52% Tax
07-19-2009, 06:33 AM
#1
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pikes Peak- Colorado
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: BMW 535xi
Model Year: 2008
Congressional Democrats are looking for money to fund Government Sponsored Health Care costs. The Bill proposes the highest tax rate of any country who provides health care -52%. This applies to small businesses- like mine. I will have to re-evaluate my retirement date...
07-19-2009, 07:35 AM
#3
Contributors
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2005 BMW 530d M-Sport TouringExterior: Titansilber Metallic, M5 mirrors, ACS rear roof spoiler, BMW Carbon Fiber rear diffuser, Adaptive Xenon headlights, AngeliBright v.3 Angel Eyes, F1 Autohaus Euphoria 6000K LED license plate lightsInterior: Black
Originally Posted by juris335' post='946351' date='Jul 19 2009, 05:33 PM
Congressional Democrats are looking for money to fund Government Sponsored Health Care costs. The Bill proposes the highest tax rate of any country who provides health care -52%. This applies to small businesses- like mine. I will have to re-evaluate my retirement date...
My income tax is higher than 52%, and that is nothing compared to some friends that live in other European countries.
07-19-2009, 07:53 AM
#5
Contributors
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 Porsche 911 Carrera S Convertible. Midnight Blue, 6 Speed.Retired - 2007 997 Carrera S, Midnight Blue, Grey leather, premium audioRetired - 2007 550i, Monaco Blue over Beige, Navigation, Logic 7, Cold Weather Pack, Comfort Access, Sport Package
Model Year: 2008
Very, very misleading and disingenuous post, Juris335.
The number you post, 52%, is the average of all taxes, including state and local taxes, in addition to federal income tax.
What the bill actually proposes is tax increases that begin in 2011. It won't impact those with AGI under $350K for joint filers and AGI under $280K for individual filers. The surtax for those over these limits would start at 1 percent in 2011 rising to 2 percent in 2013. It rises to around 1.5 percent for families with AGI over $500,000 (to be increased to 3% in 2013). The top rate increases (around 5%) are reserved for household AGI of over $1million.
For those outside the US, AGI is adjusted gross income. Typically, actual earnings are considerably higher than AGI. This is because the US tax code enables significant deductions from gross earnings. Federal taxes are based on resulting balance - adjusted gross income. These deductions may include mortgage interest, property taxes, state income taxes etc. Thus, AGI is generally much lower than actual gross income. These increases only impact families with AGI of over $350K - typically, these families will have household income well in excess of $400K.
Whether these increases give value for money is up to the individual to determine. Personally, I support them, but I favor some tax increases across the board rather than simply targeting higher earners only as healthcare is a universal benefit but primarily targeted at those on lower incomes. Everyone should pay something, and one's contribution should be proportional to income (or at least proportional to AGI).
Either way - there is no 52% tax rate.
More to the point, some of the pending increases relate to existing changes that were common knowledge and which are wholly and totally outside of this bill. Many were inherited from the prior administration who time limited certain exemptions or reductions. The only way to get to these headline grabbing numbers is to add totally unrelated pre-existing tax changes and then blame the whole package on the healthcare reforms. As I said, that's misleading and disingenuous.
As others have said, top earners in other developed nations typically have a higher tax burden than those we complain about here. They do, however, typically get a lot more for their money than taxpayers in the US.
The number you post, 52%, is the average of all taxes, including state and local taxes, in addition to federal income tax.
What the bill actually proposes is tax increases that begin in 2011. It won't impact those with AGI under $350K for joint filers and AGI under $280K for individual filers. The surtax for those over these limits would start at 1 percent in 2011 rising to 2 percent in 2013. It rises to around 1.5 percent for families with AGI over $500,000 (to be increased to 3% in 2013). The top rate increases (around 5%) are reserved for household AGI of over $1million.
For those outside the US, AGI is adjusted gross income. Typically, actual earnings are considerably higher than AGI. This is because the US tax code enables significant deductions from gross earnings. Federal taxes are based on resulting balance - adjusted gross income. These deductions may include mortgage interest, property taxes, state income taxes etc. Thus, AGI is generally much lower than actual gross income. These increases only impact families with AGI of over $350K - typically, these families will have household income well in excess of $400K.
Whether these increases give value for money is up to the individual to determine. Personally, I support them, but I favor some tax increases across the board rather than simply targeting higher earners only as healthcare is a universal benefit but primarily targeted at those on lower incomes. Everyone should pay something, and one's contribution should be proportional to income (or at least proportional to AGI).
Either way - there is no 52% tax rate.
More to the point, some of the pending increases relate to existing changes that were common knowledge and which are wholly and totally outside of this bill. Many were inherited from the prior administration who time limited certain exemptions or reductions. The only way to get to these headline grabbing numbers is to add totally unrelated pre-existing tax changes and then blame the whole package on the healthcare reforms. As I said, that's misleading and disingenuous.
As others have said, top earners in other developed nations typically have a higher tax burden than those we complain about here. They do, however, typically get a lot more for their money than taxpayers in the US.
07-19-2009, 08:26 AM
#6
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal- SFV (Land of pimps, drug dealers, money, hot cars and hot wimmenz...this ain't no movie bitch, mess with us and we'll cut ya!)
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buncha idiots....they're pushing the tax rate for corporations as well...what are they going to do when big corporations move to Abu-Dabi, Dubai or other corporate-friendly parts of the world? I read in the Wall Street Journal that big corporations like Microsoft, Dell, McDonald's, etc. are considering moving and places like Dubai are just begging them to come.
07-19-2009, 09:20 AM
#7
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 10,301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: See my signature
Originally Posted by El Immigrante' post='946393' date='Jul 19 2009, 12:26 PM
Buncha idiots....they're pushing the tax rate for corporations as well...what are they going to do when big corporations move to Abu-Dabi, Dubai or other corporate-friendly parts of the world? I read in the Wall Street Journal that big corporations like Microsoft, Dell, McDonald's, etc. are considering moving and places like Dubai are just begging them to come.
07-19-2009, 09:27 AM
#8
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal- SFV (Land of pimps, drug dealers, money, hot cars and hot wimmenz...this ain't no movie bitch, mess with us and we'll cut ya!)
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sdg1871' post='946432' date='Jul 19 2009, 10:20 AM
Actually, as I understand it, Obama and the Dems in Congress are considering changing the tax laws to penalize US corps that try to redomesticate off shore to avoid US taxes. Lots of US insurers have moved offshore to Bermuda to avoid US taxes.
07-19-2009, 09:32 AM
#9
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 10,301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: See my signature
Originally Posted by El Immigrante' post='946435' date='Jul 19 2009, 01:27 PM
Yes, they are. The question is, at the end of the day, who has more leverage and power, Obama and the Dems in Congress, or our nation's largest corporations? Who's really gonna push who around?
