Chris Christie Vows to Bankrupt NJ

NJ is already bankrupt.

According to a survey of 100 leading economists, New Jersey could have a large budget surplus in
as little as three years if the Legislature would finally legailze cannibalism. Doing so would
also help the state control pension costs.

socialist, for a person or small business making $200,000 per year, what tax rate would you say is too high and government should not exceed?

What about for a person or small business making $1 million per year?

LICcomm, the answer is obvious: roll things back to the 1944 & 1945 highest tax bracket, and kick it in at $200K, as the highest bracket did in those years of patriotic Greatest Generation Americans.

No extra penalty for someone making $1 million per year -- the same tax rate applies.

... and $200,000 in 1945 dollars is exactly what today?
Socialist, I'd love to see you try and run a business and keep your blissfully ignorant attitude. It's actually kind of cute in a high-school/virgin sort of way.

alan's theory is to impose obliterating tax rates that were in place when the country was trying to pay the debts of a World War, so liberals can give away money on entitlements and excessive pensions to unions.

bhh- exactly.

socialist- are you going to answer the questions.

how and when are we going to pay for our two current endless wars?

LICComment and bhh: Right.
$200 thou in 1945 $ , today =
How much, and can they pay for that in beads?

I'm becoming more inclined to agree with the greyed out one. Pakistan government is corrupt, they are hiding the Taliban. Benazir Bhutto assassination was no accident. There is a fair amount of infiltration.

i run my very own business, as do warren buffet, bill gates, david geffen; and very effectively thank you--i can only imagine what productivity comes from LIC, whose harvest has led him to live in paradise...hahahahaha

and given redbaiter's 14 hours a day spent here on SE posting foxbeckspeak under an infinite number of names, aint no way he's running anything, but to the bathroom now and then

Socialist, if we raise taxes on workers earning over $200k per year, what should we do to the taxes of people who aren't working but are receiving free pension benefits from their government? Shouldn't we raise taxes on those people even more substantially since they aren't even working? Or at least make a serious cut to their payments to begin with?

The country has lost its way. We need to assure equal opportunity, but not assure equal outcome.
The banks are subverting the system of laws for their benefit, and the politicians are redistributing wealth.
We need to regain our footing or the country is doomed.

What are we going to do about liars?

Who is the wealth being redistributed from and to?

Banks and the unions.

from the formerly middle class to the wealthy.

Which one are you?

from / to?

"Socialist, if we raise taxes on workers earning over $200k per year, what should we do to the taxes of people who aren't working but are receiving free pension benefits from their government?"

Pensions are not free. Workers pay into them. And pensions go DOWN every year since most of them have no COL increase.

Workers are not paying into their pensions. It is a benefit.

And they don't go down every year. Nice sleight of hand.

Workers pay into their pension. Stop spreadling lies.

"The authority had agreed to drop its previous demand to raise the retirement age for a full pension to 62 for new transit employees, up from 55 for current employees, but said it expected all future transit workers to pay 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the current 2 percent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/21strike.html?_r=1

Let me repeat that again "Current 2 percent." That is not a free pension.

Workers don't pay into the pension. It wasn't their money before. They took it from their employer. They didn't have it before they got it from their employer, so it wasn't theirs from the beginning.

No, it's their money because they WORKED for it. They did not steal it.

No, the money wasn't their before, so they got if from someone else. So it isn't their money in the pension system.

huntersburg, that's just idiotic. it was added to the pension fund ON THEIR BEHALF. yes, it is their money. that's like saying matching 401k contributions aren't really the employees' because they didn't put the money in, they got it from someone else. so if you're not union and your employer puts in matching funds to a 401k plan do you not have any rights to it?

wow.

so then I guess the money you will get from Soc. Sec. is not your huntersburg. I trust that you will send your checks back to the Treasury.

Thanks aboutready for point out the obvious. Did I really need to post a smiley face or make some other extra extra obvious indication after my posting?

So let's get real, the issue is defined benefit vs. defined contribution. It's their money, yes, they worked for it. But if their money yields 3%, that's what they should get from their money.

The whole "they were asked to put up 6% instead of the existing 2%" is because if their money yields 3% annually over time, and their defined benefit plan dictates 8%, then that extra 5% is NOT their money.

Socialist, thanks, I'm not receiving Social Security at the current moment.

But if I can get my FICA back, I'm for that.

and I'll give up my future rights for SS in exchange.

huntersburg, given your posting maybe so.

most defined benefit plans by law have a very narrow acceptable rate of return, right now something like between 2-4%.

i know because we have a defined benefit retirement plan (recently acquired), and i've read the whole damned thing.

Well, bless you for your patience and fortitude.

"alan's theory is to impose obliterating tax rates that were in place when the country was trying to pay the debts of a World War, so liberals can give away money on entitlements and excessive pensions to unions."

Which entitlements are you referring to? Medicare Part D? YOu do know who started that evil Socialist/ Marxist program, right?

Alright Socialist, that statement by it's original poster, put it aside. Why don't we just get to the bottom line.

Under your system, what is the maximum amount that any individual should be allowed to make annually
and/or
what is the maximum amount of money that any individual should be allowed to have at any given point?

I don't beleive in any income limit. You make more, you pay more in taxes. That's my whole Socialist system. Please don't confuse Socialism with Communism.

"You make more, you pay more in taxes."

You realize you don't need a progressive rate system in order for that to be true?

Let me be productive, help me distinguish socialism and communism, what is the ideal way this all works?

Communism = No private industry. All industry si state owned (Cuba, North Korea, USSR)

Socialism = Private industry is heavily regulated and taxed (France, Germany, England, etc.)

I meant that rich peopel should pay more in both total taxes and in tax rates.

How about we pencil this out.

$1MM annual income = what rate?
$10MM annual income = what rate?

We should return to the tax rates of Eisenhower. His top tax rate was 91%, so I guess that makes him a Marxist by today's standards.

Just pencil it out for me:

$10K / year = what rate?
$50K / year = what rate?
$100K / year = what rate?
$200K / year = what rate?
$500K / year = what rate?
$1MM / year = what rate?
$2MM / year = what rate?
$5MM / year = what rate?
$10MM / year = what rate?
$20MM / year = what rate?
$50MM+ / year = what rate?

Here'a great chart of the top tax rate under Republican presdients. Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower all had them at 50% or greater.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

Here's a good historical snapshot

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Whatever the exact tax rates udner Nixon and Eisenhower were are what we should return to. I don't know what all of the tax rates were udner them except for the top bracket.

So, the Nixon and Eisenhower years were perfect, no changes necessary, right?

A simple 'yes' is an ok answer, if that's it, then I have the answer to my question.

hunter: You won't get an answer.

That's how it goes here on SE.
The losers argue against logic, and then the loser's team post comments to support any/all others.

Why not blame Whitman.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/22/opinion/in-america-whitman-steals-the-future.html?src=pm

Over the past 25 years the State of New Jersey has struggled, under a succession of Democratic and Republican governors, to reverse a social and economic decline that, by the 1960's, had hit many Northeastern industrial areas.

Difficult budget decisions were made, often at significant political cost. But the benefits for New Jersey residents were many. A vastly improved higher education system was developed and state aid to local public schools surged. The environment was cleaned up. Mass transit was improved. The state's budget was balanced without gimmicks and its credit rating was triple-A.

There is a strong link between those developments and the fact that New Jersey residents today are among the best educated in the country, and rank near the top in per-capita income.

Now many of the gains made over a quarter of a century are in danger of slipping away because the current Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, has chosen to finance her political ambitions with a popular buy-now, pay-later economic policy that will place a financial stranglehold on future generations of New Jerseyans.

This is best illustrated by Mrs. Whitman's decision to withhold billions of dollars that should be going into the public employee pension funds over the next few years, and using the bulk of that money to balance the state budget. Then, with an audacity that dazzles her supporters and even draws grudging admiration from opponents, Mrs. Whitman smiles and characterizes the withheld funds as savings.

Of course, they are not "savings" -- not in any sense of the word. The pension obligations at some point will come due and future generations will have to meet them.

Not only will the money have to be made up, but future taxpayers will be deprived of the income that the money -- if properly invested now -- would be expected to generate.

Mrs. Whitman's pension maneuvers have not gotten a lot of publicity -- in part because the eyes of reporters and readers alike tend to glaze over when confronted with complex budget details. The changes that she has made have been drastic. According to the New Jersey Education Association, which has filed suit against the state, the employer contributions to the pension system this year will be as much as 96 percent below the amounts contributed in the early 1990's.

"There is no question but that this is creating future debt," said Richard C. Leone, a former New Jersey State Treasurer who is now the president of the Twentieth Century Fund. "This is just another way of getting around the balanced-budget requirement, a kind of deficit spending. It is the sort of thing that comes back to haunt you."

Until the changes adopted by Mrs. Whitman, New Jersey had been very conservative in its approach to its pension obligations. For example, the state had started to pre-fund the health care benefits of its retirees, building up reserves against post-retirement liabilities. As one state official said: "That was prudent. Health-care costs are a big problem."

Prudent or not, Mrs. Whitman scrapped the pre-funding. She used the reserves that had already built up to help balance her budget. For Christine Todd Whitman, the pension funds have become a budget-balancing machine.

Mrs. Whitman and the long-term interests of New Jersey appear to be at odds. The Governor won election by promising tax cuts, and any further advances in her career will be powered by her ability to "deliver" on that promise. Like most politicians, her eyes are on the short term: today's budget, tomorrow's election. It requires courage to look beyond Election Day to the long-term interests of constituents.

socialist, why don't you answer the questions?

For a person or small business making $200,000 per year, what tax rate would you say is too high and government should not exceed?

What about for a person or small business making $1 million per year?

socialist's ridiculous arguments make the best case for steering clear of socialist policies.

answer your own question LICC

define all brackets and your proposed tax rates

Why can't we have a flat tax in the US? Everybody pays the same percentage. No loopholes, no write-offs. In Hong Kong it was 16%. People with more money pay more money, but at the same tax rate. It is fair, it is equitable, it is simple, and it could get things moving in the right direction.

socialist, the top rates were different under Nixon than under Eisenhower. What do you think the top rate should be?

A flat tax assumes that the rich get the same utility from goverment as everyone else. In HK, as here in the US, ESPECIALLY here in the US, the wealthy get far more from the government than do the poor.

And with a flat tax, the wealthy would pay far more in taxes than the poor.

What do you plan on establishing the tax rate under a flat tax at?

I like an 80% top tax rate. Right in the middle between Eisenhower's 90% and Nixon's 70%.

"So, the Nixon and Eisenhower years were perfect, no changes necessary, right?"

Nice try, but that is a trick question. You want me to say yes so that you can then come back and say that I support segregation and all the other racism that existed udner Eisenhower.

"Then, with an audacity that dazzles her supporters and even draws grudging admiration from opponents, Mrs. Whitman smiles and characterizes the withheld funds as savings.

Of course, they are not "savings" -- not in any sense of the word. The pension obligations at some point will come due and future generations will have to meet them."

Christie just skipped a $3 billion pension payment. But I guess only in the Republican echo chamber has Christie balanced the budget.

200K 1944 dollars is equivalent to a bit under $2.5 million today, so that would be the correct place to kick in the historic 1944/1945 top tax rate. Although I'm also great with no inflation indexing, and kicking it in at $200K no matter the year.

And yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are world wars, and we've been deficit-financing them in a big way.

socialist- so you would apply an 80% tax rate on any income over $200,000? You believe the government should take 80% of what anyone produces over $200k and redistribute that to others?

Thanks for reducing your credibility even further.

alan thinks the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars are on an equivalent scale as World War II. Wow.

I'm glad the jokers here are getting exposed.

What is wrong with an 80% rate when it was 91% under Eisenhower?

compared to Eisenhower, I'm giving you a tax CUT.

Why do you think it is right for government to take 80% of what a person produces?

It's not right ... we should be taking much much more than 80%.

Jason 10006, could you please explain you comment that the wealthy get more from the government than the poor?

"Why do you think it is right for government to take 80% of what a person produces?"

There are 14 trillion reasons why it's right:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

94%

That is not an answer. That tells me that government is spending and borrowing too much.

"Here'a great chart of the top tax rate under Republican presdients. Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower all had them at 50% or greater."

Except dining and entertainment then was 100% deductible, amongst other business expenses. Don't you people watch MadMen?

High tax rates keep the powers that be in power maintaining their monopolies and make it ten times harder for the upstarts to achieve great size.

"Jason 10006, could you please explain you comment that the wealthy get more from the government than the poor?"

See: Lobbyists. See endless papers showing that government, under both parties, is more responsive to the upper classes than to the middle classes. See Teddy Roosevelt's various speeches in favour of the inheritance and income tax.

jason- nothing you stated supports your claim that the wealthy get more from government than the poor.

Jason, some very wealthy people in this country pay no taxes because there are so many loopholes, so many investments, so many write-offs, all of them legal. If everyone paid a flat rate regardless, there would be money in the government coffers for social services for those in need without bankrupting the country. It just makes sense that everyone participates to an extent that still allows them to partake in our consumer economy. Of course, Warren Buffet will pay a lot more dollars than I will, but our percentages will be the same.

Socialist, alanhart, can I recommend repositioning this issue.

Maybe instead of 94% taxes, you can say that in addition to the money that rich people already have, each year they get a 6% bonus granted to them by the the government of all they can manage to grab away from others on the government's behalf during just a minority of total hours during the week.

Note, key points of emphasis:

rich people
already have
6% bonus
granted by the government
money GRABBED away from others
minority of hours during the week

Interesting fantasy- high income earners (which is not the same as "rich people") obtain their income by "grabbing it away from others" (to paraphrase), and this activity is "granted to them by the government".

No wonder socialism is a failure. socialists can't understand basic things, like that people earn income because they produce valuable goods and services. Not from stealing, and not from the government granting it to them. Have the government tax it all and control and what happens- no more production.

I was being facetious.

let us cut pensions for any one under 65. also, exclude the overtime from the pensions retroactively. can do it without declaring bankruptcy.

sorry i meant can not do it without declaring bankruptcy.

Excellent ideas.

And all new workers get defined contribution plans, not defined benefit plans.

Excellent idea.

And then Wall Street decimates those plans, as it is wont to do, and tomorrow's senior citizens riot in the streets.

Excellent idea.

alanhart, good point, no need to award the management of the pension monies to Wall Street. We can instead award that contract to ...

Eliminate pensions and you will see cars burning in the streets.

So pensions are protection money from the "organized" public unions?

Or is the car burning more because the public union members receiving the pensions are basically just animals?

HEy socialist, how about that half of America that doesn't pay income taxes? Stay at 0? Negative perhaps?

minimum wage in ny is 7.25.

15,080 a year.

how much do you want that person to pay?

Everybody (earning income) should pay income taxes. I believe in a true Alternative Minimum Tax- say $300 a year, barely 2% of income of your minimum wage example.

The great benefit of having all income-earning citizens paying taxes is it encourages a culture of awareness and scrutiny of government expenditures, rather than dependence and ingratefulness.

that's terrific.

so...this individual is paying the fica tax and the medicare tax and in nyc metro card around $500 per year.

does this really make sense?

"HEy socialist, how about that half of America that doesn't pay income taxes?"

75% of non payers make less than $20k a year. Really smart, raise taxes on poor people...

> so...this individual is paying the fica tax and the medicare tax and in nyc metro card around $500 per year. does this really make sense?

Absolutely, FICA+Medicare+Metrocard for this individual is only $1650 per year, barely 10% of their income.

> 75% of non payers make less than $20k a year. Really smart, raise taxes on poor people...

And if you stopped being misleading and excluded those who are not of working age (kids+retirees), perhaps you could tell us the real figure is 40-50% of income-earning individuals.

You charge everyone $300 a year instead of raising the marginal rate to 90%, and I guarantee you will raise more money and have a more efficient federal government.

Its funny that when Teddy Roosevelt and Taft first advocated the income tax, it was SUPPOSED to only be on the "rich", and Reagan and BOTH Bushes worked with the GOP leaders in Congress to make fewer low income people pay income taxes. Its absurd that now this is some sort of "wedge" issue when its been a GOP aim for my entire adult lifetime to have fewer americans pay the income tax, not more.

"You charge everyone $300 a year instead of raising the marginal rate to 90%, and I guarantee you will raise more money and have a more efficient federal government."

For someone that started off complaining about data analysis, you probably should have done some of your own. The bottom 50% of income earners account for only 12% of all earned income as of 2008 (see http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html), whereas the top 1% of earners accounted for 20%. Even if you increased rates identically for both groups (much less doing something silly like an arbitrary minimum), you'd get less money from taxing half the country than the top 1%.

It's also worth noting that one of the principal reasons for wage-earning households not to pay any income taxes is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been (correctly) identified as one of the key tools in moving from the historical set of direct government payments to poor people to something that encourages them to work and to put money back into the local economies. In other words, this is a program that encourages poor people to work as opposed to living "on the dole"--and getting rid of it is your idea of a way to solve our economic woes? I'm glad that historically, both Republicans and Democrats have disagreed with you, although the loony fringe of the Republican party seems to become more accepted by the mainstream every day.

> Even if you increased rates identically for both groups (much less doing something silly like an arbitrary minimum), you'd get less money from taxing half the country than the top 1%.

I didn't compare raising rates on the rich with raising rates identically on the poor. I didn't even speak about rates on the poor at all. I compared a minimum absolute tax with raising rates to 90% on the rich.

If you think cutting taxes on the poor "encourages them to work and to put money back into the local economies", then what must you think about cutting taxes on actually productive people?

I didn't say 90%, I said 94%.

And what makes you think high earners are productive?

crescent22: Okay, since you're not capable of doing math, I'll do it for you. In 2008, there were 52 million returns with no tax liability. Implementing your plan (which can lead to effective tax rates of as high as 30,000%, by the way) would result in revenues of $15.6 billion. By contrast increasing the effective tax rate on the top 1% of income earners would generate tax revenue of $16.9 billion.

As for your question about "If you think cutting taxes on the poor "encourages them to work and to put money back into the local economies", then what must you think about cutting taxes on actually productive people?", I have two answers:

1) WTF?!?! Why aren't poor people who work "productive", especially relative to the amount they are paid? In fact, most of the growth in the economy in recent decades has come in the form of increased productivity; at the same time, income inequality increased significantly, so basically poor people are working more productively without earning more, while rich people's income has increased at a faster rate than productivity. So on average, the people you're complaining about have become significantly relatively more productive than the ones you're trying to prop up.

2) There's ample evidence about what cutting tax rates for rich people does--they save most of it. So the effects on the economy are much more muted.

> And what makes you think high earners are productive?

This is a tautology.