FIRST!

phirst

first?

F taxes.

push poll!

exactly why I will hold my nose and vote for a Republican

I'd support it if Sallie Mae didn't keep raising my private law school loan interest rates. 160k doesn't go as far as it should when you live a big city, have to pay big city rent, and owe more than your salary in school debt at usurious interest rates...

hands off our money

This proposal is exactly why Democrats are the party of socialism. They are going after high income earners and not looking at the policy behind the proposal. It is typical. Querry: Is there going to be an exemption for Congress, where the annual salary is 170k and they work less than 1/2 the year?

I wouldn't mind the surcharge nearly as much if ALL student loan interest was deductible, no matter what the salary (and definitely including private student loan interest). Some of us need BigLaw jobs to pay off our student loans and it will take us at least 3-4 years to pay them all off, even when living frugally, at which point we will be passively aggressively pushed out the door. In other words, we may be making a lot of money, but that doesn't translate into being so rich that another 4% interest (on top of high federal, state, and city taxes) won't hurt.

It is exactly crap like that which ensures that we will never have another democratic president. No one in their right mind would ever vote for any party that proposes that kind of crap. I already get my health care for free and I am smart enough to watch out for my own future/retirement, thank you.

I thought they already had this. It's called the AMT. This is BS. It is one thing to say that $160,000 for first years is a lot of money that should be enough for loans and cost of living, even in NYC (a debate I don't mean to start here). It is an entirely different, and preposterous, thing to suggest that this is such a high amount that we should have to get hit with even more taxes because we live in the lap of luxury or something. Multiple the salary numbers by ten and maybe there's a fair debate to be had between liberals and conservatives.

How about end the war in Iraq. That would save us way more money than any tax increase. (And that's exactly why I'll hold my nose and vote democrat.)

This thing repeals the AMT. I would benefit.

NY to 190 minus 4% of the last 40!

Despite how stupid Republicans can be, this act alone keeps me from defecting to the dumbocrates.

the point these people are conveying is that if you work hard, go to college, get a professional degree and work to better your society (dont give me that crap about how they're destroying our culture's moral fiber, you asshat) you should have to pay more in taxes than someone who fucked around their whole life. Its not enough that I already 4 months a year for the government, now they want to take an extra 4% because I'm successful.

Aww, does it hurt your feelings that the mean ol' Dems are trying to reimpose some kind of fiscal responsibility and pay your president's $2.4 trillion war bill, Lat? If you want to whine about paying your fair share of the national debt, blame the administration and the party that increased spending faster than any administration in history while cutting taxes on the rich and running up an insane amount of debt in a pointless and futile war.

Oh NOES! The highest marginal rate will be ALMOST 40%! SOCIALISM!!!!!111 OH NOES!!!

Its funny how money can change your political views...

This is BS.... First of all, the dollar amt should be raised to something like 300K/500K and second, why the F isn't student loan interest deductible!!! My 160K salary is not much after I am hit with payments on 75K of private loans each month!!! Word of advice, avoid law school unless mommy and daddy are paying!

what lat doesn't tell you is the proposed tax replaces the amt and probably saves lots of young associates money. lamest poll & post ever, lat.

11:14 - amen brother!

11:15 - go F-yourself

What about this gem from the bill:
Corporations would see their top tax rate cut to 30.5% from 35%.

Hey 11:15 am, FUCK YOU. Why don't you send your whole goddmaned salary in to reduce the debt, ass hole?!

The kicker is that Rangel wants to lower the corporate rate from 35% to 30%. Basically, we would be paying for the tax break given to the corporations.

11:11 AM :

Please identify the Democratic nominee who has said they will end the Iraq War.

oh, and fuck you anon 11.15 and the 23% who like giving my money to people who didn't earn it for themselves.

The kicker is that Rangel wants to lower the corporate rate from 35% to 30%. Basically, we would be paying for the tax break given to the corporations.

11:14 - I love you!

11:15: Actually, our deficit as a percentage of GDP isn't that substantial, both historically and compared to other wealthy nations. Of course, since you don't really understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit," I might just be wasting my time by trying to point this out to you.

I would support this if the Dems also allow for civil partnership and all the tax implications that flow from such a union. Otherwise I'm going to have to marry a female paralegal for the tax break, because this is ridic in NYC, I'm already screwed by the state and city taxes.

Dittos, 11:15.

11:17: or unless you're on full ride scholarship like I was.

11:20 - I'm not 11:11, but... Bill Richardson?

This makes you wonder what spending programs they have in mind. They are planning to end the Iraq war and raise taxes? Do you realize how much extra cash the government will have lying around if they do both? Oh, and as others have said, extremely progressive systems are horrible from a policy perspective, so I can't support any steps in that direction. Even so, I disagree with those that think they will lose votes due to this. Soaking the rich is a popular policy right now, so I expect this will make a lot of Americans happy.

you idiots. learn how to get by on your outrageous salaries. i'll have a ridiculous amount of loans too but i think $160k is more than most of you first year associates are worth. ooooh...you can't have the fanciest apartment....move to brooklyn.

11:21,

Not only do I understand the difference, but I believe I said "debt" and not "deficit." Of course, since you apparently don't understand how to read, I might just be wasting my time trying to point this out to you.

Many, you 23%! It's like you don't think everyone starts out entirely equal! What's wrong with you? Don't you know that because I'm successful and someone else is not it's because I worked hard and he did not? It has nothing to do with any other factor. It's all about how hard I've worked and how little he has. It's not fair to tax me for my hard work and reward him for his laziness! It's that simple! There is no nuance here! This tax would be so unfair!!!!

you idiots. learn how to get by on your outrageous salaries. i'll have a ridiculous amount of loans too but i think $160k is more than most of you first year associates are worth. ooooh...you can't have the fanciest apartment....move to brooklyn.

i *might* feel better about this if they made ALL of our student loan interest deductible.

I'm Democrat and for the most part am fine with paying a little extra in taxes. However, I think before any taxes are raise, Congress needs to look at how it can best utilized the taxes already collected. The poster above talking about the massive war budget raises a good point. If we get out of Iraq and divert some of that war money into social funding etc. there would not be as big of a need to raise taxes. Of course all that assumes that we can get enough money from other wasteful endeavors to begin paying back our massive debt. Regardless, I think an audit of spending is long overdue. My guess is that there is a lot of stupid shit we spend money on that could make up for the proposed tax increase if we just stopped pouring money into those black holes.

Hey knee-jerk response morons -- the combined elimination of the AMT and the new surcharge would mean that on the whole you would pay LESS than you pay now. How stupid are you people? How is that a bad deal in any way shape or form? Let's see - pay the same or pay less, how DARE they choose pay less for ME!!! Do anyone care what they call it - AMT, surcharge, dibbledy-do, who gives a rats ass. The only thing that matters is how much of your money they take. And under this plan, totaled up, they take LESS. Stupid, stupid, stupid people.

Gallion OUT!

This is BS of the highest order. There's no way an individual's highest marginal rate should be HIGHER than a corporation's, which under this proposal would be 30.5%

I am not clear on the operation of this surtax. Is it going to tax 4% on the amount over 150k or on the entire salary? In other words, if I make 160k, is this going to tax 10k or the whole 160k?

Where's this reader poll I've been hearing so much about.

I think we're on our way to... a comments clusterf**k!!!

Then how will less tax revenue result in greater reduction of the debt, dipshit?

YOU ARE RETARDED IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT AND MAKE MONEY

Charlie Rangel to 190!

it would be a lot more sensible to tax hedge fund managers on their carried interests at regular income tax rates (instead of preferable capital gains rates) before assessing this proposed surcharge.

in that case, F* Joe Torre!

The corporate tax is barely a revenue generator compared to the individual tax. It's kind of like Bank of America's investment bank contributes to their overall banking performance. (get it? Ok, maybe not so funny to (ex) securitization lawyers)

Anyway, back to the point. We're going to have to pay, eventually, we're going to have to. While yes 11:21 our comparative debt may not be that much, we're running a ridiculous deficit, and if you look at other wealthy nations, their top tax brackets will go into the 70s and 80s. So our "rich" pay much less than theirs do.

I am one of them, I would hate to see a tax increase, but, i'm not naive enough to think that you can increase spending (which has been out of control with the war) and cut taxes (which is the gov'ts source of revenue) and everything will just kind of work itself out. Some of you have looked at a balance sheet before, right? right?

11:29,

Or maybe you're just not a completely self-absorbed prick.

so the lessen is to make sure you marry someone who makes less than $40k a year. then again, if you don't want to get divorced in a few years, maybe you should be marrying someone who doesn't work at all. that will keep you under the limit until you're in 3-7, depending upon compression and bonus.

First.

To revive the dream of a flat tax.

Second.

To question why the FUCK they would lower corporate tax rates and hike the taxes on actual workers.

Calm down. Assuming this tax works like every other income tax, the 4% increase would only apply to income earned in excess of $150K. For an associate making 200K, the most this would raise his or her overall tax rate is a whopping 1%. Max out your 401K and deduct your state and city taxes and it’s closer to 0.5%. I don’t want to pay it and it will NEVER pass, but you’d have to be making a ton of money before you’d feel the pintch.

11:20(1) - If you read the bill you will see that the corporate tax reduction is paid for by othe rcorporate offsets (repeal of domestic manufacturing deduction, inventory accounting change, etc.). In fact corporate tax revenue would actually go up.

The surtax is paying for AMT repeal. It will hit highe earners teh most (over 500k) because they generally (and ironically) don't pay the AMT (ironic because it was supposed to prevent them from playing games but now barely touches them).

I am a GOPer and hate Charles Rangel, but my first reaction to the bill is that in some areas it is not that bad. I do think the surtax income requirement should be raised a little, as suggested already, (although under (Democrat imposed) Senate rules they'll have to find the money somewhere else)

I guess the government needs the tax money to form a committee to find the $1.2 billion given to train an Iraq police force which was lost, unaccounted for and probably pocketed by an ex-Haliburton CEO.

Any elimination of AMT is welcome. Think the surcharge threshold would be better set somewhere around 200-250K, but AMT is a satanic and confusing kick in the balls. This is an aggregate good thing.

No wonder most of you became lawyers b/c you haven't a clue about economics, taxes or politics

1) the AMT typically doesn't affect single BIGLAW (1-3rd yr associates) filers unless they itemize their taxes which is only best if you have a mortgage. What 1st year has that... so you will see a tax and no benefit.
2) The tax isn't going to pay for the war but allow for increase spending - it is similar to the proposed "war" tax. The Dems are behind the 8 ball b/c they restricted their actions by insisting on "pay go" rules i.e. any new projects need to be paid for with new taxes.
3) The Dems are against married people under this proposal b/c it kicks in at 150K for singles but 200 for married people.

Rangel just f'd HRC on this one.

How can you morally justify increasing the personal income tax but lowering the corporate tax?

Having a tax specifically targeted at the select few that run these companies decreases the incentive to innovate and make more money for society.

What these socialists will never understand is that, the very people they want to tax the hell out of are those who allow for their way of life. Tax us, and the poor will suffer!

Fuck you democrats.

Everyone bemoaning this tax hike seems to forget that making 160k a year puts them in the top 10% of wage earners. You seem to forget that all your hard work has paid off.
As 11:32 points out, you would only have to pay, at most 2,000 extra, or an extra 80 dollars every 2 weeks. Stop whining.

And part of the proposal is to tax hedge fund people at the normal rates instead of capital gain rates.

As for carried interest on hedge funds... get a clue... it is for Private Equity funds and were are talking about a tax that might generate 6 billion in revenue - not even close to the 100 billion necessary to repeal the AMT.

11:37 - it seems easy enough to justify - you lower taxes on corporations to allow growth, but you tax the individuals involved who are making the most off those corporations. Seems simple enough. Everybody wins.

11:28 - If you need me to explain this to you (the article itself explained it of course, and even the most rudimentary understanding of tax policy would provide you with 20 different possible ways), then you're a birdbrain in addition to a jackass.

Add your name to the list of those who bellyache about tax "increases" without looking at the impact of offsetting reductions. That's the Republican mantra of course - decry anything possible as a "tax increase" even if it is offset by decreases and the person paying would be better off in the end. If you scare people enough, they'll forget to use their brains and support you. And I bet you're proud of your own stupidity in that regard. I bet you'd vote against that obscenely terrible bill to give health insurance to millions of uninsured children left behind by our corporate health insurance monster industry. How dare those kids expect health care - especially if their families make more than 50K a year! Those families have money laying around in boxes.

Morons, one and all.

Gallion OUT!

I would pay more taxes to give poor kids health insurance, and to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan who attacked us. I am not going to pay more taxes to subsidize a tax break for corporations, or for a $2.4 trillion Iraq war.

How about the Dems get grow some balls and stop approving more money for this fucking war. Perhaps then they would have another cool trillion to spend.

Maybe they could help me pay back my undergrad and law school loans, so that I might be less resentful of giving half my paycheck for the Social Security benefits I'll never see. Or at least send me a picture of the little Iraqi boy I never met before my tax dollars killed him. Hell, even Sally Struthers would do that for me.

On a serious note, such a tax on the lower 3/4 of the middle class can only spell disaster; they already have record debt, a modest disposable income, and the equity in their home doesn't mean too much any longer.

11:15, poor, misguided dear. Fiscal responsibility means that people assume accountability for their own welfare, instead of expecting the government to provide for them cradle to grave. "Cutting taxes for the rich" was a rate reduction for ALL brackets (although I believe it was proportionately higher for the "middle class"), and resulted in increased tax revenues. And the "rich" certainly do pay their "fair share" -- about 85% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. Son't worry, sweetie, you'll understand eventually.

Someone care to explain why supporting progressive taxation is suddenly the political equivalent of riding the short bus?

Increased tax = not so sweet. Increased tax on salary that isn't even ridiculously large = definitely not so sweet. $160K is certainly a lot for a 25 yr old newbie, but c'mon, in the grand scheme of things, $150K really isn't *that* much.

Rangel himself hardly makes more than that, and no one alleges that Reps are overpaid.

This is lame. 11.14 (#2) is right.

Yes, tax policy should be based upon how it affects young associates who make 160K working at biglaw. That is what we should really run the country around, because there is nothing else in the country.

Getting rid of the AMT is worth it.

There should be a constitutional amendment requiring all wars be financed through a seperate tax levied equally across the board on every working american. That way clusterfucks like this one would be impossible to ignore.

11:40, why don't you pay less taxes and donate your money to an efficient private organization that achieves things you think are important (like healthcare for children)? Oh, that's right, the government is just one big charity that makes every social decision for us.

I had considered voting Democratic next year, but raising the top tax rate from 35% to 44% plus phasing out the mortgage deduction is ridiculous and uncessary. (Note (i) this assumes Bush tax cuts will expire, putting the top rate back at 40%, and (ii) Rangel's surcharge is on Adjusted Gross Income, which is an accounting trick to screw us out of the mortgage dedcution for that surcharge).

The deficit would be gone if the Dem's froze nondefense spending for 2008 at 2007 levels, even accounting for war expenditures.

You are an asshat. If your company might benefit but you're going to personally suffer from this bill, why on earth would you support it? Business owners dont operate for the 'common good,' in cas you haven't noticed.

11.40: Oh, you'll pay it. One way or another. I dare you to try declaring the 'Iraq War' as a tax deduction. Idiot.

For those of you knocking the corporate tax remember that corporations are owned in part by people who pay tax on distributions from those companies which could make the effective tax rate on income earned by the corporation as high as 60% if this passed (30.5% + 39.6% on the remainder - assuming qualified dividend rules are not extended).

I know that there are ways around this (which keeps me employed at Biglaw) by not paying the money out or using tax exempts or tax advantaged vehichles (401k, ira, etc.). But these are choices we have made on when to tax (when cash is received) or whether to tax (benefit to charities, retirement funds, etc.)

11:43 -- what kind of spoiled idiot are you? "150K really isn't *that* much"???? Do you know what percentage of people in this countrymake more than 150K??? Look it up - you'll be surprised. How out of touch with reality are you? Do you know what the median salary in this country is? My god.

Gallion OUT!

I make 60K working for the State and am up to my scallywaggers in debt, but I do soooooooooo love reading all this whinning by you snotty little bottomhoppers!!!

11:17(2),

I thought student loan interest was deductible for 5 years, but I could be wrong about that.

In any event, student loan holders aren't a particularly powerful interest group, so don't expect any more favorable treatment for student loan interest. Now, if you could get the AARP interested in your cause...

ok, this is my first year in biglaw so take it easy on me, i just want to know how the AMT tax affects us? Would it be safe to assume that this will not affect me where my only deduction from 160K is the money put into 401K and benefits (I have no mortgage/dependents/spouse)???

Although this surtax proposal is modest and, at the moment, unlikely to pass, it does raise the specter of times to come.

If the Democrats win the White House and maintain control of the Congress, tax rates are guaranteed to increase, and not simply in the form a surtax on the top 10%. Instead, taxes will more likely push towards 40% for those earning 150k+.

I, for one, am against the war and against the egregious spending by this administration. However, if given the option of lower taxes and wasteful, war mongering policy versus higher taxes and wasteful, but socially progressive policy, I will always choose to retain my money by voting against the candidate who will raise my taxes.

We could have our cake and eat it too, but the pitfalls of a two-party democracy render a candidate like Ron Paul obsolete. I am voting for him anyway.

11:45 - what amuses me is how you characterize health care for low-income children as a "social decision" being made for "us." Giving children health care they need to survive (look up how high our child mortality rate currently is compared to others nations - it is a disgrace) is not a "social decision." Helping people survive is never a "social decision." It is a moral and ethical obligation. You should be ashamed of yourself, you arrogant, heartless bastard.

Gallion OUT!

Call me a patriot, but I'm okay with helping to bail out our great nation by paying 4% of my income over $150,000.

Conservative radio is appealing to so many people becauase the people who are listening have cars and are driving to actual jobs.

11:47 - Student loan interest isn't deductible when you make biglaw salaries. The cut-off is what, something like 70k?

I'm waiting for some favorable treatment for debt-holders, I haven't see any that applies to me. My sallie mae loans I took out 4 years ago at 5% are now at 12% and the credit cards I had to use to cover the difference sometimes have raised their APR to 33% (gulp).

Funny how we let AARP force us to pay into programs we'll never see the benefit of so that we can work ourselves to death with nothing to show for it when we retire.

Grover - you think the average person at any company makes more than 150k? YOU may not like it because you make more than that, but the average person doesn't care. On the other hand, if corporations are allowed to grow, then everyone, including the top people who will have to pay an additional 4% on some portion of their income, will probably benefit too. It's not an argument about common good. A vast majority of people don't make more than 150k, but probably will benefit from the economic growth from reducing corporate taxes.

I think your strongest point was that most people who are significantly above the 150k threshold will have the wherewithall to set up a personal corporation to shelter some of their income.

The thought of an educated population wanting to give away their money to people far away in Washington, so that it can be spent by someone you do not know is absurdly depressing.

If I wanted to help poor kids I'd give money to a charity that takes care of them (a masonic children's hospital, for instance). If I wanted to help homeless people get back on their feet, I'd give money to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or some such.

The idea of giving money to a bunch of people at the point of a gun so they can give it away however they feel, just because they're 'elected' is insulting to my intelligence. The nation's founders would have given up and stayed part of England if they knew you pricks would end up worse than the redcoats!

Fuck all you socialists.

U.S. to socialism.

The majority of people here are in favor of lower taxes and will advocate personal savings accounts because that will put the money in the hands of Wall Street rather than Washington and therefore generate more business and income for themselves as well as propping up their own investments.

Certainly some single guy making 160 right out of school should shoulder more of the burden of maintaining society than some schmuck making 50 a year with four kids.

Eat it, you over educated, over compensated scum.

This is the process by which idealistic left-leaning liberal arts majors come to realize that voting Democrat is a bad idea if you are gainfully employed.

U.S. to Fair Tax

Hey bloodsucker, try moving back to England and see how you like the taxes there.

11:49 - if you just graduated then you'l only be making about 50k this year so you have no AMT concerns. For next year at 160 with no deductions besides state tax you should be ok. But in truth I would never opine on this for a client. The only thing to do is punch your numbers into TurboTax (or pay an accountant to do the same -- he probably can't tell either) and hope for the best. Your bonus also clouds the issue.

Another reason why I will never vote for a Democrat for any office. Fred Thompson for President.

11:56 -

"maintaining society" - what does that mean?

This effectively raises our tax rate to approximately 44% and for those who live in NYC you get to pay 50+% with your state and local taxes. Fun!!!! The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to sunset about the time this is to go into effect. Talk about the need for a Republican Congress.

11:56 - classic final line. and obviously you are right. I make 250K and get health care for free -- of course I should shoulder more of the burden of maintaining society than a family of 4 bringing down 50K with crap health benefits (if any). these fools with get smacked hard by reality someday, and I wish I could be there to chuckle.

of course the trillion dollars from this waste of a war could have insured every single person in this country. thanks republicans - that was sure money well spent. Fools.

Gallion OUT!

Umm, I thought the one lesson we learned from this miserable George W Bush presidency is that we're overtaxed as it is, and that cutting the marginal tax rates actually increases net tax collections? Charlie Rangel needs to pull his head outta his Keynesian a$$ and the Republicans and the Democrats alike need to stop spending my money like the drunken sailors Larry Craig and Barnie Frank pick up in airport restrooms.

NYC to the Laffer Curve!

Huckabee to President

Gallion,

I hate you.

Do any of you know how much the deficit and debt are? Just because you don't like taxes, just because everyone would prefer to have lower taxes doesn't mean we can afford to do so. We've been spending far beyond our means, like putting expenses on credit cards -- you'll have to pay the off sometime in the future!!!

My god, everyone here is so absolutely shortsighted and doesn't seem to understand the very basic arthmetic behind taxes and spending.

It's true, "lawyers can't do math."

1. For once it's better to be gay. Civil partners can make a combined $300k with no surtax while poor old married people get nailed at $200k. They're going to pay $400/month for the privilege (assuming both couples make $300k).

2. 11:47, if you work in BigLaw your income disqualifies you from taking a student loan interest deduction. You pay full-freight, in after-tax dollars.

12:02 - the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Getting rid of AMT but paying 4% surtax for many dual professional income earners is about a wash, i.e. people doing pretty well but not astronomically well (<$1M year) still pay an assload proportionately. I hate being part of the Post-Modern Working Poor...

11:56 - You do know that a schmuck making 50 a year with four kids pays no tax. In fact he probably pays negative tax (i.e. he gets a hand out) because the child tax credit is refundable.

11.56: You gentlemen are bloodsuckers, pure and simple. You want to take my money which I earned and spend it on causes that you deem worthy.

Please tell me what gives you the right to take 35% of my labor earnings every year? The government, in all its brilliance, is conducting foreign wars for questionable means, giving my money to people who didn't earn it, giving no-bid contracts to looters who do not even complete their contracts.

Fuck you

11.57 (3):

It is not the exact tax percentage that matters, whats the difference between 35%(US)-45%(UK) in the long run? Not that much. It is the moral distinction of unjust taxation vs essential taxes to support local government control.

Asshat.

12:03, they're shortsighted because their $160k lifestyle is short term. Most of them plan to be so overworked and life-less four years from now that they'll be seeking jobs for significantly less money.

I'm sure most of them would have no problem in 5 years voting for this kind of increase. Self preservation and all that.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Student loan interest as a deduction phases out before anyone on this board gets an opportunity to use it.

Let's not forget this is proposed by Rangel, who also proposed other pie-in-the-sky, not-thought-out proposals like "Draft Condelezza Rice" (when Rice told him, to his face, to stop it, that she didn't want to run) and the whole "Make everyone join the military so we can stop the war" argument that was only supported by himself and a few lefty fanatics mad that no one listens to them.

Given that history, since this is a Rangel proposal, it probably wasn't discussed with anyone, and it just occurred to him this morning and he spouted it off. Never going to happen.

You crafty little monkey... 100+ comments for one blog topic. You are a master of marketing.

I support it. I'm 27 years old. Why the hell do I need to make nearly $200,000?

Soon everyone will want a raise of "NY to 149999!"

flat tax, 24% on all dollars above $40K, no exemptions for anything

what all of the socialist morons here don't understand is that 90% of any tax increase will be absorbed by benefits for union workers in jobs that are completely unneccessary...for programs that are completely unneccessary except to provide democrats who can't compete in the free market jobs...government is like a baby...insatiable appetite on on end, complete irresponsibility on the other

Then GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY. All of it. Now. Just write them a check. And, while you're at it, shut the fuck up.

Maybe some of us who are 27 need that money.

You be a prick.

I agree with the US to Socialism comments. A wise man once said,
"the only American jobs that poor people ever created were for police and prison guards..."

Here's a thought: the IRS audits < 1% of all tax returns.

Just increase your business expense deductions, or overstate your charitable contributions, or make up an SSN for your fake kid you claim as a dependent and adjust your tax rate to whatever you think is appropriate.

If you get caught, tough luck, but Gallion will visit you in jail, I'm sure.

Brilliant.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 25, 2007 12:10 PM: I support it. I'm 27 years old. Why the hell do I need to make nearly $200,000?

Because by the time you are 29 if you are successful at anything besides work you might be lucky enough to have a wife, a child and a $400,000 mortgage.

And on another note, did anyone notice in the article that the bill also quietly wants to expand the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). The (mostly) middle to upper middle class probably have no idea what this is but I'll break it down for you like this:

Its a financial reward for doing what you're SUPPOSED TO DO...WORK!!! The EITC basically goes to poor people who don't even OWE taxes as a de facto incentive to work crap jobs instead of suckling the government teet on welfare. So in effect a mother with two kids who makes 25K a year or whatever can get about THREE GRAND as an income tax "refund" thanks to the EITC. It effectively REWARDS those irresponsible enough to have kids they can't afford and it does it at a time when birthrights for the middle class are at nearly historic lows because RESPONSIBLE adults realize that raising children is an expensive proposition.

democrats are so damn stupid. the morons that think raising taxes will result in higher revenues fail to look at the data and fail to understand basic economics. ever wonder why EVERY SINGLE QUARTER it turns out that the deficit is LESS than what was projected? lowering taxes INCREASES GDP - i.e., the economy gets bigger as a result of tax cuts - which ultimately garners increased revenues.

if you tax people more, they don't work as much.

if you tax people more, they don't have as much money to invest.

if you tax people more, less money is spend on research and development.

if you tax people more, they hire less people.

idiots.

YEAY 11:15 [Aww, does it hurt your feelings that the mean ol' Dems are trying to reimpose some kind of fiscal responsibility and pay your president's $2.4 trillion war bill, Lat? If you want to whine about paying your fair share of the national debt, blame the administration and the party that increased spending faster than any administration in history while cutting taxes on the rich and running up an insane amount of debt in a pointless and futile war.]

YEAY 11:25 [you idiots. learn how to get by on your outrageous salaries. i'll have a ridiculous amount of loans too but i think $160k is more than most of you first year associates are worth. ooooh...you can't have the fanciest apartment....move to brooklyn.]

Posted by: Anonymous | October 25, 2007 12:10 PM: I support it. I'm 27 years old. Why the hell do I need to make nearly $200,000?

I'm 28, I have 2 kids and we have a half million dollar mortgage and $100 K in student loans. $200K isn't that much money where I live.

the nine deadliest words in the english language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Need to at least put in automatic increase of the thresholds for the surplus tax as the cost of living increases. That's why AMT is such a problem. When implemented the threshold for the AMT was set in stone with no adjustment in future years for inflation, cost of living, etc.

Dem here, on my way to libertarian...

I hate the AMT - I want it gone. It simply isn't fair. We don't even have that many itemized deductions and we fell in on income. That will suck the charity right out of you because the deductions aren't there. I'm getting to the point where I want to hire my own shady guy to put money where only wealthy people know to hide it. I'm becoming one of THEM.

I don't care if my tax burden stays the same under the new proposal - I just want things to feel more fair.

I also hate all of the child credits - why should the breeders get better tax benefits (one here or there is fine, but they get so many). Breeders should be thanking me that I (no kid) pays high property tax so that they can have one of the best public school systems in the country.

Rant over - except for this: FLAT tax!

12:21

"ever wonder why EVERY SINGLE QUARTER it turns out that the deficit is LESS than what was projected? "

LOL! Maybe it's because the people responsible for making the projections are the same people with a vested political interest in creating the perception that things are better than they really are? Overstate the bad news and then pretend that it's "good" when things turn out slightly better (but still objectively awful). In the private sphere, that's securities fraud. For BushCo, it's business as usual.

Mommy and daddy didn't pay for my education (read: $125K in loans). Even at $160K in Chicago, my money doesn't stretch very far.

I was a proud democrat... until I got my first summer associate paycheck. Then I started to wonder why I'm paying for skanks with ten babies. Can we just end welfare and let people battle it out on the streets?

12:10 = trust fund baby

12:21 is exactly right. There's only one way to increase tax revenue collected and that is to CUT TAXES and CLOSE LOOPHOLES. There's only one way to save our country and that is to CUT SPENDING. Put true conservatives in office instead of phony Texas-Connecticut "Republicans".

If we didn't spend so much money on crap this ridiculous administration has chosen to drop billions on, this would not be necessary. Given that primarily the rich put Bush in power, you can look at this and think "turnabout is fair play." However, this tax is not aimed at the rich - it's aimed at the upper middle class doofuses pulling just enough to be crushed under the weight of taxes, but not enough to consider themselves "rich." There was a great feature in the New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago (golden sewer cover) discussing this very issue.

In New York, pulling in 100-200K puts you pretty much at parity with every other entry-level "professional." You're all paying the same outrageous rent and dropping $10 for a beer. Folks, it's peanuts. Not until you're making well over $200K can you truly feel somewhat at ease (not wealthy). Not until you're making more than $500K can you truly feel wealthy. With the dollar as ridiculous as it is, you need to pull even *more* cash to be worth a damn in the global economy. When someone with a much more limited skill set across the pond makes more than you, something is up.

That said, I am ok with taxing the rich. But the definition of "the rich" needs to be a little more attuned to reality. Most of the "rich" live in readily-identifiable cities/locations and make serious bank (millions). Simply because most Americans perceive $160K annually as a lot of money does not make it so. In cities like New York, you can barely by a place (and no longer in Manhattan, unless you want a craptastic studio) on that salary. The surtax should be a 5% tax on people who make in excess of a higher sum. Perhaps set it at 250K or 300K; that way, you would grab the ibankers, partners, and senior associates, and would also get a bigger chunk (percent-age wise) from the super-rich. Hitting the single chumps making mid-100K isn't unfair, per se, but it seems arbitrary to me.

12:26 - you just proved my point (with regards to stupidity). the CBO makes the projections, and they do so based on models that were instituted by the pre-1994 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, which fail to adjust for the increased GDP as a result of tax cuts.

EDUCATE YOURSELF. moron.

Pardon the typos.

11:57, I was making about $50k with a wife and just one kid before law school and paid an effective rate of about 4%, state and federal combined. Families making the median or less actually make money on taxes.

ephemera,

Yeah, so the cost of living in NYC is ridiculously high and a six-figure salary doesn't go as far as it does in the rest of the country. Big deal. Do you expect Congress to make tax policy based on the exceptional case of the nation's most expensive city? The fact that money doesn't go as far in NYC is part of the package you accepted when you decided to live there, and no one is forcing you to stay. So it's kind of stupid to suggest that national policy should be set from that perspective.

The bill will add a 4% surtax on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year ($200,000 for couples). That is on top of the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So, under Democrats’ plan, over the next few years, the individual income top tax rate in the United States will rise from 35% to 44%. By way of comparison, the other 29 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries – basically other developed nations - have an average top marginal tax rate of 35.7%. In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the United States if the Democrats’ bill is enacted.

This crushingly high tax rate will affect approximately 10 million taxpayers directly - including those who report business income, like small business owners and farmers - but the damage will ripple throughout our economy. Because small businesses and family farms often pay their income taxes as individuals, this is a massive tax hike on the engine that drives job growth in this country.

In addition, the surtax is on adjusted gross income, not taxable income. This sounds like a technical issue, but it means that Rangel’s bill will erode the value of a series of tax deductions – including for mortgage interest, charitable giving, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and the standard deduction. And, because the surtax kicks in at $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for couples, the bill creates a monster of a marriage penalty

San Fran is the nation's most expensive city.

Taxes to fair!

If someone is making 50K and has four kids, where is it written that he DESERVES to pay less in taxes simply because he irresponsibly had children he couldn't afford?

I know TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been rewarded for their own stupid moves in life. My ten year reunion was such a joke. I went to the same crappy HS as these people and nearly half of them have kids they had no business having and in many cases they have two or three and make like 38K a year (they're still single of course).

Wtf, why should I subsidize their lifestyle and reward the stupid mistakes they made? I've wanted kids since I was twenty three (I was weird like that), but go figure, I never had any until I was married with a stable partner and making a decent chunk of change from biglaw. In short, I made a RESPONSIBLE decision (imagine that). The problem with the People's Republic of California and other similar fascist regimes is that responsibility is ALWAYS punished.

Socialism to 190!!!

11:32 says "The surtax is paying for AMT repeal. It will hit highe earners teh most (over 500k) because they generally (and ironically) don't pay the AMT (ironic because it was supposed to prevent them from playing games but now barely touches them)."

Is this accurate? I'd be interested in the surcharge if it got rid of the AMT, because I suspect I'd come out ahead. The people who the surcharge hurts are those in the 150-230K range, who currently don't get usually get hit by the AMT, because they've not quite reached the income threshold and/or because they don't have enough standardized deductions. I'm in the 280K range as a senior associate, and I've got a mortgage and other deductions, so the AMT kills me.

For 11:32, I'm curious about the statement that folks with incomes over 500K often find a way to avoid the AMT. I would have assumed if I was getting hit with it at 280K, folks at 500K would be getting hit worse. How do those in the 500K range avoid it? Is it because so much of their income is investment income that is subject to capital gains rather than the regular rate? If there is some other trick those folks are using to avoid being hit by the AMT, I'd like to know it.

If a couple making $50,000 a year wants 5 kids and government subsidies paid for by my 40% taxes, shouldn't I get to father 2 of their kids?

"The proposal also imposes $9.4 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes on lawyers, accountants and others who currently avoid them by organizing as a partnership." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=axnVGhePutN0&refer=us

12:10, how’s this for why I need to make $200K at age 27? I graduated from law school with 140K in debt and zero savings. I live in New York City where a modest 700 sq ft one bedroom apartment costs $700K of which 20-25% needs to be put down in cash. Even if I save 20% of my after tax salary, it’ll still take me almost 7 years to save that much cash (and keep in mind that the price of New York real estate goes up every year). And the only way I’ll be able to save that much is if I spend 7 years working as a biglaw associate, which is one of the worst things I can even think of (and will undoubtedly shorten my life by a couple years). Of course, to save this much I have to have a roommate until I’m ready to buy. And if I get engaged, I’ll have to save an extra year for that. And if I want a two bedroom I’ll have to save even more.

12:25, you're not going to be bitching about my kids when they take jobs working in your pyramid-scheme of a law firm, fight in the Army that you're too old to help, and pay into Social Security and Medicare when you're a beneficiary. You're not giving anything to society, just barely making up for what you cost your parents.

I'll be your buddy on the flat tax, though.

"crushingly high", 12:36? Family farms and small businesses drive job growth? what planet are you living on? how much has your life been devastated by your tax burden? are you panhandling?

your OECD argument is bunk. the average marginal tax rate in OECD countries is not a good measure of anything. eastern european countries, due to various reasons, currently have extremely low marginal tax rates. scandinavian countries have exremely high ones. look at the countries in it that are similar to the U.S. to compare, not an average of disparate countries with disparately developed economies.

12:43,

Or you could, you know, not live in Manhattan if you can't afford it.

the fact is that George Bush created the biggest tax increases in history. He will cause the government to spend 2.4 trillion on wars, including the interest on the money he is currently borrowing from China to fund those wars. Those debts will have to be repaid in the future, and taxes will have to increased to pay for it. It won't happen on Bush's watch, but that only increases the bill because we've got to pay back the debt he's using to avoid paying for the wars.

Even the most basic understanding of economics will tell you why we need taxes and bills supporting children's health care. All you fucking morons chanting "then go give all your paycheck to the govt!" or "go give your money to a homeless shelter!" are quite slow. Free rider problem - go look it up. I don't have the time to explain basic concepts to you idiots.

This is ridiculous, I think it's a much better idea to sell more T-bills to China and let our kids pay this stuff.

Does everyone/anyone understand that the individual and corporate provisions are both separately revenue neutral -- the corporate rate goes from 35 to 30.5 by eliminating deductions ("loopholes" in Congressospeak) and the 4% surtax covers revenue lost through changes in AMT and elsewhere.

For all those dipsh1ts who say "I'm voting GOP for this" think about what the record increases in government spending during GOP mean for your future tax bills. Your party dug this hole, someone has to fix it.

12:47, I can fix the health care thing with a single-payer system that nationalizes medical training and puts all doctors on a gov't pay scale. Why not?

A comments clusterfu*k!! I love you, dear readers.

Any proposals for the next clusterfu*k?

You will care about making $200k at 27 when you come to the realization that you don't want to work like they make you work for that $200k for the rest of your life. And you will complain about the taxes on that $200k when you realize that the rest of the world has deemed you "wealthy" (even though you work pretty damn hard for your salary) and doesn't care that you pay more than your fair share of taxes.

as much as the republicans have screwed things up, this is exactly why i'm very confident that the dems will go down in '08. the dems overplay their hand every single time. the best thing the republicans have going for them is the democrats. the fact that charlie rangel is the head of the ways and means committee is fantastic for the republicans.

11:29 -- Actually, the Rangle proposal also includes a proposal to tax hedge fund managers on their carried interests at regular income tax rates (instead of preferable capital gains rates) to the extent that the carried interest exceeds a reasonable return on equity.

to all the communists: here's a suggestion for cutting the deficit: STOP SPENDING...I don't want social security, I don't want medicare and I don't want to have to pay for someone else's child ...tell me why I'm wrong...

12:50(1):

It's T-bones you idiot, not "T-bills." Haven't you ever done your own grocery shopping or do you hire someone to do that too???!!!

12:36 wrote: "you expect Congress to make tax policy based on the exceptional case of the nation's most expensive city? The fact that money doesn't go as far in NYC is part of the package you accepted when you decided t