NY State raises taxes

so now you're shilling for subs to financial times?

shame on you.

Interesting. Just a few weeks ago Cuomo was dead set against raising taxes on the rich. My my, looks like OWS is more powerful than we realized. Let's face it, Cuomo caved in to OWS, and he needs to raise taxes in order to be taken seriously in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary.

Socialist, you'd be better off saying that Cuomo caved to the UFT than to OWS. If OWS, which has no leader and no membership got it done, and UFT couldn't, what does that say for the power and influence of formal unions?

None of the unions endorsed Cuomo when he ran for governor so he could not care less about them.

If Cuomo keeps the good work up, you could be looking at the 2016 Democratic nominee for president.

Socialist, thanks for the very recent news.

Cuomo had no choice but to raise taxes. Revneue projections that were made last summer were overly optimistic.

>Cuomo had no choice but to raise taxes. Revneue projections that were made last summer were overly optimistic.

I'm sure Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley will have a more compelling story than that he "had no choice".

at least NYC RE taces are going up this year

"If you earn over 2 mill, your rate is going up."

If by "up" you mean "lower than this year, but higher than a few years ago" then you're onto something. Most people would think "lower than this year" means "down", though.

Cuomo caved to the unions. Anything to keep up the crazy lavish benefits . . .

socialist, praising politicians of the party you support for "caving in to ows" is basically an insult to politicians in question. i bet he would actually prefer it if people said he always meant to raise taxes he just fibbed a little and said he wouldn't when it seemed like the appropriate thing to do, instead of "he caved to the hobos (homegrown and imported, by the way!) of ows."

on a separate note, did Cuomo ever visit zuccotti park in person? because the pictures of his facial expressions as he looked around the place would have been adsolutely priceless.

Sandra! anti bacterial wipes! and burn this suit!

jordyn, can you please explain how 2.5 billion to plug the budget gap somehow doesnt translate to a tax raise?

This is obviously bullish for Manhattan RE, since you know the Chinese, Brazilians, blah blah. Wall Street lay-offs have zero impact. Higher taxes, none. We are in a force field!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Cuomo ever visit zuccotti park in person? because the pictures of his facial expressions as he looked around the place would have been adsolutely priceless. "

When every survey on the topic shows that a large majority of Americans - including a majority of REPUBLICANS support raising taxes on those making more than $1MM a year - it does not matter what those people look like. you are a [the word huntersberg uses.]

Everyone is getting their tax rate lowered, but no-one more so than people making between $300,000 and $2,000,000 a year. I think in plain English that's called a tax reduction.

"When every survey on the topic shows that a large majority of Americans - including a majority of REPUBLICANS support raising taxes on those making more than $1MM a year - it does not matter what those people look like. you are a [the word huntersberg uses.]"

so then how exactly is this the ows victory you suggest it is? jason you really do make it too easy. which word does huntersburg use? window? shower? that's a metaphor you peasant!

"jordyn, can you please explain how 2.5 billion to plug the budget gap somehow doesnt translate to a tax raise?"

Yes, it's a tax raise relative to what the taxes were a few years ago and which they were slated to return to next year.

It's a tax *decrease* relative to what the current rates are. That seems to be the rate that matters, no?

Maly, you're clueless. jordyn, if you think that the 2-3 billion gap plugged by "revenue increases" does not equate to a tax raise, then I think I am going to start ringing the get a clue bell again for you too.

It may be a bit easier to swallow for you given your personal stake in things but its just business as usual in NYS which is among the most corrupt and conflict ridden states in the union. And thats quite a statement given what is going on elsewhere.

NYS is not more corrupt than other states, you window.

When a liberal says "Every survey says . . ." or "Every economist says . . ." or "The consensus among scientists is . . .", you know a big lie is coming.

"jordyn, if you think that the 2-3 billion gap plugged by "revenue increases" does not equate to a tax raise, then I think I am going to start ringing the get a clue bell again for you too."

So, by this logic if in 2013, we change the (current) 35% federal tax bracket to 38%, that would be a tax decrease since it's slated to increase to 39.6% under existing law?

lets stick with nys for the moment before you go off on another tangent. Bottom line, what cuomo and his foxhounds (silver,skelos) proposed yesterday was a tax hike. it may have been a turd in a tux, but a turd nonetheless. A tax HIKE/INCREASE/REVENUE GRAB. N'etce-pas?

hb, what???

lucille, please help rangers.

"lets stick with nys for the moment before you go off on another tangent."

It's not a tangent. I'm trying to figure out if you really think the correct comparison is to what existing law would do in the future rather than what tax rates are right now.

Under Cuomo's plan, everyone will have a lower tax rate in 2012 than they did in 2011. That's a tax decrease according to most people's definition. If you really believe that the correct comparison is to the theoretical 2012 rates rather than the actual 2011 rates, then you must also agree that we can somehow decrease taxes by raising them by less than the existing law does, and the federal tax situation is a good example of this principle.

the "millionaires tax" (bad description because it applied to anyone earning in excess of 200k) was a surcharge and originally rolled out under the guise of plugging yet another budget gap that was not supposed to affect the tax code. what shelly pulled off yesterday was a revamping of the code to add in yet another higher bracket that will not affect the vast majority but was a tax hike nonetheless.

all the dressing up turds issues aside, it did not address the fundamental problems in the budget. yet, lets rejoice cause we have a "tax decrease". fuel for fools.

'When a liberal says "Every survey says . . ." or "Every economist says . . ." or "The consensus among scientists is . . .", you know a big lie is coming."

How is it a lie? You think Gallup, Pew, the WSJ, NYT, Fox, and all other such polling organizations ALL collectively decided to fake survey results that show that 70% or so of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy? What exactly is the lie, idiot? And what is FOX or the WSJ doing being part of said lie?

Its also not a lie that most scientists think global warming is real. That is not the same as saying global warming is real. But its irrefutable that most scientists SAY its real. Just like its irrefutable that most Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/Americans-Favor-Jobs-Plan-Proposals-Including-Taxing-Rich.aspx

See question #17 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html

See page 19 http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US110410/McClatchy/McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Complete%20April%2018th,%202011%20USA%20Poll%20Tables.pdf

Here are 19 recent polls all showing the same thing.

What exactly is the lie here?

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really

So it's an increase on what could have been had the surcharge been left to expire, but a decrease compared to this year. Still a decrease. I find it telling you are refusing to answer Jordyn's question. All this whinging when your taxes are going down. You're like a toddler crying because he only got a small ice cream cone.

rangersfan do you require assistance of some sort?

From Anthony Watts:

More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report %u2014 updated from 2007%u2032s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming %u201Cconsensus%u201D %u2014 features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870#ixzz1ftPMDvXS

Anthony Watts? The weather man who failed to graduate college and has never published a peer reviewed article? The guy who was prepared to accept Richard Muller's findings until they turned out to be against his position? That's a good source.

LIC, you do realize that Scientific American debunked your claim long ago. The vast majority of the scientists cited were NOT climatologists, or in many cases SCIENTISTS AT ALL. Of those who were, most in fact say the opposite - that warming is occuring. It was either long out of date work being cited, quote mining, or in other cases bald-faced lying.

The fact is actual surveys of climatologists (and geologists and other relevant scientists) show that they overwhelmingly say you are wrong.

And most Americans do in fact support higher taxes on the rich. I am still trying to see how this is a big lie.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/11/17/do-80-percent-of-scientific-american-subscribers-deny-global-warming-hardly/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-finds-global-warming-is-real

The list of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Aeronautical Engineer 3
Aerospace Engineer 4
Agricultural scientist 9
Air Quality Measurements
Air Resources Engineer
American Enterprise Institute
Analytical chemist 3
Applied Physicist and Engineer
Artificial Intelligence
Astronomer 2
Statistical analyst currently working on his PhD
Astronaut 3
Biochemist 6
Biologist 10
Botanist 2
Forest Biometrics
Systems/software engineering
Chemical Engineer 16
Chemist 40
Civil Engineering 2
Computational Statistics
Computer Simulation
Cybernetics
Malaria expert
Earth Scientist 4
Ecologist 6
Ecosystem Analysis
Electrical Engineer 2
Engineer 16
Environmental Engineer 2
Environmental Geochemist
Environmental scientist 3
Environmental Services
Evolutionary Biologist
Field Geologist
Forecasting and Innovation
Forestry scientist
Geochemist 2
Geography 2
Geoengineering
Geologist 45
Geophysicist 11
High technology manufacturer
Horticulturalist 2
Hydrobiologist
Hydrogeologist
Hydrologist 4
International Energy Studies
Marine Biologist 2
Marine Researcher 2
Materials Engineer
Mathematician 8
Mechanical Engineer 5
Medicine
Microbiologist
Molecular Plant Sciences
Molecular Recognition
Nuclear Chemistry 3
Nuclear Physicist
Particle Physicist
Physicist 43
Plant Physiology
Power Systems Analyst
Soil scientist
Solar system researcher
Space Engineer
Statistician 2
Biogeographer
Wildlife documentary maker
Zoologist

Social scientist 3
Economist 26
Royal Netherlands Air Force
Computer modeler (PhD in Philosophy of Science)
Senior enforcement counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy
Oriental and African Studies
Management
Editor
Statistician 2

Bottom line: 58% of the "experts" quoted on Inhofe's blog have no credentials in climate research and only 16% have top-notch credentials.

quoting from another analysis of his "scientists"

lightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.

Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.

Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.

Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/news/senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible/

None of which belies the FACT that every poll shows Americans favor higher taxes on the rich, BTW.

That is shocking, a poll that suggests Americans favoring raising taxes on a group they are not part of.

"That is shocking, a poll that suggests Americans favoring raising taxes on a group they are not part of."

So it sounds like you agree the poll demonstrates a fact that is not a lie?

By the way, most rich people favor taxes on rich people as well:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw

>By the way, most rich people favor taxes on rich people as well:

Makes sense. Congress, which controls the spending, has what approval rating right now? And people want to put more money in the hands of this Congress ... for what government spending increases? More wars? Welfare? Bridges to nowhere? Solyndra? Bank bailouts? Anti-drug and anti-gun efforts led by the DEA?

I'd ask, how many people who aren't yet billionaires, and make their money from their efforts (vs. through tax-sheltered munis and capital gains), want to see income taxes raised? Nothing has ever stopped Warren Buffett from writing a several billion dollar check to the government or to an important charity, but he's chosen not to, and still won't, until he's dead and it doesn't matter to him.

maly, again you are absolutely clueless. thanks for the insights though, how is zombieland this festive time of year?

jason, do really think its such a revelation to suggest the majority of americans are willing to raise taxes on a group as long as it doesn't effect them personally? really?

Rangersfan apparently doesn't credit the poll cited in the left-wing WSJ.

midtownereast, careful or you will end up wandering in zombieland with maly. most (including myself) think it reasonable for those who derive a good part of their income from capital gains to be taxed higher than the current 15%. and if you look at this particular poll, it asked those with INVESTMENTS of more than 1mm supporting higher taxes for wage earners of 1mm or more. figure it out....

more importantly, the budget political shell game that continues in nys is downright criminal. thats really the larger issue here and plugging yet another budget gap with "new revenue" is really not all that hard to figure out - but labled as a tax decrease. as i said before, fuel for fools. but carry on, nothing to see here....

"midtownereast, careful or you will end up wandering in zombieland with maly. most (including myself) think it reasonable for those who derive a good part of their income from capital gains to be taxed higher than the current 15%. and if you look at this particular poll, it asked those with INVESTMENTS of more than 1mm supporting higher taxes for wage earners of 1mm or more."

If you look at what the pool is about, it's about Warren Buffet's tax proposal, which explicitly calls out low capital gains rate and proposes increasing them. From his NYT editorial:

"But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains."

sorry to be a party pooper. again. BUT let's just take a break from so selflessly voluteering away our money to the shady entity known as the us government and see what this industrious bunch does with the money we already give them because we don't really have a choice and we will go to jail if we tell them to go fuck themselves. which we obviously all want to avoid.

so here's a pretty picture here
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

and another neat one here, this one's a big orange pie chart!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

and here is just some general info so that we can all know what we are talking about. because it's important to know what you are talking about it. especially when talking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

anyway, for all the talk about raising taxes and cutting taxes, there seems to be little conversation about what actually happens with our taxes. and i am frankly surprised that more people aren't curious!

One example: When the conversation includes cutting the defense budget, which surely it must, everyone howls in protest. The defense budget is as much the political third rail as cutting "entitlements." Any sane government would be assessing the need for such spending and people do bring it up all the time. But we don't have anyone in Washington -- including the present administration -- with the balls to address it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html

Panetta has been a vocal opponent of defense cuts and he gave a widely publicized speech a while back denouncing even minimal reductions. Plus, read the article and not just the headline:

"Mr. Panetta has called those additional cuts potentially ruinous. In that view, he has allies in Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, who are preparing legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget. The defense secretary’s stated views could well put more pressure on the committee to come up with a deal."

This is the guy leading the charge? It is a charade.

sorry, completely flaked on part 2 of this 2 part installment.

http://publications.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/enacted1112.html

"When the conversation includes cutting the defense budget, which surely it must, everyone howls in protest."

Er. A lot of people who support raising taxes also support cutting the defense budget. It's the Republican lunatics who want to magically keep the defense budget intact and never, ever raise taxes, employing some form of magic to balance the budget.

Also, as Lucille's chart makes clear, in the long term getting the federal budget under control requires getting health spending under control. The Republican plan for this is basically tort reform (lawsuits drive maybe a couple percent of medical costs) and magic, so it's not like they have a credible plan to cut spending outside of defense, either.

@Jordyn, I agree completely. I don't see any contradiction between increasing tax revenues and cutting the Defense budget. It's a fairly standard Democratic stance. All this agitation over welfare fraud is glitter dust to make voters forget that while we lose millions to welfare and disability cheats, we've spent over a trillion dollars in our outsourced wars. There is no balanced budget without getting health care costs and DoD toys in check, AND we'll still need to increase taxes. I wish we could put the lies of voodoo economics behind us once and for all. Both sides could then argue about who is going to pay for what, instead of dancing with ghosts.

Raise everyone's taxes. Get rid of the ability to pay no taxes at any rate of income and make everyone have a vested interest. Even if it is $100.00.

i don't know the answer to this and maybe someone here does, but when did people involved in economics start to so completely disassociate a nation's economic prosperity from her military campaigns? i didn't go to businesss school, but do they teach business things in the context of military history there? like military campaigns and the financial motives for wars, the players, what is wagered, how it is financed, the victors, the spoils, stuff like that? because they should. looking at economics from a military history perspective is second in being interesting only to looking at military history from an economics perspective. we need the military. it should always be the last thing to cut, if for no other reason than unlike so many things people believe the federal government should be funding, the only one guaranteed by the constitution is to raise and support and army and provide and maintain a navy.

dammit, that's not true, they also have to build post offices, roads, promote science and the arts and fight pirates on the high seas. AARRRGHHH

here we go, commentary on cutting costs of bloated, inefficient, corrupt, conflicted STATE government and your go to response is defense spending. classic.

remember, in the greatest financial crisis in this generation back in 2008, shelly, sampson and patterson orchastrated a 9.2% INCREASE in the state budget behind closed doors. All done to continue feeding the beast and to satisfy their conflicted self-interests. funded by the federal stimulus and on the backs of taxpayers.

now we have "tax saves" that come in the form of 2 billion dollar budget cap plugs. fools.

Can we please stop referring to the military budget as the "defense budget"? Because it is not. We should refer to the budget by what it really is: The Military Industrial Complex budget.

Or we can call it the "Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Halliburton Profit Enhancement Budget"

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

--Dwight Eisenhower

Forget what you've read in the press or heard on television: There is no scientific consensus on global warming.

In recent months, there has been much talk in the national news media about a scientific consensus on global warming. A page one story appearing in The Washington Post on November 12, for example, blared, "Consensus Emerges Earth is Warming -- Now What?"

But precisely how did The Washington Post and other papers conclude that a scientific consensus exists? Did they poll climate scientists? Perhaps they, like Vice President Gore and other administration officials, relied on various letters supporting the global warming theory signed by self-proclaimed "scientific experts."

One such letter, "Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption," was circulated by a Washington, D.C.-based group called Ozone Action. It purported to have as signatories 2,611 scientists from the U.S. and abroad endorsing the idea that the scientific evidence of global warming was conclusive. The only problem is, most of the signers have little or no background in climate science. According to Citizens for a Sound Economy, only about 10% of the letter's signers have experience in fields connected with climate science. What's worse, the letter includes as signers two landscape architects, ten people with backgrounds in psychology, one person trained in traditional Chinese medicine techniques and one person trained in gynecology. There is a world of difference between a gynecologist and a climatologist. Still, a number of journalists actually took the Ozone Action letter seriously.

Or, perhaps The Washington Post and others determined there was a consensus based upon the Second Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 1995. The report, which purports to be the culmination of some 2,000 scientists' work, found that the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence" on climate. But this is misleading: While many scientists did indeed work on the Second Assessment Report, they did not necessarily support the conclusions of the final report. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of the scientists who participated in the process noted, "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors. This was at variance with the normal role of journal editorial boards and led to suggestions that some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to adequately reflect dissenting views when revising their text."

Surveys of climate scientists and meteorologists don't lend much credibility to the argument that a consensus exists either:

A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by Dennis Bray of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and Hans von Storch of GKSS Forschungszentrum and reported in the United Nations Climate Change Bulletin, for example, found that only 10% of the researchers surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." Further, 35% of those surveyed either disagreed with the statement or were undecided. Perhaps even more interesting, 67% of the researchers either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that climate change will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation would devastate certain parts of the world -- the underlying assumption on which the talks in Kyoto, Japan were based. Close to half of the researchers -- 48% -- indicated that they don't have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the strongest argument in favor of quick, decisive, international action to counter the threat of global warming. Another 20% expressed uncertainty about these models.

Another survey, conducted by American Viewpoint for Citizens for a Sound Economy, found that, by a margin of 44% to 17%, state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed with President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real," while only 36% agreed with the assertion. Thirty-six of the nation's 48 official state climatologists participated in the survey.

There is, therefore, no scientific consensus on global warming.

But perhaps even more important than whether or not scientists have reached a consensus, however, is whether or not the scientific data backs up the theory. Data collected from NASA's TIROs series of weather satellites show a slight cooling trend of .04 degrees Celsius over the past 18 years. These findings have been confirmed by weather balloons.

Even if scientists haven't developed a consensus on global warming, the scientific data has: Global warming is not occurring.

-David Ridenour is vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research.

okay, socialist. lets all cater to your dogma. from now on the department of defense shall be renamed the department of the preservation of the profit seeking heathens that really run this country. does that work for you?

cuba beackons, the renewed soviet efforts back to communism beackons, outdated eastern european socialist regitmes beackons - better yet, venezuela beackons (much better climate to sun yourself in delusion) beackons. please go.

think you would be better served by quoting karl marx or hugo chavez rather than eisenhower.

...or groucho marx for that matter.

as far as healthcare, i think the inherent ambiguity of the definition and therefore purpose of "healthcare" is the biggest block to addressing and ultimately resolving the problems with it. i find that people are pretty eager to demonize lawyers, whom no one really likes, for the high costs, when they admit the costs are very high and need to be lowered. OR people deny the costs are extraordinarily high and just want more healthcare spending from the government. a government that already spends roughly the same amount on healthcare as on a constitutionally mandated military. healthcare is first and foremost a business for everyone except the patient. it is only personal and precious to the sick, for everyone else involved it is a job, it is their livelyhood. if you find yourself wondering, hey how come my government spends as much on my healthcare as they do on all the cool shit in the greatest military in the history of the world, and i still have to pay so much? what's up with that? well, you could start by asking your government. (note real estate is #12 and everyone hates brokers, too, they're bad, and the lone defense guy is all the way in last place. he's probably fat)

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i

you can ask your doctor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association

"AMA has been actively involved in a variety of medical policy issues"

"The AMA has given high priority to supporting changes in medical malpractice law to limit damage awards" (take that you slimy lawyers!) because that "makes it difficult for patients to find appropriate medical care." they hope to resolve this by effecting "caps on the amount that patients can receive for pain and suffering"

"AMA discussed its opposition to a fast-spreading nationwide trend for medical clinics to open up in supermarkets and drugstores"

citing hilariously "potential conflict of interest, and potential jeopardized quality of care". remember like a second ago when they were really annoyed about any sniffing around THEIR interests and the quality of the care they provide? yeah, neither do they.

"Another top priority of the AMA is to lobby for change to the federal tax codes to allow the current health insurance system (based on employment) to be purchased by individuals. Such changes could possibly allow millions of currently uninsured Americans to be able to afford insurance through a series of refundable tax credits based on income" the wording in that one is just a work of art, is what it is.

"The AMA responded to the government estimate that more than 35 million Americans live in underserved areas by stating it would take 16,000 doctors to immediately fill that need" moving right along.....

"vThe AMA and other industry groups predicted an over-supply of doctors, and worked to limit the number of new doctors. But recently, the AMA has changed its position, predicting a doctor shortage instead"

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

and finally, you can call this guy and say "wtf!! $4 a pop for lexapro? what is your problem, man!?"

but for the love of god, stop averting your eyes in shame and taking out cash, removing jewelry and pulling out your hair plugs to give to the tax man while flogging yourself and repeating 'i don't reserve it. i don't deserve it. i don't deserve it'. you deserve it - you earned it! it's your money!

this is way off new york state taxes. eh.

What a cartoon world you live in. Not all profits are valid: if a corporation makes a profit by feeding on billions of dollars of tax money for no public benefit, you should be at least as concerned as when an Amtrak retiree double-dips on a disability + pension. Maybe more, since one costs the government 100X more than the other. It's almost as if corporations have some divine right to plunder and steal, because they can afford lobbyists.

sorry, guy who is a major reason you need ambien in the first place. because everything is so expensive!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Castellani

Stealing money is only a crime when it is done by government unionized workers. Pay no attention to the black garabage bags full of $100 bills that went missing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

maly, what is going on in zombieland today?? have you reached the saturation point yet and starting to feed on the other zombies? now thats really scary....

Why do Republicans hate the military so much????

Air Force Dumped Remains Of 274 Troops In Virginia Landfill

This week, after The Post pressed for information contained in the Dover mortuary’s electronic database, the Air Force produced a tally based on those records. It showed that 976 fragments from 274 military personnel were cremated, incinerated and taken to the landfill between 2004 and 2008.

An additional group of 1,762 unidentified remains were collected from the battlefield and disposed of in the same manner, the Air Force said. Those fragments could not undergo DNA testing because they had been badly burned or damaged in explosions. The total number of incinerated fragments dumped in the landfill exceeded 2,700.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/08/384765/air-force-dumped-remains-of-274-troops-in-virginia-landfill/

socialist, that's the point. you ONLY pay attention to those $100 bills. and while you were distracted they came out with a new $1k dollar bill, stole them all and spent the last of it on hookers and blow last night. that money is just as yours as the money the evil vaguely soldier-ly dudes took from you. why don't you care? and the answer is NOT to give them more money. to take from you. it's to make them more accountable for the money you already give them, or at the very least pay enough attention that you can demonize someone other than military people, who though the have been just a teeny bit irresposible with their allowence, would also readily die in the name of the country they serve. why are people so content with demonizing the military? is it the guns?

your money is green enough for a lot of people who don't hesitate to help themselves to it. why are you only offended by the military doing it?

Uh Oh.

“I have no use for the union. All I see is waste, corruption and hypocrisy.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/union_bigs_face_rank_and_bile_po3sGNBLpbDjfz0yla8FBK

because in the land of zombies, the military is an easy target. always has been and always will be....

now, how 'bout them taxes in nys??!!! fairness, i say, we have attained fairness...hahahahaha.

"All this whinging when your taxes are going down. You're like a toddler crying because he only got a small ice cream cone."

better translation - i am like a toddler crying because the cone i just paid for was taken by the big bully who took some licks and passed it on to some other random toddlers who didn't pay a dime for it and they took their licks and all i got back was the sticky napkin.

Toddlers can share. Adults need compassion, but first and foremost they need personal responsibility.

As long as you realize you're an overgrown spoiled brat. You'd have us believe you make more than $2M a year, and you can't wrap your mind around the fact that your state taxes are not going down as much as you thought, because the economy is in the toilet. Cry me a river.

bob420
"about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Uh Oh.

“I have no use for the union. All I see is waste, corruption and hypocrisy.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/union_bigs_face_rank_and_bile_po3sGNBLpbDjfz0yla8FBK"

the picture/caption with this article is great. that's pretty much exactly the way i imagined new york union leaders look while soaking up the sun in puerto rico.

ha, of course that is what you would take out of my more accurate analogy. nobody has spoiled me my dear, i can assure you of that.

you on the other hand, can continue to roam zombieland in search of other victims but be careful when the zombies start to turn on each other. frightful.

have you read jon corzine's background? although i don't know him personally, i would bet that he doesn't think that he was ever spoiled.

You are completely delusional. Zombieland? You can't even tell what's up or down, no wonder you think so much of yourself.

Rangersfan, out of curiosity, do you own more than 3 stocks?

well, i can tell the difference between a rewrite of the tax code to include another higher bracket vs. the decrease you have swallowed and accepted by the masters of the shell game in nys.

hb, yes. out of curiosity, why are you so curious?

maly, i will go back to my original statement that you are completely clueless so its pointless to direct any more comments to you. have fun on zombie island.