RealTalk: Your President Wants To Raise My Taxes to Close to 60%

[lu cash]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by lu cash

Exactly, the trickle down theory doesn't work and the Bush administration proved that. Hov these last four years while you were getting fat off tax cuts an entire nation was starving, losing homes, and applying for welfare. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country has widened vastly and the only way to fix it is to help the poor get out of the holes that Reagan and Bush's administrations pushed them into.

IMO the biggest reason the gap between rich and poor in this country widen over the past 8 years was due to both Republican and Democratic parties. Middle class people were encouraged to ditch savings accounts and place their money in the stock market or spend their money in the economy. To make matters worse, the government started advocating cheaper housing which helped banks bamboozle millions into buying houses they wouldn't afford under the pretense that the value would increase. Add on historically low interest rates and you have a bubble waiting to burst. Those smart enough to have their financial house in order were not hurt as badly as those who blindly followed what their financial advisers told them.

So, for you to single out only Bush and Reagan makes me think that your just choosing sides. The blame goes to every body in the government.

If you were starving/losing your house/applying for welfare during the Bush era when unemployment was 4 - 6%, then I would say that you was not doing it right.

Yes, I might be choosing sides because my views are more aligned with the Democrats. The entire government should be blamed but it should also betaken into account that Republicans have controlled the majority up until these last two years when the damage had already been done and our problems hadalready snowballed.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

eh I was out and I was thinking bout this

NY Post is the one who printed the Obama monkey stimulus cartoon.. Then I thought hey who owns the NY Post..I was thinking got the answer went on Wikipedia to confirm

OWNER OF NY POST IS RUPERT MURDOCH, RUPERT MURDOCH OWNS WHAT EVERYONE FOR THE $1000 Alex.. WHAT IS FOX NEWS? UNCREDIBLE SOURCE.

What the hell does that have to do with topic at hand?

Here's some advice from your good friend Obama

Alright i'll start posting huffington post articles everytime it talks about policy.. Will you take it as credible? Why would I believe a newspaper knownto be anti-Obama, owned by the man who owns the Anti-Obama Network as a credible source..

So that is very much at the topic at hand.

 

[lu cash]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by lu cash

The logic is flawed because a lot of people are born into situations that makes it almost impossible to get rich no matter how hard they work at it. It is much easier to make something of yourself when you are born into a middle class family, attend the best private schools in town and surround yourself with future contacts who can help you along the way. However, the majority of Americans don't have that.

Couldn't be further from the truth.
There are multitudes of ways that one can get rich/wealthy in the US. Many of those ways do not involve even being born into the middle class.

I never said it was the only way, I just said it gives you an advantage that many in this country don't have and I think that is a fact not anopinion.

 

[israel5ekla]

rich people complain too much.

shut up

greedy

HOVkid,

You and me both are going to be taking HUGE hits. With this new healthcare plan not only am I getting hit with higher taxes to pay for it but as a radiologist I am also going to be taking a sizeable paycut (11-20%) because he believes that specialists make too much money now and should be more on the level of primary care docs. Guess I wasted all my time graduating at the top of my class etc cause all my hard work is going to be taken away.

The horizon is not looking good at all

Damn, tough situations.

 

[jinkazama]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

eh I was out and I was thinking bout this

NY Post is the one who printed the Obama monkey stimulus cartoon.. Then I thought hey who owns the NY Post..I was thinking got the answer went on Wikipedia to confirm

OWNER OF NY POST IS RUPERT MURDOCH, RUPERT MURDOCH OWNS WHAT EVERYONE FOR THE $1000 Alex.. WHAT IS FOX NEWS? UNCREDIBLE SOURCE.

What the hell does that have to do with topic at hand?

Here's some advice from your good friend Obama

Go sit down.

Ruper Murdoch owning the NY post has nothing to do with the topic athad...do you even know who he is? I seriously laughed out loud when I read that. That man only runs the most republican biased news conglomerate in thecountry. So yeah anything about Obama in the post should probably be taken with a boulder of salt.

 

[sundoobie]

Alright i'll start posting huffington post articles everytime it talks about policy.. Will you take it as credible? Why would I believe a newspaper known to be anti-Obama, owned by the man who owns the Anti-Obama Network as a credible source..

So that is very much at the topic at hand.




Fact = Congressional Democrats are pushing a bill to increase taxes.

Regardless if it's the National Enquirer, TMZ, NY Post, or Huffington.. .the fact remains this bill will be going forth. I mean its not like the NY Postowned by Murdoch are basing their article on a rumor.

From left, Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Robert Andrews, George Miller and Steny Hoyer discuss their bill on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

[table][tr][td][/td] [/tr][/table]

[table][tr][td] DETAILS OF PLAN[/td] [/tr][tr][td]

[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Provisions of the House Democrats' health care bill:

• Individuals would be required to obtain health insurance or pay a 2.5% income tax penalty.

• Low-income families would receive government subsidies to help pay for the insurance.

• Insurance companies could no longer deny enrollees for pre-existing conditions and would be prohibited from setting annual and life-time caps on payouts.

• Employers, except small businesses, would be required to offer insurance or pay a penalty.

• A public insurance program would offer an alternative to private insurers.

• Wealthy Americans would pay surcharges on income taxes.

USA TODAY research
[/td] [/tr][/table]

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by lu cash

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by lu cash

Exactly, the trickle down theory doesn't work and the Bush administration proved that. Hov these last four years while you were getting fat off tax cuts an entire nation was starving, losing homes, and applying for welfare. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country has widened vastly and the only way to fix it is to help the poor get out of the holes that Reagan and Bush's administrations pushed them into.

IMO the biggest reason the gap between rich and poor in this country widen over the past 8 years was due to both Republican and Democratic parties. Middle class people were encouraged to ditch savings accounts and place their money in the stock market or spend their money in the economy. To make matters worse, the government started advocating cheaper housing which helped banks bamboozle millions into buying houses they wouldn't afford under the pretense that the value would increase. Add on historically low interest rates and you have a bubble waiting to burst. Those smart enough to have their financial house in order were not hurt as badly as those who blindly followed what their financial advisers told them.

So, for you to single out only Bush and Reagan makes me think that your just choosing sides. The blame goes to every body in the government.

If you were starving/losing your house/applying for welfare during the Bush era when unemployment was 4 - 6%, then I would say that you was not doing it right.

Yes, I might be choosing sides because my views are more aligned with the Democrats. The entire government should be blamed but it should also be taken into account that Republicans have controlled the majority up until these last two years when the damage had already been done and our problems had already snowballed.

the Democrats were in it just as much as the republicans. They pushed the Community Reinvestment act and repealed the Glass-Steagal act whichmany say were supporting factors that caused our current downturn. Bush also did horrendously, especially with Medicare and the wars. Both parties are equallyto blame for where we are right now. Heat is just on the democrats because they are in a position to provide solutions, but they solutions they have providedso far are costly and controversial.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Alright i'll start posting huffington post articles everytime it talks about policy.. Will you take it as credible? Why would I believe a newspaper known to be anti-Obama, owned by the man who owns the Anti-Obama Network as a credible source..

So that is very much at the topic at hand.

Fact = Congressional Democrats are pushing a bill to increase taxes.

Regardless if it's the National Enquirer, TMZ, NY Post, or Huffington.. .the fact remains this bill will be going forth. I mean its not like the NY Post owned by Murdoch are basing their article on a rumor.

From left, Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Robert Andrews, George Miller and Steny Hoyer discuss their bill on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

[table][tr][td][/td] [/tr][/table]

[table][tr][td]DETAILS OF PLAN[/td] [/tr][tr][td]

[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Provisions of the House Democrats' health care bill:

• Individuals would be required to obtain health insurance or pay a 2.5% income tax penalty.

• Low-income families would receive government subsidies to help pay for the insurance.

• Insurance companies could no longer deny enrollees for pre-existing conditions and would be prohibited from setting annual and life-time caps on payouts.

• Employers, except small businesses, would be required to offer insurance or pay a penalty.

• A public insurance program would offer an alternative to private insurers.

• Wealthy Americans would pay surcharges on income taxes.

USA TODAY research
[/td] [/tr][/table]







I never said he wasn't raising taxes for wealthy Americans.I am disputing the 57% rate and the source.. I actually knew he would, I heard therate of 42% National which would be a 3 percent hike on top of the 4% to the Clinton Rate...

 

[indiespice]

Yea having a high paying job sucks right about now.

 

[boilermaker x]

wawaweewa wrote:

---

There are multitudes of ways that one can get rich/wealthy in the US. Many of those ways do not involve even being born into the middle class.



I'll spare the details and personal anecdotes. Suffice it to say that the greatest intangible asset had by a person born into the middle class or above isthat he or she can make mistakes and emerge entirely unscathed, whereas the same mistake made by a person of lesser means would haunt them for (and oftenshape) the rest of their lives. Yes, Wawa, there exist many ways. However, those legitimate and theoretically accessible ways provide zero margin for erroror misfortune.

I wonder how many of our nation's aristocrats and even proud Middle-Class Amuricins would be able to walk the tightrope as easily as they prescribe it toothers. The people I know who have "come up" are rarely so callous toward those who haven't. In my experience, it is more frequently those whostarted life relatively comfortably and then did even better for themselves that are most smug about pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[e3lal]

Originally Posted by HOVKid

If it happens, I will seriously consider stopping what I do and just becomeimng a janitor. Based on the tax decrease, I can likely get close to the same money and work much less, like a simple 40 hour week. Pencils down at 5:30!!!!!!!!

F Obama.

"New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem_health_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm

Then do it. No one will stop you. Maybe you need a better CPA

 

[sundoobie]

Ruper Murdoch owning the NY post has nothing to do with the topic at had...do you even know who he is? I seriously laughed out loud when I read that. That man only runs the most republican biased news conglomerate in the country. So yeah anything about Obama in the post should probably be taken with a boulder of salt.
^ This right here is the problem we have here in America. Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Blue, Red, Donkey, Elephant, Liberals,NeoCons... etc.. etc..

I mean seriously stop choosing sides like it makes any difference. People are just so wrapped up on all this liberal vs conservative ideology.

Can I ask if you even bother to read the article especially the part where it states...

The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state's wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.

That means New York's top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.

The non-partisan think-tank calculated the average local tax rate in New York State at 1.7 percent, and combined it with the 8.97 percent that high-bracket state taxpayers will shell out in 2011, when the health care plan is set to take effect. Tack on the 39.6 percent federal tax rate, 2.9 percent for Medicare and 5.4 percent for the health care "surtax," and the figure is 56.92 percent for the Empire State.

Now tell me how Murdoch and his so called biased NY Post is not credible when all they are doing is referencing a report by the TaxFoudation.org?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24864.html

The hardest-hit states would be Oregon (57.5%), Hawaii (57.2%), New Jersey (57.1%), New York (56.9%), California (56.8%), Rhode Island (56.2%), Vermont (55.8%), Maryland (55.6%), Minnesota (54.4%) and Idaho (54.3%). Washington, DC, and New York City would see their top effective marginal rates rise to 55.0% and 58.7%, respectively. The effective marginal tax rate takes into consideration deductions and adjustments in order to present a truer measure of an individual's rate.

 

[23michaeljordan45]

More of this

from Obama.

 

[718stylez]

in many ways our political appetite mirrors our personal resolve.

i guess as a history buff i look back at previous american generations who sacrificed for the sake of the country. in the civil war 2% of the entire populationdied, that would be around 7 million dead in todays numbers. During WWII there were rations and entire generations were asked to put there personal dreams andambitions on hold for country. Yet seemingly now, things are less about the greater good of the community and more about individual wants. I'm not naive iknow that there's always been those who have put personal interests ahead of the pact, but i guess they are now a growing/more vocal block.

it's easy for us to sacrifice in the face of immediate danger. wars, terrorism etc are graphic enough to jolt us out of complacency and into sacrifice. ifwe were bombed tomorrow and had to go to war no one would think twice about a 5% increase in taxation, let alone 1.5%. Yet more people have died do to heartdisease than have died in war. throughout this whole debate on healthcare, i have not heard what is in the best interest for the COUNTRY. What is good for thelargest amount of people out there? instead its broken down into tribalism with the patients, hmos, insurance companies, poor, middle class and wealthy allgoing to battle to protect their fiefdom. no ones willing to look out and sacrifice for others.

i lived in NJ for years and now NY. these states pay more to the government in taxes than they get back. this has pretty much been the case since i canremember. yet you rarely hear people complaining about states like Louisiana and Mississippi that regularly take more federal dollars than they earn. Is thatfair? No. But i recognize our union is a lot stronger when Louisiana and Mississippi are taken care of.

 

[i be john mayer]

^ it's a "Let them eat cake" mentality.

 

[lawdog1]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

I'm all for the top 1% paying for everything.

Obviously if you're only making 350k a year you're not top 1%, so I do disagree with how steep the terms seem to be.

But if you're in that top 1%, I would not shed a single tear for you to pay 1.5 billion a year in tax if you make 3 billion, or even 150 million a year if you make 300 million.

Why dude? It's not enough to say "well they can afford it, etc." The government should never be entitled to half of someone's income, not even close.

Because the top 1% owns about half the country. If they don't at least lead the way for the rest of the top 20% who own about 90% of the country to be willing to pay more than their subjects (yes, sujects, 80% of the country basically works for and owes their living to them) then how else would these things such as helathcare, childcare, education, food and clothing for those who can't afford it, etc. get paid for?

The problem is that the top 20% simply doesn't care about how those things would be paid for because (here's what you don't wanna hear) they can afford it. The question of education of healthcare does not affect them because they can get a good doctor and send their child to a good school. Why do you think so many conservatives think that punishing public schools for poor performance is a good idea? It's actually the worst idea possible becaue you're only punishing kids who have no alternative. If a school is doing poorly in academics or graduation rates, wouldn't you think they need MORE funding? Wouldn't they need MORE resources and a change in faculty, as opposed LESS funding and a fear of teaching unions? This goes for both dems and reps as well.

Bottom line is this: Does the ruling class want to be a benevolent body or an apathetic one? Sooner or later republicans will not be able to convince regular people that they are part of the group that they are representing, and this will be the final blow. I'm no socialist, becaue that would entail alot more than a single payer healthcare system. But c'mon. I can't speak for Obama but for me it's bigger than healthcare, which should be a standard like law enforcement, mail delivery, and education.

What are you talking about.

The greatest problem with health care in the US is the massive fraud within the system. That massive fraud occurs mainly because of Medicare/Medicaid; a government program.
If the Feds tackled the problem of fraud, the system would be more than fine as it is. Instead they're trying to pump more money into the system to facilitate the fraud.

It's truly funny and yet disgusting at the same time. There is such massive fraud in the current system but the Feds never talk about it.
I wonder why.

I hate to be a pessimist, but the fraud is going to happen no matter what, and it is tough to get coverage for alot of things because of the high possibility of fraud i.e. worker's comp. when you look at the amount of people rightfully recieving assistance through medicare or their insurance company compared to the amount of those commiting fraud, it's not even close. but when you make a worker's comp claim there is months worth legal and medical hoops to jump through so that you can get the minimum. my mom broke her kneecap in half at her job (she works for a beureau that runs things like Head Start, before and aftercare programs, etc.) and she had to sue for a settlement because of what her job's insurance company was going to put her through and the amount of time without sufficient pay it would have taken.

Criminals are always going to exist, right?
Should we not have a justice system then?

I'm not exaggerating when I say that fraud is rampant in Medicare and the healthcare system in general. Furthermore, it makes things miserable for those who do abide by the rules ( e.g. your mother).
The insurance company made your mother jump through hoops because people file fraudulent workers comp claims all the time.

You can change the system 20 times over but if the Feds don't address the criminal aspects within it then the same problems are going to keep reoccurring.

I can list a bunch of fraudulent practices that I know off and there are probably hundreds more. I don't know of all the loopholes that exist in the system.
My favorite is medical offices paying senior citizens on Medicare to come in weekly. They pay them $40 but they bill Medicare $300. Not a bad gig , right? Considering the visits are literally 5 minutes.

The Feds acknowledge over $50b worth of fraud every year. As a result the reality must be at least 100b easy.

And they devote massive resources to fraud enforcement, but the problem is just too big and too multifaceted for them to get a handle on. I workin the health care industry as an attorney and my firm regularly handles fraud enforcement defense actions. From my perspective, I wouldn't say thegovernment is not putting sufficient resources into the problem. There are agencies and government contractors that have the sole function of looking for newfraud schemes in Medicare and Medicaid. Maybe the fraud enforcement efforts aren't as effective as they can be, but the government is trying.

The Medicare program is actually on to the scheme you mention above. They have a special code that they assign to "professional patients" who arerepeatedly getting the same services from the same or different providers. Any claims billed for those patients will be automatically denied and the providersbilling for the services will probably get audited. Still, for every fraudulent provider they catch, there are probably dozens more doing the same thing. Even if half of the federal health care budget was devoted to fraud enforcement, they still couldn't get in front of all of it. There's just too manyways to game the system and too many people willing to do it. That's always going to be the case with government-administered benefit programs.

 

[kashino1]

thanks for paying for my health care

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by 718stylez

in many ways our political appetite mirrors our personal resolve.

i guess as a history buff i look back at previous american generations who sacrificed for the sake of the country. in the civil war 2% of the entire population died, that would be around 7 million dead in todays numbers. During WWII there were rations and entire generations were asked to put there personal dreams and ambitions on hold for country. Yet seemingly now, things are less about the greater good of the community and more about individual wants. I'm not naive i know that there's always been those who have put personal interests ahead of the pact, but i guess they are now a growing/more vocal block.

it's easy for us to sacrifice in the face of immediate danger. wars, terrorism etc are graphic enough to jolt us out of complacency and into sacrifice. if we were bombed tomorrow and had to go to war no one would think twice about a 5% increase in taxation, let alone 1.5%. Yet more people have died do to heart disease than have died in war. throughout this whole debate on healthcare, i have not heard what is in the best interest for the COUNTRY. What is good for the largest amount of people out there? instead its broken down into tribalism with the patients, hmos, insurance companies, poor, middle class and wealthy all going to battle to protect their fiefdom. no ones willing to look out and sacrifice for others.

i lived in NJ for years and now NY. these states pay more to the government in taxes than they get back. this has pretty much been the case since i can remember. yet you rarely hear people complaining about states like Louisiana and Mississippi that regularly take more federal dollars than they earn. Is that fair? No. But i recognize our union is a lot stronger when Louisiana and Mississippi are taken care of.

Keep your economic theory, this is what makes sense.

 

[lifelessons]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by HOVKid

I love how all of you are like "go find loopholes."




Man, I want to be an upstanding citizen and pay what is due. If forced to find a way to hide my money that's what I'll do, but Jesus, that is what it
come down to now?




That's yo man......

It's just called proper tax planning. Before you took your job, you knew how much you were going to make as you posted it on NT. At the same time, you should have immediately went to a tax attorney or a respected CPA and discussed what you could/should do in this tax bracket. I know my firm was operating under the notion that taxes would go up and the Bush tax cuts would expire, so we got clients in here asap to discuss. Some accelerated their revenue, some move to defer. When you enter that tax bracket, a certain level of sophistication is automatically assumed.

preach

 

[mexicansoul]

Bush sheltered yall...now its time for payback.

Seriously, you make 250k a year...are you really gonna play victim?

 

[joseph camel jr]

Originally Posted by MexicanSoul

I doubt you'd feel it. You make 250k a year...use your brain and hire a good accountant to keep you right at or slightly above what you're being taxed now.

250,000 a year is not as much as you think, especially after taxes. If you have a wife who isn't working or doesn't pull in much and kidsto support, you don't have all that much left over.

And there isn't much an accountant can do to help you there, except using tax shelters which are becoming or already have been illegal. And i guessthere's always tax evasion, have fun with that.

 

[dagreatj]

Originally Posted by kashino1

thanks for paying for my health care

 

[mexicansoul]

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by MexicanSoul

I doubt you'd feel it. You make 250k a year...use your brain and hire a good accountant to keep you right at or slightly above what you're being taxed now.

250,000 a year is not as much as you think, especially after taxes. If you have a wife who isn't working or doesn't pull in much and kids to support, you don't have all that much left over.

And there isn't much an accountant can do to help you there, except using tax shelters which are becoming or already have been illegal. And i guess there's always tax evasion, have fun with that.

I'm in education...my principal makes 100k, average teacher makes 40k(where I fall after taxes)...250k a year is plenty. The rich cry whentaxes go up but are quick to praise a flat tax? C'mon now. If you can't make 250k float then you're doing something wrong.

 

[kicks off]

the calm before the storm.

 

[chi ill]

I got paid today in they took out $200+ ...

I'm a damn near broke College student ... I don't even care that much ...

It's all good , if it's for the Public schools I'm all for it .

EDIT*

I also think that people in medicine are overpaid .