Oh, Sweet Irony…
April 11th, 2008 at 07:52am Leo Pusateri
One of the most liberal RINOs out there is getting a taste of his own medicine:
Silver Introduces “Courtesy” Pricing Bill, Wants a Millionaire Tax
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver introduced a congestion pricing bill yesterday, but was quoted as saying “we have a long way to go” before it clears his chamber.
The Times reports that Silver, introducing the plan “as a courtesy to the new governor,” agreed not to “block” it “in exchange for some version of the new tax on anyone making more than $1 million.” But some Republican lawmakers who might otherwise support congestion pricing are opposed to the “millionaire tax” (as is Mayor Bloomberg).
Heh. Live by liberalism, die by liberalism, I say.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left
27 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | April 11th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Ben Stein says millionaires (himself included) SHOULD pay more relative taxes.
they are free to enjoy & grow their wealth in a law-n-order society w professional police protection & judiciary.
otherwise the poor would scale their fences, kill them, & take what they wanted.
I’ve been a real estate millionaire, lost it, got it back, lost it, will get it back & I agree w Ben tho I intentionally live in an urban area (w black people) and no fences. course I’m a tough vet who works-out, shots straight, & has an intimidating presence not some soft suburban sluggo who cant see his own d#ck.
2. Diane Tomlinson | April 11th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Soft urban sluggo! LOL Ohio Orrin that is brilliant!
I so love these mornings with my coffee and and a good debate. Wow is this what the Founding Fathers really wanted for America? I’m feeling very Constitutionally well endowed right now. Men like Warren buffet have been saying that for decades but middle class people like Noonan think that the IRS is the only way Big Sammy gets his cut. The average Middle Classite got less than 100 bucks a year in tax cuts from Bush if you made a million dollars you got 42 000 a year. I pay a flat tax rate of 18 2/3% on my salary and a national sales tax of 20% and I feel very little tension and even less fear of terrorism either the inflationary kind or the al Qqaeda kind
3. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Could it be because that maybe, just maybe, that millionaires pay more in taxes than the average “Middle Classite”? Could it be that the top 25 percent of all wage earners pay 86 percent of all Federal income taxes? Or that the top 1% pay 39 percent of all Federal income taxes?
They more than pay their fair share, sweetie.
4. Medicine » Blog Arc&hellip | April 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
[...] Continue Reading [...]
5. Diane Tomlinson | April 11th, 2008 at 8:48 am
And Leo i agree with everything you said there except the sweetie part. What gets my panties in a bunch is how those cuts were packaged and sold to the America Middle Class in real dollar terms. They were tax cuts for those who pay the most taxes and not tax cuts in real terms for the bulk of Americans the Middle Class and the Poor.
6. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Of course they favored the wealthy in bottom-line dollar terms, because the wealthy pay the lion’s share of the taxes. The poor don’t pay federal or state taxes. As a matter of fact, the poor probably get more money back than they pay in taxes via the Earned Income Tax credit.
7. Pain | April 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
3. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
According to the IRS as of their latest data which is TY 2005, the top bracket, those who earned 10 mln USD or more, paid 79.8 bln USD in taxes at all rates on 334.35 bln USD of income[eff nom tax rate 23.86%].
While those who earned between 100 thousand and 200 thousand USD paid 192.5 bln USD taxes at all rates on 1.054 trl USD of income. [eff nom tax rate 18.26%]
For the puprposes of quatification the Middle Class is defined as a famliy of four in a household that has income in the range from 48 600 USD per year at the lower end and 337 999 at the upper end. In fact the top 25 of wage earners only paid at all tax rates 48.77% of all taxes collected in TY 2005 with the lower range of the top 25% being those earning between 250 thousand and 500 thousand USD per year.
8. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Could it be because that maybe, just maybe, that millionaires pay more in taxes than the average “Middle Classite”? Could it be that the top 25 percent of all wage earners pay 86 percent of all Federal income taxes? Or that the top 1% pay 39 percent of all Federal income taxes?
And yet….. with all that “hardship” of paying so much in taxes……. the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor.
It must really suck to be rich. You pay so much and can’t keep what you earn. How are you supposed to put food on the table???? How are you supposed to keep the gas tanks of your 3 cars filled?? The rich just need more tax breaks dammit!
Spare me. In the last 7 years the gap between top and bottomhas grown faster than at any other time and the middle class has shrunk.
9. Diane Tomlinson | April 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Joe,
You just have no idea how terrible it is! Sometimes I drop small silver coins on the ground just to see the glee in the eyes of thempoor as they scoop them up with their dark yet grubby hands.
Sad.
10. Pain | April 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Who “needs” the money more Leo? The Rich or the Poor? Who “wants” the money more seems to have been the over arching concern here of the Elites.
11. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
If the rich weren’t free to get more rich, the poor would be even worse off. Capital begets captial, in terms of investment, and those who invest wisely invariably see good returns on their investment.
But their money is not invested in a vacuum. Investment necessarily creates demand for jobs. And as everyone knows (or should know), a good job which is ultimately the best form of welfare program.
So Joe, spare me your Trotskyite class-warfare rhetoric. It’s getting mighty old.
Take a step into the 21st century, okay?
12. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Spoken like a true Bolshevik. Spoken like a true limousine liberal elitist. Bravo!!
13. Pain | April 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Merci!
14. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Leo:
the wealthy pay the lion’s share of the taxes. The poor don’t pay federal or state taxes. As a matter of fact, the poor probably get more money back than they pay in taxes via the Earned Income Tax credit.
Let me quote one of your heroes…. So?
The rich are still rich and the poor are still poor.
And don’t give me the crap about the wealthy are the ones creating jobs. When someone can prove to me that 100% of those people in the top 5% all run businesses and create jobs, then I will gladly back giving them more tax cuts.
15. Pain | April 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
14. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Ditto.
What they are is a precursor Leisure Class soemthign that old school conservatives said must never exist in the US.
Most small businessmen are still middle class by Our definiton. The vast majority make less than 337 999 USD per annum.
16. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 10:31 am
And your point is, Joe?
Your democrat cronies appear all too willing to call anyone who makes over a hundred grand a year “rich,” many of whom are small business people and who create jobs.
And just who do you think it is that supplies a lot of the money for investing in loans to make those small businesses possible? It sure as hell ain’t the wino down the street.
When’s the last time a bum created a job, other for than a government bureaucrat hired to look after the bum?
Liberals. Can’t. Link.
17. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
But their money is not invested in a vacuum.
No its not. It is invested in the CEO’s that get their big paydays despites running the company into the ground. Either that or the money goes into the bank to pad the wealth.
You people just want to keep holding onto that wealth and damn those that don’t have it.
Investment necessarily creates demand for jobs.
Why would companies create more jobs when there is no demand for their goods/services because people can’t afford them? You would be creating supply without the demand.
Meanwhile… if the middle class and low income got tax breaks or however you want to create more cash in their pockets, they will go out an spend it. When they spend it, then demand is generated which give you reason to create more jobs.
18. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Good. Then tell Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry to move.
19. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Your democrat cronies appear all too willing to call anyone who makes over a hundred grand a year “rich,” many of whom are small business people and who create jobs.
Read your quote from #3 — “the top 25 percent of all wage earners pay 86 percent of all Federal income taxes”
That wouldn’t include those making just 100 grand a year.
When did the democrat “cronies” call 100 grand “rich”? The stimulus package was geared at people making less than x amount. That is not calling anyone rich. It is drawing a cutoff line to target lower income people.
20. Leo Pusateri | April 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
GEEZE… were you born this stupid, or did you have to work at it???
Investment creates the need for jobs to fulfill the fruits of that investment.
Jobs put money in people’s pockets.
People go out and spend the money they make from JOBS.
Money made from people spending money is again invested (much to your amazement, it’s not stuffed in a mattress somewhere)–to make more money–which creates MORE JOBS…
21. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Leo,
Did you not read Mark’s post a few weeks ago about a civil debate? Have I called you any names? I can certainly start.
Anyway……. I understand that jobs put money in people’s pockets. But the point I am making is this… if the U.S., as a whole, can’t afford goods, there is no demand for said goods, therefore there isn’t much incentive for companies to make MORE goods.
There is a fine line here. You are attacking it from just one direction when it can’t be solved in one direction.
Jobs create money in people’s pockets… great! But you need to put money in more people’s pockets that will spend it in order to generate demand therefore generating jobs.
22. Pain | April 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Leisure Class, Pusateri not just the wealthy.
I mean people who merely exist to make money not to use the power of their wealth for good. Kerry and Kennedy think what you will of them are public servants of the same cloth as Frist and McCain were and are. No one who makes 100 000 USD a year in Americ can be called rich that label just does not apply in the current economy.
Corporations, as individuals do the bulk of the job creation in the United States not the individually wealthy.
Teddy Roosevelt is a far better example of what a man of means should do with his life, however than either Kennedy or Kerry, or Katherine Harris and all her bank inherited money are still better than anyone who lives merely to acquire.
23. Some Assembly Required | April 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Leo, these people in the middle class spend there money on necessities such as GAS, FOOD, MORTGAGE and various other bills. It’s called living pay check to pay check. Something the rich know nothing about. So you say investing creates jobs and la te da. But these jobs only pay enough just to get by and not spend any extra. So you know those material products that really create more jobs are not being sold because people are too busy trying to feed themselves and keep their homes. ESPECIALLY with the way gas is going. A tax break for these people will give them that little extra slack to say buy an x-box for their kids, or save money for an annual vacation and not put it on the credit cards furthering their debt.
In addition, these ‘investors’ are outsourcing these ‘new jobs’ to other countries. So yes, lets keep giving them tax breaks making it cheaper to taken jobs away from Americans while giving them to China. Oh, and the fact that their taxed less in other Countries is of little consequence compared to how cheap the labor is.
24. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
By the way…………..
25. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Another report…
How can they possibly afford to put food on the table for their family? Really… they do need more of a tax cut. They need to keep more of that!
26. Joe | April 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
ok… one more…
27. phnx | April 12th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Hillary says that she will raise taxes “…let President Bush’s tax cuts for top earners expire.” This pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993.
So according to Hillar the rich start at $200,000.
In addition she also plans to increase the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.
o poor old gradma & granpa will get socked with a big tax when they sell their house or the family farm for their retirement.
Obama uses the same $200,000 to define the rich.