Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Well, maybe not....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Let the circle jerk begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Let the circle jerk begin. .....fetches lube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members faileddrummer Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Reverse Reaganomics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Well, maybe not....... If you're going to raise revenue, you have to tax the people who have money. I mean, what good would it do to tax the poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 "I promised the president that we would have legislation out of the House before we went on an August break. That is still my goal," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. So, IOW, instead of making sure the bill could actually work, the goal is to have legislation out of the House by August. That's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Funkee1 Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 If you're going to raise revenue, you have to tax the people who have money. I mean, what good would it do to tax the poor? This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 If you're going to raise revenue, you have to tax the people who have money. I mean, what good would it do to tax the poor? I'm pretty sure that is was all going to pay for itself though major gains after implementing greater efficiencies in medical record keeping. ha......bwaha....BWAHAHA bwahahaha...BWAHAHAHAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 This.That well of money will eventually dry up. Particularly in our current economic climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 For further clarification purposes only, this 3.5% boost on the evil rich will put the tax rate of someone with earnings in the top bracket 1/2 a percent below a 40% federal tax rate. And in addition, we also have this little diddy:****In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 For further clarification purposes only, this 3.5% boost on the evil rich will put the tax rate of someone with earnings in the top bracket 1/2 a percent below a 40% federal tax rate. And in addition, we also have this little diddy:****In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.**** Anyone earning over 150,000 here gets a 50% tax. Cry away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Anyone earning over 150,000 here gets a 50% tax. Cry away. The presence of higher levels of GovSuck in you area doesn't preclude GovSuck here. You will also notice how many rich people have moved here over the years to get away from that system of government leeching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ec437 Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 The presence of higher levels of GovSuck in you area doesn't preclude GovSuck here. You will also notice how many rich people have moved here over the years to get away from that system of government leeching. They'll come back. they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 {censored} it, my housesold doesn't qualify as evil rich. Why should I care if they want to tax the crap out of those evil selfish bastards who make more than $250k a year. It's not like the cost of this plan is going to explode so they will have to lower the cutoff point and then continue lowering the cutoff point every year after that until it reaches the low end of the upper 40th percentile. This is the one gov't program that will work! It has to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I recently wrote this for another forum after thinking about the Inheritance Tax and watch Deadliest Catch:***Phil the crab fisherman and taxesPhil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members faileddrummer Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 {censored} it, my housesold doesn't qualify as evil rich. Why should I care if they want to tax the crap out of those evil selfish bastards who make more than $250k a year. It's not like the cost of this plan is going to explode so they will have to lower the cutoff point and then continue lowering the cutoff point every year after that until it reaches the low end of the upper 40th percentile.This is the one gov't program that will work! It has to! First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 {censored} it, my housesold doesn't qualify as evil rich. Why should I care if they want to tax the crap out of those evil selfish bastards who make more than $250k a year. It's not like the cost of this plan is going to explode so they will have to lower the cutoff point and then continue lowering the cutoff point every year after that until it reaches the low end of the upper 40th percentile.This is the one gov't program that will work! It has to! We need Change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Well guess what? If Phil was still alive, he'd be kicking in about an extra $10,000 a year if this passes! Phil should have thought about that before he went into the exploitation business, that evil bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 For further clarification purposes only, this 3.5% boost on the evil rich will put the tax rate of someone with earnings in the top bracket 1/2 a percent below a 40% federal tax rate. Which is about where it was under Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Which is about where it was under Reagan. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (also known as ERTA or the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) was "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purpose." Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981). The Act also reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985. Its sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at his California ranch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986Tax Reform Act of 1986 The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt were no longer deductible. An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated (although later partially reinstated, for farmers in 1997 and for fishermen in 2004). The Act, however, increased the personal exemption and standard deduction. The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The "bubble rate" of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge. It's pretty clear what direction Reagan was going. Rates though the years: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 In health bill, billions for parks, paths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P1gg1e Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I say we get rid of the IRS and use the money we save to buy our own health care plan...and just pass a consumer protection act Most people I know without health care still pay over $100+ a month for cable and never even look into buying their own or saving their money for such an event...gotta have TV. Id rather not enable people to not think for themselves any more then they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ec437 Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I say we get rid of the IRS and use the money we save to buy our own health care plan...and just pass a consumer protection act Most people I know without health care still pay over $100+ a month for cable and never even look into buying their own or saving their money for such an event...gotta have TV. Id rather not enable people to not think for themselves any more then they don't. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.