http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_taxes
Quote
WASHINGTON – House Democrats scrambling for ways to pay for overhauling health care would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to levels not seen since the 1980s, breaking one of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges.
The tax increase would be limited to the top 1.2 percent of earners — families that make more than $350,000 a year. But it would raise a total of $544 billion over the next decade, covering a little more than half the cost of the health care plan.
The bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday would create three new tax brackets for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.
The plan would honor Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But it would break an Obama pledge that no one — including the wealthy — would pay higher taxes than they did in the 1990s. The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: "No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
Democrats argue that high-income families fared well under President George W. Bush's two terms as their taxes dropped and their incomes soared, giving them the ability to absorb higher taxes. Republicans argue that the tax increases would hurt small business owners who typically pay their business taxes on their individual returns.
Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, called the plan "the moral thing to do."
"This innovative bill provides a uniquely American solution to control costs and put patients first without burdening future generations with debt," the New York Democrat said.
Obama's strategy throughout the health care debate has been to publicly encourage the efforts of congressional Democrats even as they debate proposals that would break his campaign promises. The goal is to keep lawmakers working toward a package that expands coverage and slows the growth in costs.
On Wednesday, Obama said that both the House bill and a separate measure passed by a Senate committee would "take what's best about our system today and make it the basis of our system tomorrow — reducing costs, raising quality, and ensuring fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry."
House Democratic leaders hope to pass the health care bill before Congress goes on vacation in August. Under the House plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that all people, regardless of income or the state of their health, have access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The bill would add a 5.4 percent income tax "surcharge" on families making more than $1 million a year, starting in 2011. Families making more than $350,000 would get a 1 percent tax and those making more than $500,000 would get a 1.5 percent tax.
If certain savings in the health care system are not achieved by 2013, the new tax on families making more than $350,000 would increase to 2 percent, and the tax on those making more than $500,000 would go to 3 percent.
Currently, the top marginal income tax rate is 35 percent. Obama wants to let some tax cuts enacted under Bush expire, boosting the top rate to 39.6 percent in 2011. The new health care taxes would increase the top rate to 45 percent.
House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the bill a job killer that would result in rationed care, fewer choices for patients and diminished quality.
"If this isn't bad enough, this new maze of government bureaucracy will be funded by a new small business tax that will cost more American jobs," Boehner said. "During a time of economic recession, the last thing Congress should be doing is punishing small businesses that create a majority of the jobs in this country."
Democrats argue that the tax increases would affect only 4.1 percent of tax filers who report small business income. Those small businesses, however tend to be the ones that employ the most workers, according to data from the National Federation of Independent Business.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the new taxes would make it harder for small businesses to grow, invest and create jobs.
"These new taxes will have longstanding negative consequences to the U.S. economy and cost jobs," Jay Timmons, the association's executive vice president, wrote in a letter to members of Congress.
:mad:
This particular article doesn't state it, but I read elsewhere that new taxes kick in at $280k for single earners.
What are you angry about, surely you aren't in that tax bracket. :rolleyes:
Personally, I prefer taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
it's his mum's money, and his future inheritance.
I have a hard time being outraged over this, or indeed finding it a bad move.
I wish I had it that good. Canada's top bracket is substantially lower then that.
Fucking Socialists.
The love of his life is in that tax bracket.
I'd rather they take from the rich and give to me. Asshats. Not like most of us will ever see a benefit from this shit.
Tax and spend liberals and notax and spend conservatives seem determined to run the country into a endless chasm of debt.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 15, 2009, 05:25:53 PM
I have a hard time being outraged over this, or indeed finding it a bad move.
I agree that of all the possible funding sources income tax is the most reasonable. The only thing that troubles me is that Obama is fostering the attitude that the incomes of people making less than 250K are untouchable. What happened to all that talk about shared sacrifice?
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2009, 05:53:54 PM
The love of his life is in that tax bracket.
Thanks, Freud.
That's kind of what I wonder. Everyone should be required to pay something. Even if they are dead broke, they should contribute some labor. Pick up a park, litter on the highway. Something to have some skin in the game. I hear these assholes call shit like that 'slavery' and have to wonder if any of the moonbats really have a fucking clue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2009, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 15, 2009, 05:25:53 PM
I have a hard time being outraged over this, or indeed finding it a bad move.
I agree that of all the possible funding sources income tax is the most reasonable. The only thing that troubles me is that Obama is fostering the attitude that the incomes of people making less than 250K are untouchable. What happened to all that talk about shared sacrifice?
Excellent. I think there should be an extra tax for being pompos ass like garbon.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 15, 2009, 06:06:32 PM
litter on the highway
Litter on the front porch, litter on the mattress.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2009, 06:07:58 PM
Excellent. I think there should be an extra tax for being pompos ass like garbon.
How come when ever you insult me, you always step with the lamest insults? Don't you care? :(
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2009, 06:10:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2009, 06:07:58 PM
Excellent. I think there should be an extra tax for being pompos ass like garbon.
How come when ever you insult me, you always step with the lamest insults? Don't you care? :(
Not really. You mean very little to me. Now someone like Yi, that's a person worthy of giving some thought to an insult. You just get the off the shelf insults.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2009, 06:19:22 PM
Not really. You mean very little to me. Now someone like Yi, that's a person worthy of giving some thought to an insult. You just get the off the shelf insults.
-_-
I'd throw out the shelf then. Not even worth the brain cell it was postulated in.
Thinking before insulting someone is like wiping before taking a crap.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2009, 06:07:58 PM
Excellent. I think there should be an extra tax for being pompos ass like garbon.
First they came for the pompous asses, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a troll.
Then they came for the trolls, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pompous ass.
Then they came for the gay Polish lawyers, and I still didn't say a motherfucking word because gay Polish lawyers deserve to get put away.
But finally they came for the Internet shutins, and by then there was no one else to speak for me!
They's pompos. Pomegranate poor.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2009, 06:19:22 PM
Not really. You mean very little to me. Now someone like Yi, that's a person worthy of giving some thought to an insult. You just get the off the shelf insults.
-_-
I'd throw out the shelf then. Not even worth the brain cell it was postulated in.
It's okay. I have plenty to spare.
Pompos sounds like a Greek restaurant.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 05:20:53 PM
Personally, I prefer taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Is it really necessary to flaunt your jewry EVERY single post? We get it, you're jewish. Enough already. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3click.tv%2Fmp4%2F%2FMonty%2520Pythons%2520Flying%2520Circus%2Fseason%25203%2Fmetadata%2F178701.jpg&hash=d432652d08a95bb836d9df5e4f016c3964179f60)
Hand over your lupins! :menace:
I fail to be outraged, this is fairly standard stuff.
The only badpoint is in going against what Obama said, on its own its good.
*shrug* Politicians make promises that have no connection to reality. That's nothing new.
Quote from: Slargos on July 16, 2009, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 05:20:53 PM
Personally, I prefer taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Is it really necessary to flaunt your jewry EVERY single post? We get it, you're jewish. Enough already. :rolleyes:
I was flaunting my lawyerdom. :P
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2009, 07:41:43 AM
I was flaunting my lawyerdom. :P
There's a difference? :unsure:
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 07:44:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2009, 07:41:43 AM
I was flaunting my lawyerdom. :P
There's a difference? :unsure:
Lawyers don't bake gentile babies into matzoh.
They make their articling students do that.
There are babies in matzoh!? Wow, never knew that.... and THANKS, now I'm hungry for matzoh ball soup :mad:
Matzoh looks pretty dry and tastless to me actually. It could probably use some blood.
It's basically crackers, dude. Matzoh ball soup is like chicken broth with round dumplings in it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 07:44:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2009, 07:41:43 AM
I was flaunting my lawyerdom. :P
There's a difference? :unsure:
Some Jews are lawyers and some Jews are Hollywood producers. I'm not sure there's much difference, except the producers get a bit higher quality tail.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
There are babies in matzoh!? Wow, never knew that.... and THANKS, now I'm hungry for matzoh ball soup :mad:
It doesn't *come* with baby, you have to *add* it yourself. That's half the fun!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 16, 2009, 08:11:37 AM
Some Jews are lawyers and some Jews are Hollywood producers. I'm not sure there's much difference, except the producers get a bit higher quality tail.
You want to be a Rabbi? What kind of job is that for a Jewish boy?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 16, 2009, 08:11:37 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 07:44:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2009, 07:41:43 AM
I was flaunting my lawyerdom. :P
There's a difference? :unsure:
Some Jews are lawyers and some Jews are Hollywood producers. I'm not sure there's much difference, except the producers get a bit higher quality tail.
Ah, the Casting Couch. Is there any greater invention?
Law Society rules sadly prohibit its use in hiring law students. :(
That's a damn shame, because I'm always surprised how ridiculously HOTT many young female lawyers are.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 08:17:35 AM
That's a damn shame, because I'm always surprised how ridiculously HOTT many young female lawyers are.
Danger Will Robinson.
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2009, 08:15:46 AM
Law Society rules sadly prohibit its use in hiring law students. :(
I am reliably informed that you can use this for hiring administrative staff though.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 08:17:35 AM
That's a damn shame, because I'm always surprised how ridiculously HOTT many young female lawyers are.
I dated female lawyers. Very difficult business. They tended to be rather humorless, bitchy, and ridiculously hard to impress or seduce.
Not fun. But then I made less money than they did which women don't like. To these women I say: if you can't stand having man who makes less money than you do don't make so much money.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2009, 08:23:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2009, 08:17:35 AM
That's a damn shame, because I'm always surprised how ridiculously HOTT many young female lawyers are.
I dated female lawyers. Very difficult business. They tended to be rather humorless, bitchy, and ridiculously hard to impress or seduce.
Not fun. But then I made less money than they did which women don't like. To these women I say: if you can't stand having man who makes less money than you do don't make so much money.
They have teeth in their vaginas.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2009, 08:20:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2009, 08:15:46 AM
Law Society rules sadly prohibit its use in hiring law students. :(
I am reliably informed that you can use this for hiring administrative staff though.
Quote5.03 (1) In this rule, sexual harassment is one incident or a series of incidents involving unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
...
(c) when submission to such conduct is made implicitly or explicitly a condition of employment,
(d) when submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for any employment decision (including, but not limited to, allocation of files, matters of promotion, raise in salary, job security, and benefits affecting the employee),
...
5.03 (2) A lawyer shall not sexually harass a colleague, a staff member, a client, or any other person.
:( :weep:
Quote5.03 (2) A lawyer shall not sexually harass a colleague, a staff member, a client, or any other person.
It seems they could have saved some ink just saying 'A lawyer shall not sexually harass any person.'
But then that would leave out their colleagues.
Man all those office sex documentaries I saw were totally wrong. :(
If these 'documentaries' starred Peter North you may want to take them with a grain of salt. :smarty:
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2009, 08:26:23 AM
Quote5.03 (2) A lawyer shall not sexually harass a colleague, a staff member, a client, or any other person.
It seems they could have saved some ink just saying 'A lawyer shall not sexually harass any person.'
But then that would leave out their colleagues.
Man all those office sex documentaries I saw were totally wrong. :(
Well, just because some rule says you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't done - just that you are taking a big risk ... :lol:
I should be able to get a blowjob from a 24 year old needy chick in exchange for a job.
DAMN THIS AGE WE LIVE IN.
Quote
5.03 (2) A lawyer shall not sexually harass a colleague, a staff member, a client, or any other person.
So goats are fair game? :brain:
Lawyers, gross! :x
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2009, 05:27:58 PM
I wish I had it that good. Canada's top bracket is substantially lower then that.
Indeed. Canada's highest bracket is at 126k, for Quebec it's 55k. At 127k, you'd be taxed at 53%.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2009, 05:18:08 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_taxes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_taxes)
WASHINGTON – House Democrats scrambling for ways to pay for overhauling health care would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to levels not seen since the 1980s, breaking one of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges.
The tax increase would be limited to the top 1.2 percent of earners — families that make more than $350,000 a year. But it would raise a total of $544 billion over the next decade, covering a little more than half the cost of the health care plan.
I fail to see how it breaks his campaign promises. He never said there would be no tax hike for anyone, actually, I'm quite sure he said there wouldn't be tax increase for most of Americans. 1.2% of the population is not "most Americans", I think.
EDIT:
In fact, I'm looking at this site here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
and I'm seeing this:
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)And this:
Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)I don't see how he's breaking his promise...?
Quote from: viper37 on July 16, 2009, 01:23:28 PM
I fail to see how it breaks his campaign promises. He never said there would be no tax hike for anyone, actually, I'm quite sure he said there wouldn't be tax increase for most of Americans. 1.2% of the population is not "most Americans", I think.
Reading can be fun!
QuoteBut it would break an Obama pledge that no one — including the wealthy — would pay higher taxes than they did in the 1990s. The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: "No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
Quote from: viper37 on July 16, 2009, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2009, 05:27:58 PM
I wish I had it that good. Canada's top bracket is substantially lower then that.
Indeed. Canada's highest bracket is at 126k, for Quebec it's 55k. At 127k, you'd be taxed at 53%.
That sound you just heard is Mono crying in pain.
QuoteReading can be fun!
You win :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 16, 2009, 01:39:08 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 16, 2009, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2009, 05:27:58 PM
I wish I had it that good. Canada's top bracket is substantially lower then that.
Indeed. Canada's highest bracket is at 126k, for Quebec it's 55k. At 127k, you'd be taxed at 53%.
That sound you just heard is Mono crying in pain.
Why? I'm laughing my ass off that I escaped that communist state. In Hong Kong, the highest bracket starts at around US$200k. Taxed at 15%. And things like interest income, dividends, capital gains, lottery winnings etc are all exempt (it's a salary tax, not an income tax).
Yet you live in a shoebox.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 16, 2009, 09:16:37 PM
Yet you live in a shoebox.
If I stayed in Canada, I would have been unemployed, and likely ended up living in the streets.
Shoe box > streets.
We have a social net you know. You wouldn't pay taxes too.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 16, 2009, 09:29:11 PM
We have a social net you know. You wouldn't pay taxes too.
I'll keep that in mind. If worst comes to worst, I'll go back to Canada and milk the social welfare system as a citizen :menace:
Quote from: Monoriu on July 16, 2009, 09:18:34 PM
If I stayed in Canada, I would have been unemployed, and likely ended up living in the streets.
Shoe box > streets.
You work for the government. You could have found your way into some government office. And they do have manpower shortage in Yukon&Nunavutl. You could have linked with your long lost cousins who emigrated from China a few thousand years ago :P
QuoteI'll keep that in mind. If worst comes to worst, I'll go back to Canada and milk the social welfare system as a citizen :menace:
Filthy 'migrant.
;)
1% increase on 350K-500K? Tolerable. It isn't like I'm going to go John Galt over that.
Ugh, I just used a libertarian term. So solly.