increasing the level of unemployment.

Guess they'll have to forego the 200' yacht. :(

make me some tea: I've got your wealth redistribution right here.