Study: House Democrats’ Health Care Bill Pushes Top Tax Rates to Over 50% in Most States

How many people go bankrupt or have to sell their homes due to tax liens or inability to pay taxes?

The good news is that there will be fewer rich people in the U.S.
Who is John Galt?

I don’t care about rich people because they don’t care about me!

The perfect solution….
Tax all income after 100K at a 100 percent rate.
Deny all health care to people who have obtained normal life expectancy.
Compulsory public service for all citizens to help equalize the injustices of this society.

The perfect solution….
Tax all income after 100K at a 100 percent rate.
Deny all health care to people who have obtained normal life expectancy.
Compulsory public service for all citizens to help equalize the injustices of this society.
Posted by: Terry | Jul 16, 2009 12:22:10 PM
==================================
you betcha!!!
spoken like a true conservative!! any more non-constructive bizarro-world, bitter-clinging sarcasm for us?

Sarah Palin, where are you? You are the only one on the national scene with the charisma and the following to stand up to Mr. Obama on this health care folly. Your country needs you!

GOP ssshhhhhhh!!!!!
Notice that with the exception of IDAHO those are all Blue states.
How about letting this thing rip and when it all blows up, those states will turn red, republicans will be back in power and the we will once again realize the peace and prosperity we enjoyed under George W. Bush and other republican presidents.

So? What’s the big deal?
Tapper is so anti-president…

I don’t care how much money you make. No one should EVER have 50% of their hard earned money stolen by a bloated corrupt government, for ANY reason.

i wonder what the rate will be in CT because that’s where the new york city people will move if this goes through…

This article is overly simplistic. If you look at the projected surtax charge of 5.4% on the TOP wage earners, then look at the projected increases on the states listed, you’ll see that most of them were ALREADY over 50%. And that’s just how much they’ll OWE. But after they figure in all their deductions, tax BREAKS they got during the Bush administration…not so bad. I don’t feel sorry for the ultraa rich. They’ll always find a way to STAY that way.

I don’t care about rich people because they don’t care about me!
Posted by: Jesus | Jul 16, 2009 12:13:42 PM
__________________________________
You should. They pay the bulk of the tax burden. If they didn’t you would be in deep do-do.

I don’t care about rich people because they don’t care about me!
Posted by: Jesus | Jul 16, 2009 12:13:42 PM
__________________________________
You should. They pay the bulk of the tax burden. If they didn’t you would be in deep do-do.
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | Jul 16, 2009 1:45:47 PM
___________________________________
Yep, and just wait till the poor in NYC get a first-hand look at this when any rich person who can, leaves! Why on earth would you stay and give up nearly 6 out of every 10 dollars you earn if you don’t have to!!

We are debating a few percent higher taxes on the highest income earners. These same people will see the most benefit from health care reform if insurance costs are lower.
Is it better to just give that extra money to insurance companies?

“We’ve lived with Obama like politics for YEARS with our Democrat run State Assembly.”
Actually we can thank Prop 13 and the anti tax revolution that requires 2/3 vote on any tax increase coupled with agreed upon gerrymandering which while leaving the GOP in minority status makes sure that hardcore wingers are elected.

Let’s say for the sake of argument, you had a business which is owned by a group of people, stockholders…ummmm sounds familiar, and the Government comes to you and says, “we think your costs are way to high; therefore, we are going to create a similar business except our business will have unlimited resources.” How are you going to compete with the government? Cut costs? Where are you going to cut costs and still keep your stockholders happy? Perhaps eventually you will just close your doors unless the Government will come to your rescue with ANOTHER BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT..THEY’VE WORKED SO WELL THUS FAR..Probably not as they are your competitor but then again Barney Franks would never use national health care…

“If I was rich, I’d move to Denmark or Sweden or someplace like that – where at least I could have some fun for my 60% tax rate!” Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | Jul 16, 2009 3:00:09 PM
___________________________________
Sorry you’re not having any fun in America. Maybe you try harder.

“I prefer “The Arctic Fox”. Everyone knows that conservative women are the best looking women. You’re just jealous! ;-)” Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | Jul 16, 2009 3:03:42 PM
____________________________________
Shouldn’t be lusting in your heart Timmy. Should be judging the woman on her quitting ability, not her sexual appearance.

You claim the proposed health care reform will SAVE us money Mr. President? Not according to the CBO. CBO has a dismal forcast of the current plan, not just up front which is bad enough, but all the way down the road past 10 years out.
CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats’ Health Reform Measures
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 16, 2009; 2:25 PM
Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning. ….

So what? They can’t pay a little bit more?
50 % of their income is a small price to pay for utopia.

If you are going to attack someone try coming up with some policy rebuttals instead of calling them names. Now on to the topic at hand, the quote by Aristotle where he says that when the majority vote themselves the production of the minority that the city (or nation) will fail. After you steal the wealth of the few who know how to generate that wealth, where do you go to next to fund these social programs? Where in the constitution are we guaranteed a job, a house, a car, or even health care? We are guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness, that’s it. I want to know if all of our representatives and the president will be using the same health care system as the rest of us with no priority or more generous coverage. They do not deserve to see the best doctors in the country at our expense, but I bet they will not allow themselves to wait in line with the rest of us commoners. I know a lot of far left liberals don’t have kids, but for the rest of us, is it fair that our kids and grandkids have lower standards of living than we do? Our greed and the eagerness that we have to mortgage our children’s future is appalling. Wake up and just say no.

We are already looking at the possibility of leaving the U.S. completely.
I cannot believe my GGGGrandfather came over as an indentured servant, my GGfather fought in the Civil War, my Grandfather fought in WWI and my father fought in WWII and we are considering leaving.
We came from soldiers, loggers, miners, teachers and farmers. We were not given any money from our families.
We worked hard and sacrificed to get where we are now.
I will not return to an indentured servant, paying over half of my income back to the government.

Oh, and there is a HUGE difference between what you consider “rich” and “wealthy”.
The wealthy have money tucked away in trusts and places that the Obama administration will never touch.
These are people like the Kennedy’s, the Hilton’s, the Bush’s, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Theresa Heinz-Kerry and A list athletes and celebrities (you know, the ones that tell us to sacrifice for the greater good?)
The working “rich”, who will be taxed at outrageous levels, include small business owners who have leveraged their own home to get a credit line and who worry about what will happen to their employees if they go out of business.
The working “rich” do not have unlimited resources at hand. They are usually one mistake, one misorder, one lawsuit away from losing everything.
The working “rich” pay for their children to go to college out of their own income. They pay for their elderly parent’s care out of their own pocket. They drive 5 year old cars and live in normal neighborhoods to take care of their family without government help.
You may be very surprised at how many working “rich” people are only a few months away from losing everything.

not to forget..
“the last tango: enron and bush”
(the enron scandal, which ruined thousands of people)
and this one..
“the plot to kill social security”

It seems Jake doesn’t know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. These people are not having their income taxed at 50% or anything like it. Even if this bill is passed, the top effective tax rate will be lower than it was in the mid ’90s.

BTW, anyone know what the top tax rate was in the 1950s?
90%
Yes, you read that right. Nine-Zero.
See how marginal rates can be misleading? No one was having 90% of their income taken by the govt. in the 1950s and no one will have 50% taken if this bill is passed. Marginal rates do not apply to your entire income, just to the small percentage of your income that falls above the level designated for the highest rate. The rest of your income is taxed at the lower rates.
Also, btw, many states *already* have top marginal rates of 50% or above. This bill does not make a drastic change in top marginal rates, it only tweaks them upward by a couple of percentage points. Effective tax rates (because of lower capital gains taxes, etc) will STILL be lower than they were in the ’90s. And the ’90s were certainly not a horrible time to be either rich or an entrepeneur.
See how our illustrious media misleads us? Or, to be less charitable to their intellect but more charitable to their motives… see how they don’t understand as much as they pretend to?

Karen…How you could possibly assign blame to the Republican minority held State Assembly is beyond comprehension…It has taken YEARS of Democratic rule to put this State in the toilet..Should have made spending cuts along time ago..Can’t spend what you don’t have, but no the Dems just kept on spending on unmonitored programs such as Section 8 housing…MediCal…..social programs for illegal’s children, this country is made up of 12% illegal immigrants and California has 30% of those..25% of our States budget is spent on illegal immigration…The Dems control this State from the State Assembly in Sacramento right down to the Democratic mayor in Los Angeles who feels the tax payers must pay 4 Million dollars for MJ ‘s memorial security instead of spending that money on say more police …TG for the 2/3 majority vote or else the Dems would have pulled the flush handle on this toilet a long time ago…

Anyone here besides me remember the likes of Harold Wilson socialising everything in the U.K.? Anyone here ever live in a country with government controlled health care, as in the UK? One blogger is absolutely right. In those days in Britain tax rates climbed to as high as 90%. Money doesn’t just come out of thin air to pay for health care or trillion dollar “stimulous” bills. Obama won’t be able to blame Bush for all this.

The response to this is quite simple and clear. Everyone who can avoid trading in Federal Dollars will. This will debase the federal dollar, and people will barter, develop their own alternative resources, whatever. You will find people with million dollar mansions who somehow only earn $10,000 per year. If you raise taxes to this level, people and capital will flee.
This doesn’t lower medical costs (which is the way to get it into the hands of more people). It guarantees that we are slaves to higher costs (since we’d be required to pay for them).
I will refuse to participate in such a system.

To sas and John F.,
Jump off your high horse. Infotainers making 2 million dollars a year showing off their blow-dried do’s on TV every day do NOT “supply you and me and most of America with a paycheck”.
Nobody is against “success”. It is not anti-American to point out that the news media is severely skewed towards representing the interests of the upper income dwellers. There is nothing wrong with their interests being represented but there are millions of other hard-working Americans out here whose interests are NOT being represented when the news/celebrity class ignores them.
And don’t give me the “if you only you worked as hard as them you too could be insanely wealthy”. My father grew up in Hell’s Kitchen, NYC, in an apartment without a shower or tub. He worked a blue collar job all his life and gave us a good life in the suburbs. He worked HARD and never took a day off. It was not for lack of hard work that he never became a multi-millionaire.
Our millionaire TV news readers do a valuable job but they get their millions not because they work harder than anyone else but because TV jobs get the big bucks. That’s our celebrity culture. Fine. But the news media has a responsibility to remember that they should keep the interests of ALL Americans in mind in their reporting.

welfare for the rich huh? Thas just a stupid statement. Do you know what welfare is? Haveing 40 or 50% of your wages siphoned off isnt welfare idiot. Its redistribution so the lazy people who want something for nothing can be bought when it comes time to vote.

Jon F.,
You’re another one who doesn’t understand tax law. No one is charged 50% on all their income. Look up what a marginal tax rate is. Marginal tax rates are also the reason your solution (that people will have incentives to “lower their income”) makes no sense and wouldn’t work. Again, the high tax rate only applies to that portion of the income that is above a certain level. Lowering your income (I assume your reason is so they go below the threshold where this kicks in) doesn’t lower your tax rate on that income. It just means you take home less money. Stupid plan.
And why are you bringing up investments? Look up the difference between income tax rates and capital gains tax rates. The reason effective tax rates for the highest income earners will STILL be below 1990s levels even if this bill goes into effect is because capital gains tax rates have been so lowered in the past 30 years.
Bottom line: Top income earners will STILL be keeping more of their money if this bill goes into effect than they did in the 1990s. Were the 1990s so bad for the wealthy? Seems to me they did pretty well. What’s so bad about going back to something close to those rates?

Why is there no tort reform in the new bill? Isn’t that one of the largest problems?? How does congress fix anything when ignoring the true problems? This isn’t reform, it’s a takeover.

You want Government to administer Health Care to a country of 340+ million people? First of all not realistic & a great deal of people don’t believe it’s possible. Also great chance that it would bankrupt the entire Government. Social Security and Medicare have been such successes, we’re only on the hook for around 90 trillion dollars on those two right now.

Just remember that these figures don’t include the taxes you pay in terms of sales tax and taxes on electricity, phone, gas, cigarettes, alcohol, and all of the other “hidden” taxes we pay every day.

Has anyone considered the services or lack there of that will be provided by a gov’t runned organization. What if they decide whether you or a certain family member is worth the cost of certain procedures because of age or any other reason. Happens all the time in countries with this type of system.
Furthermore, its not 50 million uninsured americans. Its far less when you deduct the 10-15 million illegal aliens and those that other 10-15 million that could afford it but prefer to drive a new car, not work, vacation frequently or have the latest gadgets. When it comes down to it, is it worth it for just the 20 million americans that really need it. Why don’t we work out a less expense private insurance for those 20 million.