Look for some seriously good real estate deals in Manhattan in the next few weeks.

nyc10022,
i don't even know what statement you think was 'ignorant'?

paul,
You are right - anything can be re-negotiated. Just ask the workers in the car and airline industry.
They have been through that several times in recent years.

yep, union workers should make major concessions but try to touch the bonuses of wall street execs and all of a sudden you are a socialist.

i don't see how this qualifies as a bill of attainder at all since it has nothing to do with either crime or punishment. it also certainly passes the 'rational basis' test. it's not as if they want to levy high taxes on blue-eyed people.

"Swap in 'black' for high income and try making that statement again."

I am confused as to how that changes anything. "[I] don't despise '[black] people' as a group. i DO despise some people who happen to be [black]. and you don't?"

So you are saying if you are white you can't dislike someone because they happen to also be [fill in the blank]? Now that is an ignorant statement.

As pertaining to this thread, I do think 250k would be fine if it were individual incomes. Combined income of 250k seems too low for the NYC area.

> if person A earns $10 million a year and pays $8 million in taxes, and person B earns $50k per year and pays $10k in taxe

I wouldn't do much about person B. He's an average person to be treated in an average way.

I'd encourage person A to continue making his income in this city and this state.

but we are talking about federal taxes on american citizens. so, sure, they can give up their american citizenship and expatriate to avoid taxes, but i think about 99.9% of us value our rights as citizens more than extreme wealth.

"nyc10022, you can swap in any word you like. there are people who happen to be black, white, protestant, catholic, jewish, buddhist, hindu, muslim, female, male, tall, short, russian, german, finnish, and kazakh who i happen to dislike. and there are members of all those groups who i happen to like. what's the point? if i happen to dislike a wall street CEO who ran his company into the ground and continues to enrich himself at the expense of the taxpayers then i am some kind of bigot? please."

I didn't say bigot, I said ignorant.... which would fit any of these.

"So you are saying if you are white you can't dislike someone because they happen to also be [fill in the blank]? Now that is an ignorant statement."

Nope. Try again. It would be an ignorant statement.... but so far, only you have said it.

so it is ignorant to dislike people? huh?

i'm glad you are so universally loving, but let's get real.

this bill is downright unconstitutional. taxpayers will get their money back, in fact i believe bank of america paid back 400mln in interest payments for the american people.

once these loans are paid back, should people get their bonuses back?

hvd_free: the U.S. Constitution still matters in this day and age...: http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm"

FWIW, the ex post facto clause ONLY limits the Govt's ability to impose retroactive CRIMINAL liability. It has nothing to do with retroactive CIVIL liability (or Tax liability). Ditto for the bill of attainder clause--although, to be precise, that wouldn't apply here anyway because it's NOT a bill of attainder--the amendment to the IRC passed by the House today applies to a large GROUP of people, rather than any one person (or even a handful of people).

So, yes the Constitution still matters--but it won't help here.

And if anyone is thinking about it, the "Contacts Clause" won't help here either.

"happyrenter - The statistic is meaningful on its own. If 5% of the people are paying 60% of the federal income tax revenue, then the face of the put-upon taxpayer is not the waitress from Ohio."

Angler, don't waste your time.... he's already been shown the stats about actual rates, and still yells "regressive" all the time. I don't think he quite gets phase-outs and the like.

We have a regressive system AND the high enders not only pay a larger share but most of the taxes. The scary thing is, most Americans seem to buy the lie the lefties tell that this isn't the case.. and yell for more taxes on them. Amusingly, when you say "how about it it was flat", these same people think that would be better. They don't get that these folks are actually OVERTAXED relative to where they think they should be.

The lefties have just done an excellent job of hiding the truth.

thank you for the common sense here slope

> i'm glad you are so universally loving, but let's get real.

What's "real"? Misleading people on government policy?

Are you a fan of Chris Dodd too?

technically, why don't we tax all who benefited from the tarp at 90% past 250k, which includes any hedge funds who get financing from any of the banks. their compensation is directly tied to the credit worthiness of the very banks that do business with them. why stop at tarp recipients and go to tarp beneficiaries. It would be foolish to ignore the private funds and any institutions that rely on fees from the tarp recipients.

this is a highly protectionist move. as soon as US banks have the disadvantage, foreign banks will start their poaching.

agree with those who say this is gonna crater NY real estate if anything like the proposed bonus taxes ultimately passes...even if the bills dont pass, the threat of them may cause the banks to slash bonuses precipitously in 2009 and beyond....either way, disposable income seems likely to fall a lot in 2009 and perhaps 2010...amazing times

streakeasy, do you even know what protectionist means? how is this protectionist?

nyc10022,
classic strategy; change the subject. still can't figure out what statement i made that you consider ignorant.

Pot... kettle. Every time you lose an argument, you resort to insults...

wait, what's the insult? lol. all i said was that you are changing the subject, and that i can't figure out what you are talking about. wow.

which argument are you now claiming i lost? the argument that it is not ignorant to dislike some people? what? where? who? what the hell are you talking about?

sorry hr, more like anti-protectionist.

hr, do you even pay taxes? i get it! you're a foreigner!

hr, answer me this: when tarp recipients pay back the loans, do employees get their compensation back?

10,707 apartments for sale as of today

foreigners don't pay taxes? wth are you talking about?

if you had been following the conversation you would have seen that not only do i pay taxes, but i believe that my taxes ought to be raised substantially.

when tarp recipients pay back the tarp money, then they can pay their employees whatever they want. if they choose to compensate them for the taxes that were paid, they are welcome to do so.

"i believe that my taxes ought to be raised substantially."

I must be in a much higher bracket than you.

unlikely. unless they've created a $10 million bracket (as they should).

"...when tarp recipients pay back the tarp money.."

I believe that when I see it.
Let's wait for the Q1 reports by these financial strongholds

> i can't figure out what you are talking about. wow

I'm not surprised at all...

Slope11217 - The prohibition against Bills of Attainder may be construed to cover civil penalties. The breadth of the persecuted class is a possible out.

happyrenter - The stats I put up are not about relative pain, but who is paying the bills. The rhetoric on the Hill that is parroted in the streets would have us believe otherwise.

you specifically wrote that the image of the waitress as the 'suffering taxpayer' is inaccurate. that's not about pain?

nyc10022, it wouldn't be easier to simply explain yourself than to go on with this silliness? i guess you have no idea what you are talking about either.

happyrenter - "put-upon taxpayer" is what I wrote, and that specifically was in reference to the fallacy over which taxpayers have ownership of the financial rescue. Nice try, but your interpreting my comments as a strawman to best suit your argument will not work here.

fine angler, your words work just as well. the waitress IS the put-upon taxpayer, because every dollar of tax she pays actually makes a material difference in her life. not just the waitress, but the teacher, the telephone operator, the childcare worker, the long-haul truck-driver: the working class and the middle class. their tax dollars really matter to them, not because they want to send their kids to private schools and live in manhattan, but because they need to buy food, clothing, gas, pay the rent or mortgage on a modest place, and maybe have a little extra to put aside for retirement, college for their kids, or to go to the movies or out to a nice dinner once in a blue moon.

the waitress is the put-upon taxpayer, not the millionaire. you can use whatever word you want.

happyrenter,
Good post. Attacking people who have limited means is, well, downright mean. Is that how people who have so much show concern for those who have so little?

happyrenter - You are blinded to your own tunnel vision. I was never arguing that the middle/working-class person is under a lesser financial burden. In fact I agree with you that they feel more pain over every incremental dollar. That was not my point. If twisting my words to rationalize your anger is the best you can do, fine. I get it. You are comfortable with our government openly deceiving us in furtherance of a broader political agenda. That being the case, I have a war I'd like to sell you.

what is your point then, angler? if that isn't your point then please explain what it is. i am not trying to twist your words at all. when you say that the image of the waitress as the put-upon taxpayer is inaccurate, what do you mean, other than that the real put-upon people are the rich people paying more in taxes?

Re-read my posts. They are all about who is funding the bailout. I did not ascribe any suffering, that is your bag. Clearly you don't appreciate nuance or a siimple turn of phrase. The point is the hypocrisy of our political flamethrowers.

=========================================================================
New surveys show that Consumers are Just a Paycheck or Two Away From Ruin
=========================================================================

The results of a bevy of surveys found a growing number of consumers are only a couple paychecks away from a household collapse even as many scramble to shore up savings. Rainy-day funds appear to be a distant memory as households burn cash to cover food and energy bills as well as mortgage and car payments.

A large number of households say that even one missed paycheck would spell financial ruin. And even in households that remain well off, the surveys show a festering fear that financial problems are lurking.
"This is flashing so bright red," said Paul Ballew, senior vice president of Nationwide Insurance Co. "Roughly 60% of the population was ill-prepared (financially) before the meltdown."

A MetLife study released last week found that 50% of Americans said they have only a one-month cushion -- roughly two paychecks -- or less before they would be unable to fully meet their financial obligations if they were to lose their jobs. More disturbing is that 28% said they could not make ends meet for longer than two weeks without their jobs.

And it's not just low-income earners who would find themselves financially challenged. Twenty-nine percent of those making $100,000 or more a year said they would have trouble paying the bills after more than a month of unemployment. !!!!!!

Long-term retrenchment

America's Research Group found that nearly 57% of the consumers it polled said they would spend less this year while virtually no one plans to spend more.
But this is not just a one-year thing, according to consumers surveyed by BIGresearch. Nearly 91% said they see this crisis bearing down on their spending decisions -- in effect, their lifestyles -- over the next five years.

55% said they will think carefully before they make a purchase and 51% said they expect to be more price-conscious when buying clothing and food.
"American consumers are hunkered down, bracing for a depression," said Britt Beemer, chief executive of America's Research Group. "The dramatic drops in shopping levels have no match in our database in the last 30 years."

Long-Term Retrenchment

This is a secular shift in attitudes, not a cyclical one. Spending is not returning to levels we saw in recent years. I am still expecting 500,000 or more jobs lost in each of the next two months. Some months of 750,000 losses or more are not out of the question.

angler,

you wrote that it was inaccurate to describe the waitress as a 'put-upon' taxpayer. i disagree. i think she is put-upon. it is not a matter of how much she pays in taxes but of how much those tax dollars mean to her.

as to the question of who is 'funding the bailout' the answer is clear: the federal government is funding it, and by extension the society at large. we don't track tax dollars to individuals--it's not like i can say that my dollars are paying to preserve national parks but not to torture people in guantanamo bay. as citizens we are collectively responsible for the actions of the state, which is an expression of our democratic will. so it is simply irrelevant and even non-sensical to ask which tax dollars from which people are paying for which programs. it doesn't work that way. we are all funding these bailouts.

i have re-read your posts and that nuance that you claim i missed must be buried very, very deep. i fully appreciate your simple turns of phrase. i just don't agree with them.

5% pay 60%. Deal with it.

5% make 80% of income pool

HT1- Stick with the facts. 5% make 37%.

I have only old data from 2005

Nearly 90% of Americans make less than $100,000 a year
Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000.

The ratios were similar in 2006.

angler,

it is irrelevant who pays how much in taxes, as i said before, unless it is in relation to how much they make. the percentage of taxes paid by the rich has gone up even as their marginal rates have come down because their share of the national income has risen fast. that's the real story, not who pays much in tax.

i should also add that the statistics you are using do not include payroll taxes, which are highly burdensome on the poor and middle class but have virtually no impact on the wealthy. the top 5% make, on average, 7x what the average american makes. it should be no wonder that they pay a disproportionate share of the taxes. the truth is their share should be much higher.

it seems to be very tough to find good data on top earners...strange

found this
Everyone hates taxes but the payroll tax is about the worst. Four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The payroll tax is also regressive; poorer workers pay proportionately more than richer. It's paid out of the very first dollar earned, all the way up to a threshold that's now roughly $80,000. After that, nothing. Wealthy earners pay only the tiny Medicare portion of the payroll tax on all their earnings So the very rich finish paying early in the year. Bill Gates is done a few minutes past midnight, January 1. True, poorer retirees get back more each year from Social Security and Medicare relative to the taxes they contributed when they worked. But poorer retirees don't live nearly as long, so overall, the system's still regressive.

At the end of World War II, only 2 percent of federal revenue came from payroll taxes; now it's 37 percent. That's because most major tax cuts of past 25 years have been heavily tilted toward the rich. The biggest tax increase has been the payroll tax, which rose substantially in the 1980s.

The estate tax is almost a mirror image of the payroll tax. Ninety-eight percent of American families don't come near it because it now affects only people who die with a net worth of more than $1 million. Half of all estate taxes collected by the federal government in 1999 came from 3,300 family estates.

A quarter of all estate taxes came from just 467 families, each of whom was worth more than $20 million. We're talking about the super, super rich.

"Nearly 90% of Americans make less than $100,000 a year
Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000."

I think we've impoverished this nation when the outsourcing began & globalization took hold. The powers that be embraced a vision in which we would become a services nation: Ya either flip burgers or ya flip financial paper, so ya either earn a lot or a little. I say being back manufacturing to the US, so we can create goods and people can earn a living wage. Also, get rid of the mentality in which the CEO must earn millions and the workers earn $15 an hour. Am I wrong?

i CERTAINLY agree that CEO pay is out of control and that we need a more equal distribution of income. as for 'bring back manufacturing,' that's obviously a lot easier said than done. the country is not 'impoverished' by any standard, but it is certainly true that the middle class has been squeezed.

happyrenter - It is absolutely relevant who pays how much in taxes. Let's cut through it. All you are saying is you'd rather the top 5% pay 100% of the taxes because they can afford it.

"All you are saying is you'd rather the top 5% pay 100% of the taxes because they can afford it."

Exactly. It's a dead end policy & if you pursue it, then eventually 1% pay 100% because they can afford it.

huh? i think that the top 5% should pay more than 100% of the current tax load. that is, we need more revenue in order to pay our bills, and it needs to come from the top earners, and the poor and middle class should get a tax cut. so yes, i do. but that's hardly relevant to what we've been talking about, which is your view that it is the rich, not the poor and middle class, who are 'put upon.'

but why would that be a bad thing dwell? look, i would much prefer that we had more or less equal incomes and everyone paid more or less equal taxes. but if we have a system that allows as much wealth and income concentration as we now have, then we have to expect the rich to pay most of the taxes.

" as for 'bring back manufacturing,' that's obviously a lot easier said than done."

Right, it's much easier to keep squeezing the top 5% into paying 100%. But, what if the top 5% eventually decide to get up & leave? They can afford to buy plane tickets & movers. It's much easier & more fruitful to encourage manufacturing.

dwell, obviously i think all segments of the economy need encouragement. but do you have an actual proposal to bring back the manufacturing economy? do you think policy-makers have not been trying to do this for decades?

I love the argument that all the 'talent' will move out of the country to Dubai, London, China, Switzerland. Choose your paradise.

In most places -- Western Europe -- you'll pay far MORE in taxes than this country will exact. And Dubai? It may be lovely -- some think so -- but no mass exodus of American talent is going to rush to the Middle East just to pay lower taxes.

Charlotte, NC? Maybe. Dubai? No.

"but do you have an actual proposal to bring back the manufacturing economy? "
Yeah. Gimme Barry's number (I'm sure you have it) & I'll call him.

"do you think policy-makers have not been trying to do this for decades?"
No, they haven't.

"I love the argument that all the 'talent' will move out of the country"
How about the Caribbean?

dwell,

you may not be aware of this, but american citizens pay taxes even if they live abroad. so you must be suggesting that there is going to be a mass exodus of wealthy americans giving up their citizenship in order to domicile themselves in the turks and caicos?

why didn't this happen when there were taxes of over 90% on the wealthiest americans?

i suppose it's a personal choice where you end up living, but i have a hard time imagining this exodus of new yorkers to charlotte, NC. you get more bang for your buck there, that's true. but what do you do with that bang? go to the mall? i don't mean to be snobby about how nyc is the center of the universe or anything, but seriously, what are multi-millionaires that are used to dinners at Per Se and top-notch entertainment, museums -- and all their PEERS and FRIENDS that are here -- what are they gonna do? go to the mall to hang out? i just don't see it as a real first-order concern...

You can never make sweeping generalities and apply them to the whole population. There will be marginal people in New York who don't live a uniquely New York lifestyle who move back to Kansas City or Tampa because the new tax rates (and commute and dirtiness of the city and whatever) make it not worthwhile. It won't be an exodus as it is marginal people by definition but it will affect prices a little.

> i think that the top 5% should pay more than 100% of the current tax load

That pretty much sums it up right there....

> why didn't this happen when there were taxes of over 90% on the wealthiest americans?

Because there were far more loopholes then than there are now.

The most amusing part of this is how happyrenter held himself out as a tax policy expert, and he doesn't actually know what our tax policy is.

The largest share of income is paid by those with more income, end of story. You can point out specific taxes, but that would be ignorant, because the sum matters. And most people trying to calculate "accidentally" leave out all the phase outs. Marginal rates can be 70% when you factor in the printer marginal rates plus the phase out of certain deductions.... and those are about to get even worse.

A nice old fight...