Surtax on the Rich

💬 10 comments

1. 

   jason · Jul 15, 2009 1:18pm

   The result is predictable. What happened in France the last time they soaked the rich will happen here and some rich folks will skip the country to avoid the taxes. CA, you know, I'm not enjoying their misery but they've brought it on themselves by building a government they can't afford. That shit was predictable too. If we have to bail their incompetent asses out, I will absolutely freak.
2. 

   vincent · Jul 15, 2009 2:04pm

   The thing is that a Married Filing Joint Couple making $350,000 in CA, MA, NYC doesn't really have it "made." Especially if they a small business owner or paying back large professional student loans. Plus, this is "Off the top" before any Standard Deductions that rich people love like home mortgage interest. I can only imagine that in high taxes "Blue" States people in this tax bracket are going to be well beyond paying 50% and in some cases 60% of their income in taxes to Fed, Trust Fund, State, Local Governments.
3. 

   ajay · Jul 15, 2009 5:34pm

   So how do you propose we provide health insurance to the 50M people uncovered?
   
   The chances of an American dying from a terrorist attack are 1000x less than that from dying due to lack of good healthcare; and yet you don't mind spending trillions on this "war" on terror.
   
   Would these taxes be easier to digest if Obama called them "war on disease" ? ;-D
   
4. 

   joshua · Jul 15, 2009 7:35pm

   @ajay - you should ask that question to the Dems themselves that wrote the bill - even they don't know for sure, and I'll bet that the Senate will make this bill look like an MJ before and after shot.
   
   I do not support the enrichment of one person at the poverty of another, under any circumstances. If they want to institute healthcare, then they have to find a way to pay for it that ensures that EVERYBODY suffers equally. But don't worry, regardless of how it is paid for, when the rationing starts the equitable situation will be quite evident. ;-)
   
   So, is Congress still exempt from participation in this system? Every single politican that votes for the bill should be forced into enrolling in the program. This way, people like Ted Kennedy won't be going to Duke University Hospital anymore, but Local Medical Center #27 in inner city D.C. Nobody wants to practice what they preach, do they?
5. 

   dcoffee · Jul 15, 2009 8:10pm

   I wish I had an hour.
   
   Fact is that we have to compete in a global economy now, and we have to work together as a society to make sure we can out preform other countries. This means giving Americans real opportunity, helping the best and brightest perfect their tallents and rise to the top. Concentrated wealth prevents competition and innovation, it stifles the economy. The richest companies don't want competition, they want protection and stability. They want the workers to stay in their place as servants, not rivals. The people at the top are mostly there because of ruthlessness and luck, not because they are the smartest or most motivated. This must change.
   
   Americans need more freedom to go ahead and innovate. By freedom, I mean freedom from fear, 'how do I pay for college', 'what if I get sick', 'what if I lose my job and can't afford health coverage'. We need the freedom to move about the economy and do what we enjoy. If you enjoy your work, you will do it well. But right now most workers are locked in their jobs, they have no other choice.
   
   The rich used to support the idea of paying their fair share, and giving back to the society that enabled them to be successful. Not any more, Goldman Sachs doesn't care about America.
   
   America better start looking out for itself.
   
   Honestly, all these years we've just had good luck, excess resources, excess wealth, weak international competition, unending growth. It didn't matter how much the fat cats shoved in their pockets because there was so much to go around. Now the rest of the world has caught up, and we need to start paying attention and making hard choices. Being greedy is a luxury we can no longer afford.
6. 

   dcoffee · Jul 15, 2009 8:12pm

   I like that idea of having congress on the Public Option :), So long as I get to have it too.
7. 

   ajay · Jul 15, 2009 9:13pm

   @joshua , first questions first: do you think healthcare is a "right" (as in, "everyone in a developed country should have it", and not a constitutional right) ? Should every American have access to low-cost basic healthcare?
   
   If yes, then we can discuss how to pay for it.
   
   If no, then there's not much to discuss....
8. 

   joshua · Jul 16, 2009 12:57am

   @ajay - no, it isn't a right. So I suppose you are correct, this discussion is ovah!
   
   @dcoffee - nobody has an hour these days. This class warfare stuff needs to stop - suggesting that the rich used to be interested in paying their fair share is LUDICROUS and I'm not debating the topic anymore. Any top 1%er will pay more in tax in one to three years than you or I will in our career earnings combined. It's that simple. To suggest that they aren't giving back their "fair share" is an utter fallacy. What about the people who "gave back" when Obama ripped up contract law to guarantee retiree healthcare benefits for union workers? I'm pretty sure many of those bondholders were rich!
   
   I think being greedy is sticking your hand out, expecting something for nothing, then bitching when it isn't given to you. Do you believe in what Karl Marx said when he uttered the quote I referenced in my entry? I don't understand nor do I care for this weird penchant for constantly wanting to stick it to one person that has more than another.
   
   W/respect to Goldman Sachs - do you know how exactly they have earned that money? Stock underwriting, which is what they specialize in. It's a market (maybe one of the only markets) that has literally exploded over the course of the past few months. Are you really arguing against a truly legitimate success story involving an American company? Their revenue has increased almost 50% as compared to previous quarters - of course their profits are going to balloon!
   
   My god.
9. 

   joshua · Jul 16, 2009 3:30am

   @dcoffee - I'm watching a rerun of O'Reilly right now and they are discussing how cap and trade will allow GS to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in the energy market. Last hear GS paid no tax. None! No corporate contributions to national defense, healthcare, etc. So in that respect yes I'll agree that GS are seriously, seriously hating on America. They will pay tax this year.
   
   Leave the businesses that make a lot of money alone, man - it's not illegal to get rich, at least not yet. GS has done very well for themselves, paid back the government money they never really wanted to begin with, and it's one financial firm that's managing to find some success in a ridiculously spooky market.
   
   I don't care one lick that average compensation there, including bonuses, will be around $800,000 this year. Do you know who can't wait for those bonuses to get paid? The governments of the state of New York and the City of New York, Gov. Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg - there is a special tax on the books for Wall St. bonuses. The major reason why our state budget took a major shit this past year is because the tax money generated by Wall St. evaporated - it accounts for 20% of our state budget. What's good for Wall St. is good for New York, that's a fact that we'll have to learn to live with.
10. 

    ajay · Jul 16, 2009 7:06pm

    "(@ajay) - no, it isn't a right."
    
    Fair enough. What about Education? and Defense?
    

💬 Write a comment