Obama taxes to cost richest NYers $95K a year

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100422/FREE/100429934/1097

btw, "An analysis by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice".... so they're likely understating it. With the FICA addition (4%!) I imagine its going to hit a lot of folks even harder.

We should be terrified of the VAT tax, I have a feeling they gonna milk this cow pretty badly. Like intra state sales from online stores.

That all seems pretty reasonable to me. We have to stop the bleeding, or at least slow it down. Now that we have established that massive wars, lower taxes and new Medicare entitlements, although good for elections, make the Federal deficit go KER-BOOM! (who would have thunk?)

> We have to stop the bleeding, or at least slow it down

Since when is increasing spending "stopping the bleeding"?

That tax bracket will become the new status symbol for Manhattan's lower upper middle class. Imagine the faux-injured bragging rights, sidecar in hand!

I have started handing $20 bills to total strangers one my walk to work. May as well get it over with.

ah, party on the terrace?

maybe at least some people will quit trying to pinch every dime so that they can buy in a market that is getting away from them and say fuck it and have a good time. and i'm not talking about having a good time having one's ass touched on the way to the restroom at some supposedly in place in the meatpacking district.

sorry, had to go to a party there last weekend. horrific. but our waitress/barkeep WAS fired at the end of the evening. deservedly so.

JM, i've always known you're a civic wonder.

somewhere else,

there are two sides of the ledger: revenue and spending. you can stop the bleeding by reducing spending, by raising revenue, or both. clearly, our public sector is underfunded and needs additional revenue.

those of you complaining about higher taxes on the super rich, all i can say is, you ain't seen nothing yet. this is what happens when economic policy is tailored to meet the needs of the few and powerful: a small segment of the population winds up with such a disproportionate share of income and wealth that, by definition, they have to shoulder a disproportionate tax burden. when looking to raise revenue, you have to go where the $$ is, and in the contemporary united states, that means you have to go to the rich.

if you'd prefer an economic system that allocated income and assets more equally, that would be fine by me, and it would enable a more equal distribution of the tax burden. but with income and wealth so stratified, higher taxes will have to come to those of us fortunate enough to be at the top of the income and wealth pyramids.

btw, VAT sounds like an eminently reasonable idea.

VAT sounds eminently regressive to me. Am I missing something?

I'm surprised the Fox dittoheads haven't started demanding that all taxes be eliminated, and replaced by a poll tax / head tax / "community charge" ... now THAT'S fair and balanced!!!

[I mean if you're unfair and unbalanced, I mean.]

It's regressive but also a "painless" tax, because collected in dribs and drabs. It could be less regressive if was not applied uniformly, the way sales tax varies depending on price tag and category. I don't want to be horribly cynical, but VAT horse-trading could be immensely lucrative for politicians and lobbyists; think of all the opportunities to plead for exemptions and lower rates for your pet industry!
I can also foresee some juicy sin tax debates, with junk food and tobacco being the obvious villains.
Come on! The debates are going to be more fun than a birther convention!

"more fune than a birther convention!"

maly, some standard you've set. i admire someone who can find amusement in our political process.

I always love the horse trading on fossil fuels: tax more to reduce consumption vs. tax less to make more affordable to consumer so they consume more.

Clearly the public sector is underfunded???? Clearly the biggest problems relate to excessive government spending. Government budgets have exploded way beyond inflation the last 10 years.

> btw, VAT sounds like an eminently reasonable idea.

it would be a strong incentive to save, for a rapidly aging society, it should have come earlier (maybe not VAT, but incentives to save). to my shock, most old baby boomers have saved a tiny tiny tiny amount, what were they thinking? these are guys that enjoyed much higher discretionary income back in the day. amazing!

would many old baby boomers end up selling grandma's china?

Ah, yes, a VAT for us. It's all good, ain't it?

"there are two sides of the ledger: revenue and spending. you can stop the bleeding by reducing spending, by raising revenue, or both. clearly, our public sector is underfunded and needs additional revenue."

Not quite. You can stop the bleeding by reducing spending. You can stop the bleeding by reducing spending and increasing revenue. But if you don't fix spending (and have automatic growth built in) and just keep increasing taxes, you end up in a scenario where all the taxes in the world can't cover it.

"those of you complaining about higher taxes on the super rich, all i can say is, you ain't seen nothing yet."

I don't disagree.

"this is what happens when economic policy is tailored to meet the needs of the few and powerful: a small segment of the population winds up with such a disproportionate share of income and wealth that, by definition, they have to shoulder a disproportionate tax burden."

Well, we already have that. We've had it for some time. More importantly, the share of the burder is GREATER than the share of their income (progressive taxation).

"when looking to raise revenue, you have to go where the $$ is, and in the contemporary united states, that means you have to go to the rich."

And we always have.... an in a progressive system.

Would I be surprised if we get more progressive... not at all.

But we still have to fix spending.

"if you'd prefer an economic system that allocated income and assets more equally"

I'll take a system with some inequality over one where just about everybody gets less.

"that would be fine by me, and it would enable a more equal distribution of the tax burden."

and a failed economy... but, hey...

"but with income and wealth so stratified, higher taxes will have to come to those of us fortunate enough to be at the top of the income and wealth pyramids."

"will"? We've been there for quite some time.

Do you ever get tired?

Do you ever just walk away from an argument because it isn't worth winning?

Have you ever conceded defeat?

Is anyone else ever right?

Have you ever helped another human being just to be charitable?

ootin, i've seen the same post from you 10x now.

don't you ever get tired?

Is this really how you thing it best to spend your day?

Taxes are part of charity for the less fortunate. Obama is doing the right thing.

"if you'd prefer an economic system that allocated income and assets more equally, that would be fine by me"

Why is more "equal" more fair? A lot of business people, athletes, etc have more talent than the people who clean their houses. We don't like to say that b/c its politically incorrect - but its true. They are smarter, or more athletic, or better looking, or whatever - but they have SOME skill their neighbors don't have. Why is taking money from them, money they earned with their skills and/or hard work, and giving it to others, fair?

Equality doesn't exist much in nature, and it doesn't exist in human beings. Why should we divide our incomes "more equally". Is that really fair?

<>

Completely agree that people are born with different natural abilities. People are also born into different social/political circumstances (e.g., a very smart person born into a wealthy, educated family in the US is more likely to succeed than an equivalently wealthy person born to an impoverished mother in the third world without means to provide proper care.) Why does the accident of the circumstances of ones birth entail that those who have, in effect, won the genetic/social/political lottery, have a right to all the income that can be produced with their greater genetic endowment? Put another way, why does a child who, through no fault of his own, is unlucky enough to be born with few native abilities and to a poor family living in poverty, deserve to be relegated to poverty?

In summary, cutting 5% of the defense budget will solve the problem and eliminate this discussion.

JohnDoe: "Why does the accident of the circumstances of ones birth entail that those who have, in effect, won the genetic/social/political lottery, have a right to all the income that can be produced with their greater genetic endowment?"

It is no accident that my children are born to a family where they will get good healthcare, education, and opportunities for success in this country. It is also not an accident that they were born at all and who their parents are. The decisions made by by my great-...,-grandparents, parents and their hard work helped ensure that their descendants have the best opportunities for success and carry on their legacy.

I am not saying an infant deserves to be poor or rich. I am saying their parents, grandparents, great grandparents deserve to have poor or rich infants, grand kids, great grand kids, depending on their actions and that of their ancestors.

Wow Sunday, pretty easy to make that claim when you're one of those "lucky sperm." I imagine you're dying to say it's God's decision as well, so clearly He chooses who gets the short end of the stick and who doesn't. Take a look at Michael Douglas's son, and tell me again it's all about good parenting and being born into a "good" family.

"Equality doesn't exist much in nature, and it doesn't exist in human beings. Why should we divide our incomes "more equally". Is that really fair?"

The people screaming loudest for income equality are the types of people that I went to high school with. While I studied hard, played sports, and had a part time job they did drugs, skipped class, and got into trouble. Now, these kids are adults with low paying jobs, kids they can't afford, and a whole lot of angst because they pissed their life away. People speak a lot about the poor and unfortunate but the majority of this country is filled with the lazy and unaccountable and THESE are the folks who are sucking this country dry. Let's not blur the lines of who is poor or unfortunate with those that had a choice and chose badly. Income equality? I say, f*ck you. Work hard, save, and make smart choices.

NYC10007, I am grateful for my parents and grandparents, but I don't know if I'm one of those 'lucky sperm' by your definition. Here's a little info about me and see if you still think so:

-25 years ago, for 2 years my parents and four siblings all slept on cardboards from refrigerator boxes on the floor of a 9' X 12' room. We did not receive any help from the government or any non-profit group.
-we then "upgraded" to a two bedroom apartment in a drug infested building where our place was broken into twice before we moved out. We lost everything, including clothing, blankets, pillows, furniture, etc... We did not receive any help from the government or any non-profit group.
-14 years ago, I was making 27K a year
-I make more now, but certainly cannot afford a multimillion dollar apartment in Manhattan.

My children will have more opportunities for success than me, because I will do my best to provide them with guidance, education, and financially stability. Hopefully they will do better than me, and I don't mean just having more money. Just be happy, productive member of society, and the opportunity to be all they can be. And yes, hopefully not have to stress over money all the time.

Other than the rigged casinos of hedge funds that remains supported by our government, and the casinos of internet scams small and large, we need a system that encourages building wealth through hard work without confiscatory taxes, because no one ever gets hired by a poor person. Unless of course you believe that the government is the solution for employment growth - I personally don't.

I scanned the Crains piece, and unless I missed something, it is claiming that the top 1% (averaging $2.2mm pa) would be paying the extra $95k, and then the next 4% (averaging about $300k pa) would be paying an extra $1k per year. Everyone else is either flat or better off. Doesn't seem too onerous to me. As I say, I may have missed something but that is how it looks to me.

As for VAT, I think it makes sense for non-essentials (food, energy, children's clothes), throw in extra taxes on alcohol, tobacco and gasoline, and you might start to chip away at that deficit

The numbers came from a left-leaning spot trying to minimize the number. Figure its likely a few times that.

HakanDev
Taxes are part of charity for the less fortunate. Obama is doing the right thing.

Charity cannot be enforced by IRS. You can still take from the rich and give to the poor, but there's a different word for that.

"The numbers came from a left-leaning spot trying to minimize the number. Figure its likely a few times that."

Do you have any proof of that?

hey juice--i hope you dont get seriously ill--or your kid doesnt end up drug-addicted--both items happen to the best of people--youve been lucky, but youre unable to understand that--youthink your relative security is all a result of what a great guy you are--i hope your luck continues