July 11, 2009
A SURTAX WOULD GET THE JOB DONE.... How are Dems going to pay for health care? Here's a thought.
House Democrats agreed yesterday to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for a sweeping expansion of the nation's health-care system, proposing a surtax on the highest earners that could send the top federal tax rate toward 45 percent.
Beginning in 2011, the plan would target all income over $350,000 a year for families and $280,000 a year for individuals, Democratic sources said. The surtax would start at 1 percent, rise to around 1.5 percent for families earning more than $500,000, then step up again, to around 3 percent, for families earning more than $1 million, Democrats said.
That would raise about $550 billion over the next decade, Democrats said -- about half the cost of reforms that are expected to cost about $1 trillion.
Middle-class taxes would be unaffected. And while the wealthiest earners would see an increase, Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz (D-Pa.) emphasized that the resulting policy would be in a position to significantly lower the insurance premiums the rich are currently paying.
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, described the surtax as the "best way" to raise money for the reform package. The NYT added that the proposal signaled "a broader unwillingness by Ms. Pelosi and her caucus to compromise on what they see as crucially needed improvements to the system, including the creation of a government-run insurance plan that would compete against private insurers."
What's more, the decision to pursue the surtax as a funding solution will allow the House Democratic leadership to move forward with their plan to unveil a completed bill as early as Monday. Stay tuned.
—Steve Benen 9:50 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (23)
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Did I read that right? Tax INCREASE? On the most productive members of our society, no less? What is this, Soviet Russia?
Sad fact is, it's people like me who earn between 25K-30K per family upon whom this tax will fall hardest, as our wealthy citizens will flee the country to escape the Obama oppression, taking all the jobs with them. Not only that, but raising taxes on the rich with such reckless abandon will dim the hopes of all the rest of us with ambitions for future big bucks.
Posted by: garnash on July 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK
Garnash,
Oh 1% tax increase is opression? You got to be kidding.
Posted by: Micheline on July 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK
gawd! we're almost back to a nixonian philosophy of the common good from the barbarism of the reagan-bush-clinton (mr. triangle)-satan (i mean bush/cheney) administrations.
another few years and we may broach progressivism ... on tax policy and social policy...
Posted by: neill on July 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK
Y'know, this one could work---but it could be extended.
If you apply the surtax to the middle class as well, it could simply be a redirection of funding in the form of insurance premiums payed by individuals, families, and businesses to funding for what could effectively be a no-holds-barred national healthcare program.
The only people who, in the end, really lose out are (1) the insurance companies and (2) the stockholders of those insurance companies. The companies---and their employees, by mere default---would simply be absorbed into the national program's infrastructure; whether the program is private, public, or a hybrid of both, you'd still need a herd of people to administer and oversee the thing.
Those stockholders? They can shift their investments elsewhere ("green" energy would be a good place to park a few trillions' worth of global investment capital right about now) as the infrastructure of the private companies move into the really big "help-wanted" arena that the new system will undoubtedly create....
Posted by: S. Waybright on July 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK
The surtax sounds like a perfect solution to me. But, I thought they were constrained by some requirement (or guideline?) that they not use a new tax?
Posted by: katiebird on July 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK
Sounds like a great idea. I expect Hannity et. al. to begin the gnashing of teeth over "class warfare" in 3, 2...
Posted by: Jurgan on July 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK
Ah, the "sky is falling in due to the Democratic politicos in the Oregon Legislature" will now be able to go national with their comments, gnashing of the teeth and assorted whining.
My, oh my, they might even leave Oregon for Alabama and leave Multnomah County even Bluer, but wiser.
Posted by: berttheclock on July 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK
Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz (D-Pa.) emphasized that the resulting policy would be in a position to significantly lower the insurance premiums the rich are currently paying.
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, described the surtax as the "best way" to raise money for the reform package.
Who could doubt them?
Posted by: marketeer on July 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK
Oh my god another one. Either your an incredibly stupid asshole or your a complete parody. Garnash that is.
Do we need to give you a lesson in basic math. what's 1% of say $500,000 ?
answer
5,000.
1/4 or 1/5 of a years salary for you Garnash. Are you really going to stop working toward your goal of being one of the wealthy because you might lose out on 1% of your income.Federal taxes in this country are at an historic low right now.
Even if you added 10% in increases in taxes to the wealthy I guarantee you none of them are going to stop making money.
I'll also go out on a limb here and bet you that not a one of the wealthy will be hurt in the least little way by a 1% tax increase.
Posted by: Gandalf on July 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK
We should finance healthcare by legalizing cocaine and taxing it.
I cannot thing of a single conservative pundit who could not be persuaded to support healthcare after vigorous encouragement from the Zetas.
Posted by: Fitzroy on July 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK
"as our wealthy citizens will flee the country "
Please name one.
Also, can I help with their luggage?
Posted by: MissMudd on July 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK
hey I'm as much of a soak-the-megarich guy as the next progressive, but it would make so much more sense to fund a specific goal, like healthcare improvement, to use a relevant funding source. like removal of sugar subsidies. excise tax on HFCS. windfall profits tax on insurance cos and pharma cos. a surcharge on consumer print and television ads by pharma cos. a surcharge on elective cosmetic operations and treatments like botox. may as well get additional incremental health benefits from the funding source as well.
Posted by: zeitgeist on July 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK
I felt a great disturbance in the Force...as if thousands of millions of dollars suddenly cried out in terror.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina on July 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK
"House Democrats agreed yesterday to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for a sweeping expansion of the nation's health-care system, proposing a surtax on the highest earners that could send the top federal tax rate toward 45 percent."
About damn time.
Posted by: Joe Friday on July 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK
About damn time. -- Joe Friday
Yeah -- if they actually have the balls to do this, instead of keeling over and dying once someboy says "tax and spend!"
Posted by: Nautilator on July 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
I sure hope that the Congress critters talk to some CPA's who can actually explain how this system works. That way they can educate - if that is even possible - people like the first commenter who don't seem to get it.
the 1% (or more increase) on people earning more than $350,000 means that even those wealthy people (the ones the law applies to) will not pay one extra penny more than anybody else on the amount of money less than $350K. Yes that includes you 'garnash'.
Your other silly argument of those people who create all the jobs leaving the country. That would be a GREAT thing. Let me hand you your sign: stupid.
If they were all to leave the country that would mean that YOU, yes you 'garnash' could step up to the plate and create those jobs. that way you can make your 'big bucks' because the 'rich' won't be there to hold you back.
Let me be clear 'garnash; and any other dense readers: Those rich people are too greedy to leave and allow someone else to take their place. Have no doubts about it, if any of them leave, there will be plenty of other people (hopefully some that are more deserving) to take their place. That's the beauty of America where everything is possible. The rich can NOT take it with them. They are rich because they can sell to the rest of America. If they leave, they'll find that someone else takes their place.
Hey... 'garnash' Remember Chrysler, and GM... Now those were 'rich' people on the board of directors as well as the executives raking in the dough, not to mention all the so called bondholders, etc. Haven't you noticed that Toyota, Nissan, Honda have pretty much replaced them? In case you weren't around last month. Fiat own Chrysler now.
There will ALWAYS be someone who steps into the void. Let the wealthy leave the country. I don't care, it would actually be better for the rest of us.
Posted by: bruno on July 11, 2009 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
Amen to 'berttheclock'
As a fellow Oregonian, I've read plenty of the Republican arguments that the rich will leave and take their jobs with them.
I sure hope that a bunch of them here in Deschutes leave as well.. There are plenty of people looking for an opportunity to start their business, again. With one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, seems like the rich aren't creating jobs anyway.
Posted by: bruno on July 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK
The inability on the part of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus to distinguish between the top marginal tax rate and tax rates generally, is the Republicans' best ally, and guarantees that they will continue to be able to pick his pocket unmolested.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina on July 11, 2009 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK
Here's an example of a businessman in Bend, Oregon who's complaining about the new taxes already enacted here.
Background: Bob Thomas car dealership. He lost his GM dealership last month. At that time he was complaining about how bad business has been over the last year or so, and how he had to lay-off several employees and how GM owes him 100's of thousands of dollars. He wasn't sure if his business was going to survive. Now that is a serious concern and I wish him the best for his business.
This week they interviewed him again in regards to the new taxes enacted. He was complaining that because of the 1% increase (on people making more than $250K) he'd end up paying about $60,000 more in taxes, and that is a travesty. Either he's lying up a storm or he's not very good with numbers. I'm not a CPA but if he'd have to pay $60K more in taxes because of the 1% increase, he'd have to make at least $6,000,000.
Now if he didn't lie about the $ 60K ... shouldn't he be ashamed that he laid off workers, while claiming about how bad business was last year etc? After all, if $6 million income is a bad year, and you complain about having to pay an extra $60K, I think it would be a good idea if he left the State. (He didn't say he would)
In the same article he also complained that the State of Orergon, finally increased the minimum tax for corporations. Used to be $10.00 (even for companies like Enron, who used to siphon off 100's of millions every year) Now the minimum will be $150 dollars for small companies and gradually increase to $10K for larger entities.
He had the nerve to complain how hard that would be on his company. He needs to make up his mind: either it will be hard to pay the minimum in taxes (probably a few thousand dollars for him) because he last money last year (as he claimed) OR he is mad about the $60K extra in taxes because he made more than $6 million last year. He can't have it both.
I assume he's a republican because they're the only kind of people who can take both sides and cry a river about how bad it is.
Posted by: bruno on July 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK
Hey. The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. Help me! Looking for sites on: About soft dentures. I found only this - tampa Dentures. Read this guide to help you transition. Good st louis prosthodontists are hard to find. :cool: Thanks in advance. Alana from Iceland.
Posted by: Alana on August 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM | PERMALINK
Could you help me. He who boasts of his ancestry is praising the deeds of another.
I am from Darussalam and learning to speak English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Ear: plants sleep the form of thousands around actions by hurting them with pressure that is also quiet for the heart-transplant."
:) Thanks in advance. Pregnant safe pain killer.
Posted by: Pregnant safe pain killer on November 13, 2009 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK
[... - www.washingtonmonthly.com is one another interesting source of information on this topic,[... -
Posted by: Cheap home insurance quotes >> Tips on getting home insurance quotes ... on November 24, 2009 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK
Excuse me. Sometimes love will pick you up by the short hairs...and jerk the heck out of you.
I am from Sao and learning to read in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Make money, the money between kira and leo, long and social in the physician, appears to back under the fan of their posts, and because of their long people to these links."
Waiting for a reply 8-), How to make money with adsense.
Posted by: How to make money with adsense on December 21, 2009 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK