juris335

swajames- Your post was very very disingenous but consistent with genuine socialists thinking.

The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.

If you disagree then criticize Congress and, if you wish, CNN and Fox News who reported it as fact.

These are the facts supporting my OP. 52% is 52% no matter that the left wing radical Democrats say it is not...

What facts (not your pontificating) do you have to demonstrate that the average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would not hit about 52% under the Bill???

swajames

From your original post:

The Bill proposes the highest tax rate of any country who provides health care -52%.

The bill does no such thing. There is no 52% tax rate. I explained clearly in my post what the Bill does, in fact, propose. I also corrected your original premise to note that the only way to get marginal tax rates approaching the numbers your quoted were to include all state and local taxes. I also provided context missing from your OP.

Your posts, on the other hand are, as tends to be the case in conservative rants, a little short on fact and a little long on conjecture. To save others some research, the Heritage Foundation you cite as support for your argument is a conservative policy research organization. Others can decide for themselves the merits of relying on sources such as this and also Fox News.

Not that it matters, but I don't support the specifics intended here either. I don't believe that a soak the rich approach is intellectually or economically justified. I do, however, support the broad intent of the bill.

GregBrand

juris335 is correct. It is all over the news: The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52% under the Democrat's proposed Bill.

swajames

That wasn't what he posted, however...

And not that it makes it right, but very few US taxpayers have sufficient AGI to trip into the highest marginal rates were they to take effect. For most taxpayers, the bill (probably unfairly) has little to no impact.

GregBrand

swajames - Many Congressmen disagree with you. They sent a letter to ultra left-wing radical Pelosi, regarding the 52% Healthcare tax:

?This surcharge, combined with state taxes, could result in many successful small businesses being taxed at over 50%.?

The letter goes on to say:
Seventy-five percent of all small businesses are S corporations, where the business income is passed through to the business owners? individual tax return, ?increasing the chances that it will be impacted by the proposed surcharge,? the letter states.
Here is my source: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20...9/REG/307199994

DRANGED

This is where you are wrong, this tax will have a HUGE impact and implications for tax payers in every tax bracket, not just those at the top. While only a small percentage of taxpayers have sufficient AGI fall into the highest marginal rates, it is this same small percentage that pays the lions share of taxes to our overbearing/overreaching gov't. These same people create jobs for those at the bottom. You tax them more, they will pack up and leave this country to go to a country that has no income tax.

History has shown us that higher taxes lead to less revenue collected by our gov't and financial hardships for those in every tax bracket, while lower taxes leads to more revenue collected by the gov't and financial prosperity for everyone. Note that right now, the states in our country that have the highest tax rates are failing with massive deficits, while those states with low or no taxes are prospering. That being said, why are we raising taxes despite the this historical and empirical evidence?

What is going on here is class warfare, engineered and instigated by the left to achieve their agenda of redistribution of wealth, which will be the downfall of our great country.

If you keep taking food away from the horses pulling the cart, the horses will leave to find food elsewhere. Who then will pull the cart?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/w...least/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) 4/16/09 -- For most Americans, Wednesday is the day they have to make sure they're square with the tax man.

It's also a day that focuses the mind on those perennial questions about the fairness of the U.S. tax system. Are higher-income people paying enough - or would raising their taxes depress their incentive to work? Are the poor getting gouged - or do too many get off without paying a penny? Are those in the vast middle getting squeezed?

The questions are particularly relevant these days, as deficits pile up, demands for government spending soar and many of the past decade's tax cuts near their expiration in 2010.

Going forward, the White House has said it wants to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000, while at the same time start collecting more from families with bigger incomes in 2011.

Of course, the burden of funding the federal government isn't designed to be spread equally. The U.S. tax code is progressive, meaning that higher-income tax filers pay more in taxes than those lower down the income scale.

But just how much more?

The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.

Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.

The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.

But researchers also note that the highest income taxpayers derive the most benefits from the tax cuts put in place since 2001.

Next year, as a result of all those tax cuts, filers making more than $1 million will enjoy a 7.7% average boost in their after-tax income relative to what they would have if the tax cuts weren't in place, according to the Tax Policy Center. Middle-income households, by comparison, will see an average boost of 2.6%.

Many pay no income tax or very little
A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.

But once the various tax breaks to which they're entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

When measuring the tax burdens from income tax and payroll tax combined, the Tax Policy Center estimates nearly 12% of tax units will have zero or negative liability.

As for everyone else, it's likely their net income tax burden will not be high.

For example, in 2005, just under one in 10 filers owed more than 15% of their income in federal income tax, said Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. Roughly 70% of them had incomes over $100,000.

swajames

Dranged, I'm not sure you properly read my post as I'd already made that point and we have no disagreement there. I don't agree with a soak the rich approach either, largely for reasons similar to those you cite. I do not believe it's intellectually or economically justified to disproportionally tax those who create wealth and I don't agree with taxation that directly disincentives wealth or value creation.

My other point remains, however. The vast majority of US taxpayers (by number) aren't members of S-corps and most don't have the AGI to trigger the surtax proposed. My opposition to the plan here is that it falls to the (very few) to largely pay for a benefit available to many. In my opinion, if we need universal healthcare (and I believe with a passion that we do) then the burden should be proportionally borne by everyone.

DRANGED

Fair enough, buddy. I however know with a passion that universal healthcare is a pipe dream that can only serve to bankrupt our society. This is yet another trumped up crisis created by the left. The car bailouts were not a crisis. The financial bailouts were not a crisis. Healthcare is NOT a crisis. The problems with the health care system are almost wholly caused by our gov't. If we were allowed to buy health insurance the way we are allowed to buy car insurance there would be no problems. Why are we not allowed to buy health insurance in this way? Because of GOV'T.

These so called crisis bills are being pushed through the house and senate at an alarming rate, with most reps and senators signing on to a bill that they have not even read. They house/senate has employed speed readers to read the bills in front of the congress. Why the rush? There is NO crisis.

Our country survived almost all of it's existence with no income tax and no health insurance. How did we ever manage?

I dare anyone to find a GOV'T social program that is makes a profit, is self sufficient, or comes in under budget. Medicare...bankrupt. Medicaid...bankrupt. FreddyMac/Fannie May...bankrupt. Social Security...bankrupt. Gov't healthcare WILL go bankrupt and our country will follow soon after.

There is NOTHING that GOV'T can do better or cheaper than the private sector... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!

sdg1871

I voted for Obama but I am getting alarmed by the ever escalating government spending. The deficit has now topped $1 trillion.

Someone is going to have to pay for this. There's only so much that we can borrow from China before they start setting onerous conditions that we cannot meet or before they will stop ledning our government more money. There is a tremendous transfer of wealth going on -- from us to China. When I visited China in March and April, the country was absolutely booming. We are heading for a catacylsmic depression that will really shatter the US economy if we don't get our fiscal hosue in order ASAP.

I think that the US should have some form of universal healthcare -- as so many other nations do. But to engage in another massive rush of government spending when our fiscal house is in shambles is not fiscally responsible.

For those of us in high tax jurisdictions (New York City for example) the combined federal, state and local tax burden is already at the 50% level for some earners.

pipper

i have nothing against paying higher taxes for healthcare...as a matter of fact, if done responsibly, im all for it. healthcare; like education, the fire department, and the police department...are a basic human right IMO. heck, i pay 50% taxes RIGHT NOW...as does anyone on wall street who gets a cash bonus.

no one wants to say it but higher taxes are LOOOONG overdue...never in history has a country fought a war, make that TWO wars, and CUT taxes (thank you mr. bush)...so its time to pay the pipper...er, i mean piper

i do think though that the $250K level is not a valid one, anyone who lives in NYC will know that $250K is in no way considered 'rich'.