1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

House proposes top income tax rate of 90%

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Mar 19, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The House is scheduling a vote on a new top tax rate for the highest-paid employees, presently to be applied only to employees of companies that get big Federal bailout packages.

    The new tax rate is supposedly for people getting bonuses, but seems to be worded in such a way that it will be levied on ANYONE in the company whose income exceeds $250,000.

    Joe the Plumber raised the issue of Obama raising taxes for people like himself, who might purchase a business whose receipts could be legally interpreted by the IRS as "income" above that level. But no one dreamed the increase would be so draconian.

    There's even a quote from Charlie Rangel, who seems happy that state governments can tax away the other 10% of people's incomes.

    Not since the depths of World War 2 have tax rates been so high.

    Elections have consequences. And when you elect a bunch of extreme leftists to the national government, as we did last November, tax increases are one of those consequences. Even shockingly high ones.

    As mentioned, some of the leftists are assuring us that these 90% tax rates are presently only for people getting bonuses the leftists don't approve of. The fact that this sets an ominous precedent, is to be dismissed.

    Can I have a show of hands, of those who honestly believe that tax rates for the rest of us will NOT start heading in that direction pretty soon? After a 90% tax rate like this, hiking rates on the rest of us to a mere 50% or 60% should be much less shocking.

    BTW, the Senate is currently considering similar taxes up to 70% (35% for the employer and 35% for the employee).

    ----------------------------------

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=457634

    House to vote on 90 percent tax for AIG bonuses

    By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 2 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

    "We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.


    (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
     
  2. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The measure has passed the House, 328 to 93.

    All the Democrats and half the Republicans voted for it.

    And the Repubs wonder why their voters put them into the minority in both Houses and kicked them out of the White House.
     
  3. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Income from these taxes, are doing to drop like a rock. The end result will be that even less taxes will be collected, forcing the middle and lower class to pick up more of the tab.

    I can't wait for this to happen myself :)
     
  4. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    This is a targeted bill so the American taxpayers can recoup the ridiculous AIG BONUSES that EVERYBODY (Democrats & Republicans) have been screaming was a huge rip off of taxpayer bailout money.

    This actually seems like a pretty smart move on everybody's part (both Democrats & Republicans). This removes the need of any costly contract litagation... the dead heads that bankrupted AIG still get an undeserved 10% of their undeserved "bonus"... and the American taxpayers get this money back to be used in positive ways on the stimulus package.

    This seems a nice bipartisan effort for a change.
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Seems to me that this could have all been avoided if the Democrats did not put the language promising it would be upheld in the stimulus. I think Dodd is going to lose his Senate seat for this one.
     
  6. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Undeserved? If the contract says they should get it, if they could sue and win against the government for it, then clearly they did deserve it. Sorry, but I'm willing to bet on what the contract says over what some one on the net says.
     
  7. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    They are openly taxing people in completely unfair and unconstitutional ways that should be an affront to all reasonable people.

    Is there any doubt that if they can do this to them they can do this to anyone?


    In the US, First they came for the 1%ers, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a 1%er.
    And then they came for the AIG executives, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an AIG exec.
    And then they came for the corporations, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a corporation.
    ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
     
  8. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is illegal and is actually against the constitution.

    Contracts are legal and binding and the government has no right.

    topgun- You should be going after the culprits. Obama, Dodd, Frank, Geithner.
    They did this. They all knew. - No question.

    It's called Bill of Attainder.

    Again, Washington tramples the constitution.

    And where was Obama. He swore to uphold the constitution. Oh that's right. He had to go see Jay Leno.

    Can anyone say Road Trip? Again!!
     
  9. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By the way. Why isn't Barney Frank and Chris Dodd screaming about Fannie and Freddie Bonuses. Where's the outrage.

    Oh that's right, Fannie and Freddie is their pet project.

    Give me a flippin' break. Wake up people.
     
  10. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Not a chance... Dodd is solid... he's a very good person.

    And I think it's important to remember what administration set up the the original framework on these bailouts. The Bush administration never wanted tight reigns on the Wall Street money. And the money had to be provided to prevent a total collapse of our banking system.

    This is the main reason I vehemently oppose monopolies and huge "too big to fail" corporations without aggressive and strict oversight by regulation and regular & thorough inspections by regulators.

    The only thing the Dems did was point out and act on the legal aspect to randomly canceling out contracts and the cost of possibly having to defend a laundry list of contractual law suits.

    If there's a legal way to get most of this money back it should be pursued. If not it should be deducted in someway down the road.

    I believe this is exactly what the Obama administration is trying to do.

    What kills me is the cowardices of about 50% of the Republicans on this issue. They backed the Bush give it all to Wall Street no strings attached approach... then they squealed like stuck pigs when the bonuses issue broke... and now they are flipping around all over the place because half of them think we should try to get the money back.

    They are in total disarray!
     
  11. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We wasted more than 160 million to go after the 160 million.
    This is one big diversion.

    1 trillion dollars of made up money is going to be infused into the economy, and no one cares because the AIG bonuses are taking the big story.
     
  12. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country


    Yes, the gov is supposed to enforce anti-monopoly laws. If there were many small companies we would not have this problem nor the made up need for more regulation.

    And, yes, the gov should be kept small too.
     
  13. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I agree the government does not need to be doing this, but I am not so sure it is unconstitutional. I think the argument will simply go that they are changing the tax law for the 2009 year.

    I think it is a tough sell to argue that passing a tax law for the year (before it would have been collected) is going back and taxing someone "post facto." I doubt this is really a bill of attainder, and that argument probably would not fly in court... in my opinion at least.
     
  14. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA


    He is now trailing in polls and getting killed in his local press. He certainly has a battle in 2010.

    None of this will matter in 2010. If his campaign is "blame Bush, not me" he is going to get destroyed.
     
  15. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I'm glad to see we have some agreement here.

    No company should be allowed to get so big that if it were to fail it could do the things AIG and the like could have done. But the problem is over for the longest time now the government hasn't been breaking up these (or not allowing these) monopolies to exist.

    Mainly because the regulators often just plain couldn't keep up. You have to be on the inside of these things (as regulators are) to even know if they are too big to fail.

    As far as government. Most everyone wants something big cut but to the other side that thing probably is golden.

    You could take the Ron Paul approach that our military should be downsized to the point that it could only repel an invasion and some would go for it.

    We saw the Bushies right before the Stock Market crash all for privatizing Social Security.

    And there are groups after groups wanting to do other major cuts. But just like with a sewage treatment plant or a penitentiary they all sing together and say...

    NOT IN MY BACK YARD... translated... MY STUFF IS THE IMPORTANT STUFF!:D
     
Loading...

Share This Page