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 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."

My guess is that a pretty big percentage, if not a majority, of the people who will be effected by this tax live in or around the country's six most expensive cities. So it's kind of stupid for congress to ignore that fact.

12:58: Why don't you come back when you're 80 years of age and tell us you don't want Medicare or Social Security.

12:21 is alarmingly stupid.

12:38 - It's interesting. The AMT imposes a minimum income tax rate of 26% on your first 175k of income and 28%. By simple function of the tax taxble people who make more pay more, up to 35% on their income ofver about 330k. The more they make the higher their tax rate is and there is a certain point where it would be very difficult to get into AMT.
If you don't make as much (say 250),because of the regular tax rate and some common itemized deductions (mortgage, state tax -- nothing devious here), you proobably get trapped by AMT. This is all because the AMT was never indexed for inflation and also because income tax rates have been adjusted over the years.

As for my statement that surtax is paying for AMT repeal, the projections for the surtax collections exceed the projected AMT revenue.

12:51: yes, i have a proposal. PLEASE LET Lat put up a post on ANY political issue about which conservatives have their heads up their a**es. By doing so, Lat gives free reign for conservatives and idiots to spout off provocative, misleading, inaccurate, insulting and moronic assertions about liberals and democrats. The issues that ALL OF US are wishing to see Lat cover include, but are not limited to: abortion; affirmative action; taxes; gay rights; gun control; universal health care; separation of church and state; need-based assistance programs (e.g. TANF). PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE allow us to witness a bunch of conservative dipwads spew their hidden prejudices and irrational fears (because we don't see enough of this on FOX News or in red states).

Hey 12:59, when you're 80 Social Security and Medicare won't exist because AARP will have bankrupted it by then thanks to the selfish Boomers who lobbied for their 300+ billion Medicare entitlements and who contributed crap to SS and are right on track to bankrupt it before people like me can get a penny.

Two aspects of the hike outrage me.

First, not all people who earn 150k are equal. At the very least all expenses toward education of the individual or a dependent and all debt owed toward an education should be deducted before calculating the tax.

Second, it is disgusting and terrible from a policy standpoint to have such an incredible marriage penalty. If it is 150k for a single person, then it ought to be 300k for a married couple. For those that earn just under 200k and are married, this is all the reason in the world to tell their spouse to stop doing whatever it is they are doing which may greatly benefit society (e.g. work for a non-profit, charity, or part-time teacher) and just sit at home all day.

The reality is that even though 150k is not a lot these days, it is a whole lot more than most people make and those who earn this type of salary will always have to pay more than their fair share. But this type of construction which pretends all who earn 150k are equal is the type of thing which convinces people to not get married and to not bother going to graduate school, or if they do go, to convince their kids and friends not to go, because the debt will kill you.

Last I checked, not a single one of you is paying more for Iraq. Unless you are in the military or you have a family member in the military, you have sacrificed nothing.

"12:58: Why don't you come back when you're 80 years of age and tell us you don't want Medicare or Social Security."

Just because I want something doesn't necessarily mean it's something that I think everyone should have. For example, if the government wanted to give me a new car every year well that would be awesome. But that doesn't mean I think it's a great policy.

Ignore this comment. I'm just throwing out stupid responses because I'm bored. I'm also not the person to whom you directed your comment.

Taxes suck. Having said that, I would mind them less if they went to programs that are actually useful. I'm less than convinced that this is what happens now.

Enough with the "hey, just live in Brooklyn" advice. While Brooklyn is, indeed, less expensive than Manhattan, the desirable neighborhoods are still far, far from inexpensive, especially for purchasing.

By "desirable" I mean close to Manhattan with decent amenities, before I get the old racism accusation.

How is it so many of you attack the proposal because you think it is socialism? Isn't it just practical thinking that if we need money for the government to function, we should take it from people who can afford it? I think it is a shame that anyone making under 30K should have to pay a dime unless people making over 150K are being taxed over 40%. Even at 40%, nearly all higher paid people don't actually pay that because they have more flexibility to qualify for a bitchload of deductions. In contrast, the lower middle class are lucky enough if they own their own home and can qualify for the mortgage deduction.

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

Substitution effect might be outweighed by income effect.

1:09...you are an absolute blithering idiot...move to Cuba, you'll see how well big government really works

1:01 - Blow it out your ass. Your response to this discussion is so typical... "Republicans are all just money crazed assholes with no brains."

I guess if logic isn't on your side, name calling is the next best thing in your book.

Merely by way of example, for facts and/or reasoned argument, check out 11:21/11:50/12:21.

"Isn't it just practical thinking that if we need money for the government to function, we should take it from people who can afford it?"

Or we could just continue borrowing from the Communists.

NY to $149k. That solves the problem.

The people on this board in favor of the tax increase are operating on the fallacy that the increased tax revenues (assuming they do in fact increase -- see laffer curve) will be used to eliminate the deficit/debt and/or fund useful programs. If this were true, more people against the tax increase would grin and bear it.

However, the federal government has proven time and again, regardless of the party in power, that it will increase spending when the tax revenues are available, and that the spending goes to entitlements and pet projects that do not necessarily benefit the nation as a whole.

A tax increase will not have any long-term effect on reducing the government deficit (let alone debt), but will have an immediate impact on the spending power of taxpayers. This is why we are against any tax increases.

We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money.

11:09 - Wow, just wow. "I think it is a shame that anyone making under 30K should have to pay a dime unless people making over 150K are being taxed over 40%."

Grab your guns boys, 150k'ers to 50%. Welcome to Sweden, where no one stays once they realize they don't need a mom and dad besides the one they grew up with.

"However, the federal government has proven time and again, regardless of the party in power, that it will increase spending when the tax revenues are available, and that the spending goes to entitlements and pet projects that do not necessarily benefit the nation as a whole."

I'd be willing to pay more in taxes if I saw the government actually taking measures to cut wasteful spending.

I'd still complain about it, but less so.

Allow me to make my FULL student loan payment from my pre-tax paycheck and permit me to take a tax deduction for ALL of the interest I pay throughout the year on student loans (or, better yet, make it a credit for up to $2k, then a deduction after that), REGARDLESS of income, and it will be much easier for me to maintain my Democrat-voting habits (i.e. supporting tax policies that go against my own economic self interest).

Of course, there's no need to worry about any of this actually passing... even after the '08 election. The democrats are going to run that stupid bitch, and she will lose to either Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson, no problem.

If it's one thing you can rely on with the democrats besides raising taxes, it's f'ing up a presidential election.

a young person that votes republican doesn't have a heart.

an older person that votes democrat doesn't have a brain.

"The democrats are going to run that stupid bitch, and she will lose to either Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson, no problem."

It's fun to make assumptions.

1:12(b), i just looked at 12:21's "reasoned argument". it's the stupidest thing i've ever seen. for counter-examples to everything every blithering conservative idiot (including 11:51) has asserted in this thread, look at the interplay between taxes and things like productivity, hiring stats, r&d, and investment in countries like finland, norway, sweden, denmark, the netherlands, etc. these countries are able to do both, successfully. it's the same old song when it comes to social policies, as well. conservative dipwads in this country are so incredibly myopic and closed-minded when it comes to the insight gained by looking at effects around the world of various public policies contemplated here. see, e.g., gay marriage

the WORST part about this is the hit on married couples. why would you get married if the tax penalty is so high? 150K for single should mean $300K for married, not $200K.

the world must seem magical if you're dumb enough to agree with rangel's proposal.

"a young person that votes republican doesn't have a heart.

an older person that votes democrat doesn't have a brain."

which is not to say that a young person that votes democrat has a heart or that an old person who votes republican has a brain.

personally, i suspect that most people lack both regardless of their age.

Keep dreaming, 1:20. The Republicans don't have a chance in hell in '08. The country is sick of this lying, corrupt administration and all of the shameless hacks that have propped it up for the last seven years. '08 will be the culmination of the GOP's political death that began with the purge of '06.

Somewhat off topic, but I recall the Bush tax cuts in 2001 included child tax credits, which the Dems screamed were "for the rich" because the tax credit could only be used against taxes (that is, if your child tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes you pay, you don't get a cash refund.) Imagine my surprise when I had my daughter and discovered that my fifth year associate in Atlanta salary made us ineligible for ANY of the "child tax credit for the rich"

I can't believe how ridiculously slanted this post is. As others have noted, anyone making less than 500,000 would pay less taxes under Rengel's bill. As CNN notes:

"With the repeal of the AMT, the majority of taxpayers with AGIs under $500,000 would pay less than they would under current law, the Tax Policy Center estimates."

I don't have an opinion as to whether or not this is the best approach, to tax reform, but posting garbagel like this is just stupid. Moreover, what does it have to do with legal gossip.

Gallion,

Since when is "helping people out" a moral obligation? Did you get a C in torts? Here's the old hypo - a man is drowning in a lake, and you can save him, but you don't. Does that jog your memory?

And if it is a moral obligation to help people out, send me a check for all your money, for the rest of your life. That would be helpful.

And 1:09, government's role is to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the government. It's not "practical" thinking to advocate the redistribution of wealth or the unequal charge for the same service. The fact that it's being performed by government makes it nothing but an inverted aristocracy.

1:26, what do you expect? It's Lat. He makes no bones about being a conservative piece of crap and posting slanted, distorted garbage.

1:25 - That's what's so great about all you dems. Just like the '04 race was "Kerry's to lose" in July of '04. Just like Dukakis's 17-pt lead in the summer of '88. I guarantee that the vast majority of premature ejaculators are Democrats.

Comments to 190!!!!!

moral obligation and duty are now the same thing? huh.

Comments to 190!!!!!

1:27: You are confusing three different things here. Obligations under Tort law are not based upon moral obligations unless you learned your Tort law at Regents.

Keeping poor kids healthy and off the streets is in the governments interests because it helps make them productive members of society and also keeps public order by keeping them from stabbing you as you walk to your BMW at midnight.

And you do have a moral obligation to look beyond yourself and to help people who were not born with the brains (and probably the nice middle class parents and great suburban school) that you were.

"The people on this board in favor of the tax increase are operating on the fallacy that the increased tax revenues (assuming they do in fact increase -- see laffer curve) will be used to eliminate the deficit/debt and/or fund useful programs. If this were true, more people against the tax increase would grin and bear it."

1. Increasing tax rates curtails spending as a result of fiscal compromises necessary to push through rates.

2. As David Stockman says, "there is no literal Laffer Curve."

How about this? 15% Nationwide sales/consumption tax. ZERO% federal income tax (yeah no cap gain, no AMT, no death/inheritance taxes, etc.) Privatize SS (personal spending accounts where if people die broke and penniless its their own fault). I suppose Medicare is a necessary evil since no insurance company in its right mind would insure octagenarians and the like even if they were willing to pay high premiums. Let's put Americans in charge running their own lives again.

If I want a new boat every year, I guess I'll get raped in taxes. But if I save or invest my money, I don't owe the government because I was wise enough to invest. I don't have to contribute to a 401(k) that will force me to retire when I'm 60 because I can save "after-tax" money to retire whenever I damned well please.

If I don't like being my own landlord, I can rent a luxury apartment (that won't have the ridiculous non-deductible HOAs condos have) to my heart's content because I'm not strong-armed into getting a house for the interest deduction.

Hmm, freedom to live life...imagine that. Huckabee or Ron Paul to president!!

"1:25 - That's what's so great about all you dems. Just like the '04 race was "Kerry's to lose" in July of '04. Just like Dukakis's 17-pt lead in the summer of '88. I guarantee that the vast majority of premature ejaculators are Democrats."

It's fun to talk trash.

it's really silly to make blanket statements like: this is why I'm never voting Democrat.
Bush put us in a ridiculously high deficit and has done a lot of crazy sh with the blessings of the republicans, who are now starting to distance themselves from his crazier decisions. I hope that voting decisions are made with much more thoughtfulness.
I think this is strategically bad for the Dems, but not a deal-breaker, especially if it doesn't pass with a Dem majority.

a moral obligation cannot serve as consideration!!! booya!

Webb v. McGowin is wrong!

"1:25 - That's what's so great about all you dems. Just like the '04 race was "Kerry's to lose" in July of '04. Just like Dukakis's 17-pt lead in the summer of '88. I guarantee that the vast majority of premature ejaculators are Democrats."

It's fun to talk trash.

For everyone whining about this, a question: You want to KEEP the AMT? Seriously?

Maybe this isn't the best way to kill the AMT, but given a choice between the two, I'll take this one. Sure, I think it'd be more appropriate if the income cut off was higher, and the extreme marriage penalty is retarded but overall, it still beats the AMT.

(But interestingly, I cannot see in the actual proposal where the number $150K is mentioned - I see $200K, and I see something about the Treasury deciding on the exact limits within certain parameters but not exceeding $200K for married taxpayers - but the only place I see $150K is in news articles.)

1;26(2) - You missed this statement right before:

"So for a couple with $300,000 in AGI, they would owe the 4 percent surtax on $100,000 ($300,000 - $200,000). Hence, they would owe an extra $4,000 on top of their regular tax bill."

This confuses me when read with the statement that you quote.

Here is the CNN link:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/25/pf/taxes/rangel_tax_reform/index.htm?postversion=2007102513

I might be more willing to agree with Gallion if he didn't end all his posts with "Gallion OUT!". See, we already know you're out, because we see that the post has ended. Then we move on and read the next one; that's the way it works.

Seriously, you know that's gay, right?

U.S. to Fair Tax

Let's eliminate all social programs. That worked really well in the 1800's. Life was so much better then when we could just ignore all those little dirty people running around. We did hold a gala ball for their benefit once in awhile. And domestic help was much more afforable back then as well.

This giving a shit about other people thing is just holding the stock market back.

I'm totally for this tax increase, unless I miraculously get a biglaw job. Then I'm against it.

"Let's eliminate all social programs."

That's it, present the alternative in the most extreme form possible so that your choice appears to be the only reasonable one.

1:38(3) - They would owe $4K on top of their regular NON-AMT tax bill.

The point is a lot of people under $500K would be paying less under Rangel's plan than they pay currently under their AMT tax bill (which, by definition, is what you pay if it is higher).

16th Amendment to Repealed!!!

1:09 -

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Starting with "I think . . .," your entire post seemed to refer to some alternate reality. All of the implicit assumptions you made about our system are factually inaccurate.

I have my high-paying job because I worked my butt off and I earned it. LEAVE ME ALONE.

You have your high paying job because we all served in the military and built cities and roads and telephone lines and generators and schools and tunnels and bridges and then worked in factories and invested our wages and built a society so that the smart ones among us could go and work hard and make it even better. Now you want to forget about us? You ungreatful cur.

don't you rethuglicans realize that the deficit spending going on right now is a freakin' tax?

ungrateful, not ungreatful.

This thing repeals the AMT and shifts the tax burden to the uber-rich.. Young associates should be all over it! I'd rather have a lower rate now and a higher rate later than vice versa.

1:54 - Thank you for doing all of those things out of the goodness of your heart. Oh wait, all of those people were paid. (I'll conceed military paid a lot more than others and deserves more.)

For those of you who think that this is an okay plan because it's better than the AMT assume that it's one or the other. The AMT was never designed to affect the number of people that it currently does, which is why Congress keeps putting one year patches in place. We shouldn't have EITHER the AMT or this new surcharge.

2:03 that is such a right wing bowl of crap.

We are all in this together, in one big boat.

they need to raise the marginal tax rate to 60% for income over $2 million. Then we wouldn't have tax problems at all and we would truly have a progressive tax system. Stupid that we pay 40% and Buffet pays 17% tax rate.

I'm not a biglaw guy, so I noticed that as soon as I got over 97K I took home a higher percentage of pay because FICA is only paid on the first 97. FICA is something like 6%, so a 4% surcharge on the amount of income over 150 does not seem that harsh.

1:54 - i served 8 years in the Marine Corps before getting this job. my guess if you never did you whining POS. who's unGRATEful now?

1:54 - i served 8 years in the Marine Corps before getting this job. my guess is you never did you whining POS. who's unGRATEful now?

The IRC is a piece of shit. We ought to have a flat tax like normal countries (e.g. Estonia) and put morons like Charlie here out of business. And yes, 12:10 et al., I need all of my biglaw dollars to feed my kids.

1:54 - i served 8 years in the Marine Corps before getting this job. my guess is you never did you whining POS. who's unGRATEful now?

If anyone doubts that Hillary is going to lose, I present to you her 42% dis-like polling numbers... she's going to have to get every other vote in the country to win this thing. The dems are idiots for not runnin Edwards. Sure, he's not as completely psycho as the democratic party would prefer, like Hillary or Obama (yeah, there's an idea, run a black man with an Arabic name... good idea dipshits, I'm sure that will carry (hey, nothing to do with my voting, I'm just telling you what you don't want to hear when it comes to southern and mmidwestern voting patterns)), but you can't have your cake and eat it too... Edwards could actually win (see Guiliani in the Republican party for the Republican example of an electable candidate). The way it's setting up now, I'm looking forward to Guiliani winning NY or CA and completely putting the democratic party on their ass for trying to run their Karl Marx candidate instead of their FDR socialism-light candidate.

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean? Thanks for serving in the military. I assume you took advantage of the GI Bill (or ROTC)?

As far as tax policy goes, I'm still right and you are still misquided.

2:17(1) - FICA is composed of social security and medeicare - Social security stops at 97k, medicare is (now) unlimited.

There is a good reason for this. Social security is more like an insurance program (albeit the shittiest one in history). Your benefit is loosely tied to wages at theend of your career which affects how much you put in to the system. As there is a limit on how much you can get from the system, there is a limit on how much you have to put in.

BLUE STATE VS. RED STATE: What this bill does is transfer part of the tax burden from upper middle class individuals in Blue States, like CA and New York, to upper middle class individuals in Red States, such as Texas, Arizona, etc.

This bill eliminates the AMT, which is largely a tax on upper income professionals in the Blue States states. This is the case because it is the Blue States that tend to have the highest state income tax rates, and also the highest property taxes as well (not the highest rates - but the highest total taxes for the simple reason that a house in SF or NY is worth far more than a house in Arizona). If, like me, you pay the AMT every year, it is almost certainly because your deductions for state income and property taxes are "recaptured" by the AMT and subject to a 28% tax rate (these expenses are of course deductable under the non-AMT tax provisions).

If you live in a state with no income tax (Nevada, Texas), you are very unlikely to feel the sting of the AMT. (it is not impossible, but you would need to have some hefty "recaptured" deductions to get there).

By eliminating the AMT, Rangel will ease the burden on those subject to the AMT (usually someone making $250k to 500k, homeowner, in a Blue State), and that offset should wash out when the 4% hike is taken into account. If you live in a Red State and don't pay the AMT, you will simply experience a 4% additional tax on earnings over $150k with no equivalent offset.

2:22 - you said that i have my job because "we" served in the military. you did not. i did.

Fair enough, and no I personally did not serve in the military.

Of course to be honest I did not build any tunnels or bridges either. It was a metaphoric we.

okay, but your point is that we don't have our jobs because of hard work, but rather because of other people making it possible. I disagree. We all contribute in our own way, and should not be penalized for achievement.

2:07, we are not all in this together you socialist idiot...do you really think the inner city democratic machines care about you at all?

They should make the poor people pay for any governmental shortfalls, not me, b/c I'm SUCCESSFUL!!! and ENTITLED!!!!!!111

The boat is for you. We each have our own yacht. You fucking asshat...

They should make the poor people pay for any governmental shortfalls, not me, b/c I'm SUCCESSFUL!!! and ENTITLED!!!!!!111

What a bunch of spoiled assholes. I wish I could say that I should be surprised.

The boat is for you. We each have our own yacht. You fucking asshat...

2:39, should you be rewarded for your innate ability? Should someone with less innate ability be penalized for that? Your "achievement" is great, but your hard work is only part of your success. Another part is the natural skills you bring to the table. That's what annoys me about all these people who imply that people who succeed worked hard and those who don't did not. Some people are not born with the ceiling you and I have. Maybe you should not be "penalized" for your acheivement, but should a person who works just as hard as you but who was blessed with fewer natural gifts be "penalized" for that? (I'm assuming, probably among other things, that you'll agree with the concept of the decreasing marginal utility of money.)

Nothing like working my ass off to escape my shitty little hometown, be the first in my extended family to go to college (yet alone law school), do well and get a good job, just so the dumbasses who screwed off in high school can tell me that I need to give them another 4% of my money because I'm privileged.

F the democrats.

fucking communists

If the democrats did not band together they would get split up and ignored by the capitilists. Be glad that the machines are there to organize the masses and have them realize that they can work through the political process.

Of course the machines are self-interested. And their supporters are also self-interested. That is the way the process works.

Don't kid yourself, there are republican machines out there working very hard to lower taxes and increase the wealth of people with a lot more money than you have.

If they cut the AMT, I have no problem with the surtax.

2:52 - yes, I should be rewarded for my innate ability so long as I work hard and put it to use. I'm fortunate to have the intellect necessary to have landed a biglaw gig. It's unfortunate that others may not have this necessary intellect. But I know several people that are smarter than me that have landed in jail, or otherwise pissed away their innate ability. Similarly, I know several people that are dumber than me that make a lot more money than I do. That's life.

Point is, our innate ability may be a necessary precondition for having our jobs, but it certainly isn't sufficient. Tax policy should encourage people to maximize their potential.

Republicans suck my a**. End the war; cut off the welfare to corrupt republican contractors; and kick that bumbling idiot out of office. - BIGLAW Associate

re:2:20(2)

How the hell can you even suggest that Guiliani will win? He's a sleazeball on his third marriage (one to his second cousin) that is ardently pro-choice and pro gun control. Over 50 conservative religious interest groups vowed to vote for a 3rd party if he was nominated based on his abortion stance alone. He literally stands NO CHANCE of winning.

2:56...how can you be self interested, wanting someone else to pay your bills, and then say that we are all in this together???

3:00 - what won't you do if that extra 4% above $150,000 is actually imposed? Is that going to stop you from maximizing your potential?

We should not give the government so much ability to make shortfalls by blindly giving it more and more money

oh, and 11:15, fuck you

This Thread to a 3XCF

Liberals suck.

Dont you enjoy giving back to the community that helped you get you to where you are today??

--Sarcasm from Grover Norquist

3:00 - encouraging people to maximize their ability is only a secondary purpose to tax policy. Primarily it should pay for government. And it should be fair. Assuming you believe in the decreasing marginal utility of money, you have the foundation for a progressive income tax.

The TTT idiocy of some of the posters on this board never ceases to amaze me. I always find it characteristically idiotic when conservatives call Democrats communists / socialists as an insult. "Communist" and "socialist" hardly describe the Democrats, who are as corrupt and invested in market capitalism as Republicans are. Get your terminology & insults straight (or maybe that's too much to expect from inferior minds that never got the benefit of having qualified history/political science instructors to clarify the distinction between political ideologies).

It's hard to feel too spoiled when I've worked 16 hours every day for last two weeks at a job I hate. I can't wait until the day I can leave. But before then I want to pay off my school loans and save up enough for a down payment on a house. Living in New York I already pay obscene Federal, State, City and sales tax. All in, it's over 40%. Any increase in taxes will come directly out of my savings and increase the amount of time I have to do this awful job. Forgive me if I sound like a spoiled brat, but I think the U.S. already collects enough taxes to make ends meet. I'd rather see the government exercise some discipline over its own spending before it asks me to chip in even more.

It's a shame that Steve Forbes has such a creepy smile (and is the sun of a flaming homo – but that's another story). His flat tax proposals look more and more appealing in light of asinine tax policy like the above.

3:00 - lower taxes result in higher revenues. and they're more fair. and FYI, after the 2003 tax cuts, the top 1% of income earners pay a higher percentage of taxes than before. i'm not suggesting that we do away with the progressive income tax, but let's not use tax policy as a naked ploy for wealth distribution. this is America.

oops - i meant to direct that towards 3:09, not 3:00.

3:09 - lower taxes result in higher revenues. and they're more fair. and FYI, after the 2003 tax cuts, the top 1% of income earners pay a higher percentage of taxes than before. i'm not suggesting that we do away with the progressive income tax, but let's not use tax policy as a naked ploy for wealth distribution. this is America.

3:05 - yes. I will be less likely to remain at biglaw. I will not be able to invest as much money.

"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."

This poster has a good point.

I'm normally not inclined to be sarcastic and shout insults behind the safety of a computer screen, to total strangers no less.

But something about these threads is telling me that I have to be an asshole in order to post. So I'll try:

Out of those who are all up in arms over this proposal: I hope you were this outraged over our attack of an a sovereign nation and the trampling of the Constitution that has been the MO of this administration since Day One. If not, you're a bunch of fuckin hypocrites.

I know many of you think that you can swallow the miserable, no-life existence of working 60-100 hrs/week in a big firm in exchange for a comfortable, wealthy future w/all that dough you saved. Well, with the course we're on, by that time the dollar will be worthless and the country will be a subsidiary of China, Inc.

Karma's a bitch.

3:29 is living proof liberals hate America more than Islamo-fascists...

3:29 - far out dude. peace!

@12:45 - no, I'll still be b!tching about your kids when I'm old. Because there won't be Social Security when I'm old enough to draw it, and so until then, I'm squirrelling away my money in so many retirement accounts it's not even funny.

I know it's off topic - but this is exactly why Social Security is bad - it's a Ponzi scheme that relies on people breeding just to pay off the obligations. We need you to have kids to support this failing system! (suck it up now and ditch it)

My work (and your kids) are bailing out people who didn't adequately save their pennies for retirement. And I can't really blame them, because they thought the government was going to do something entirely for them that they should also have been doing themselves.

Oh, god, I'm almost a Republican. Flat tax!!!

uh i just became a republican

3:29 - far out dude. peace!

So why do you need anyone dude. Why not just go to a desert island and work hard and save your money for your retirement?

Oh, that's right, because without me and my kids there is no job and no where for you to live.

You are here for us pal, not the other way around. If you don't like go move somewhere else.

Social Security is there so the security guard out front will retire at some point and not have to keep working until he dies at his desk. Is that to much to ask from you while you buy your yachts and co-ops?

3:29, the fact that you are arrogant enough to post under the name "NYC" tells me that you grew up comfortably in a solid middle-class neighborhood of some red state (or red pocket of a blue state), weren't popular in high school, but blossomed after drinking the leftist Kool-Aid at NYU (or maybe a New England liberal arts college). I bet you were in awe of St. Marks Place. "Wow, this is where the non-conformists hang out! I can be a non-conformist too if I dress exactly like them and spout the exact same political views!"

Anyway, that’s just my guess. Regardless, stop being ashamed the upper-middle-class prosperity that allowed for the carefree lifestyle necessary to cultivate your left-liberal smugness.

Rather: "... stop being ashamed OF the upper-middle-class prosperity...."

3:53 - your post/logic is incomprehensible.

Hey we're talking about a 4% surcharge to set off a waive of the AMT, not taking your ass at 75% or anything. This is not threatening Westchester. No need for you to build a wall and moat yet.

3:55...I don't want social security...if it is such a great progam, why is it mandatory?..you socialist idiot...

This whole "offset" the AMT argument is ridiculous. The AMT was implemented in order to target the very, very richest people - i.e., 155 households - who had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they paid little or no taxes. As we all know, the AMT wasn't indexed to inflation, which has lead to an UNDESIRED effect. The AMT has to be repealed, period. "Offsetting" the AMT is still a tax increase.

"the fact that you are arrogant enough to post under the name 'NYC' tells me that you grew up comfortably in a solid middle-class neighborhood of some red state"

Thanks for the laugh duck. Actually, I grew up...wait for it...in NYC! Wow, who woulda thought? You must be one of those genuises who predicted that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and candy.

I suppose you can fairly label as "arrogant" my using the moniker of the place where I live, was raised, and love---provided that you first completely re-define the meaning of arrogance.

But this comment isn't about me. It's about the rapid demise of our-once great nation, which is neither funny or entertaining. Perhaps you're one of those hypocrites I was calling out in the first place?

Assault on civil liberties: yawn.
Concentration of powers into the executive branch: yawn.
Occupation of a nation that we attacked for no good reason: yawn.
Demise of the dollar and sale of our country to China and the other highest bidders: yawn.
Loss of habeas corpus: yawn.
The prospect of a tax increase: FUCK THAT SHIT! NEOCONS RULE! REVOLUTION!!!

O my god, what a bunch of spoiled, greedy children you people are. Grow up, learn basic arithmetic -- you can't pay for this goddam war and medicare and social security and universal healthcare and student loans whatever else your little hearts desire and put it all on the national credit card that is the DEBT!

You have to pay for all that stuff. Grow up.

* This is especially true for anyone who supported this war -- you should have to pay double!

I'm all for getting rid of the AMT, but this "surcharge" creates needless redundancy and complication. High income taxpayers already pay a surcharge -- it's called the progressive income tax. If politicians aren't happy with the current marginal tax brackets for high earners, just suggest raising them a certain percentage to offset the loss of AMT revenue. There's no need to pay two taxes, when one would accomplish the same thing.

Why is the difference between 150K and 500K only .6% higher?!?!? 150K earners should be MAYBE 1-2% and 500K should be 6-9%, 1million plus should be 10%. Why are we letting the super rich get a free card?!?!

I am sure the dumbocrats will make this a flat tax rather than an increased marginal rate.

Lawyers, lets put some REAL FORCE BEHIND OUR PROTEST: we REFUSE to represent anybody who is a registered democrat!

Let all Democrats NOT have representation!

I own no yacht or co op - I live in a small house and save my money. I grew up in a middle class family with working class grandparents. None of them were close to the estate tax exemption limit when they passed away. I am in the first generation of my family to go to graduate school.

I'm not opposed to Social Security because I'm from money. I oppose Social Security because it's wealth redistribution (which in itself is not bad) that leads millions of people to think that they have no personal responsibility for saving when they get older, and the system itself is broken. It is also not designed to support people's current life spans.

Better to face facts and let people know that they should start saving their pennies, too. The average savings rate in the U.S. is negative, precisely because people want things now and they think that someone will forgive their debts or bail them out later. Your kids are going to be in for a rude awakening when they're not only paying into a failed Social Security system (let's face it - it won't last that long) AND they're bailing out all of the people that refused to plan for a rainy day and their retirement.

You also realize that your kids are all going to have to be doctors and plumbers and mechanics in order to have jobs - otherwise, they'll be in competition with (and lose out to) cheaper labor abroad.

People keep talking about the equities here w/r/t taxes, and I'm just pointing out that my property tax is the same as my neighbors', but he gets to send 3 kids into Fairfax County public schools to get some of it back, and I don't. Hell, he can have 17 kids and send them all to public school - there's no limit on his draw of public services for his same tax dollars.

I want my non-child tax break.

One last thing to point out. If you assume that the tax level proposed by Rangle is okay, then you only have to look at one thing... shifting away from AMT to a 4% surcharge does one thing. It lowers the taxes of high income earners in states with high income and real property taxes (i.e., blue states such as NY and CA), as those are the people who are currently subject to the AMT, and increases the taxes of high income earners in states with low income and real property taxes (i.e., red states such as TX, FL, VA).

So, basically it's just Rangle and the Dems trying to subsidize the coffers of blue states to the detriment of the upper middle class of the heartland of America.

Two hundred and eighty------first!!!!!!!

3:16, I believe you're talking to me. I didn't go to a TTT. I don't even use that term - it's for douches. That said, I bet you any money that I went to a better law school than you did (assuming you went to law school), and I'll let you pick who will be the judge of that.

Regarding knowledge of communism, socialism, and their similarities/differences to what the Democrats in the U.S. desire, I again will bet you any money that I will smoke your ass in any reasoned debate on the subject. Don't try to sound too smart when in fact you probably know precious little about how communism and socialism are/were actually implemented. Any first-hand experience? Anything MORE than a poli-sci professor (even a good one) to teach you about those things? No? Then stfu and don't assume you know who you're talking to.

Calling the Dems "fucking communists" is actually a pretty accurate shorthand. If you want to tell me how the Dems are different, bring it on.

AGAIN, I [sarcastically] implore Lat to continue posting on ANY political issue that gives free reign to conservatives and idiots to spout off provocative, misleading, inaccurate, insulting and moronic assertions about liberals and democrats. The issues that ALL OF US are wishing to see Lat cover include, but are not limited to: abortion; affirmative action; taxes; gay rights; gun control; universal health care; separation of church and state; need-based assistance programs (e.g. TANF). PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE give us the privilege of witnessing a bunch of [rich] conservative dipwads spew their hidden prejudices and irrational fears. I so appreciate it.

What is this, RedState.com? Let's have some real analysis of how the simultaneous surtax and reduction of AMT would affect people.

I also appreciate 4:57 making my point so much better than I could have done through any sarcastic post. Thank you, 4:57. You are a breath of fresh air.

4:53 - Considering that much of the federal budget consists of transfer payments from blue states to red states, I don't see any problem with this. This essentially makes those red state richs pay for their own farm subsidies and BS pork barrel projects.

I wouldn't oppose raising my own taxes if I thought that the government would use the money for worthy causes. In general, I recognize four causes as worthy: (1) correcting market failures, (2) protecting our national security, (3) providing truly collective goods, and (4) providing for a minimum standard of living for truly poor Americans.

But a huge chunk of gov'n spending goes to entitlements for the middle class (social security, Medicare, parts of SCHIP, the farm subsidies, etc.). I don't think this spending is really justified. If Congress were to get rid of all this spending and still needed my extra tax dollars, I'd be OK with raising taxes. But instead, Congress is raising spending so it can create new middle class entitlements.

You don't think that a free public education is important for everyone, including the people that do not have kids? You don't think you should be forced to pay into that? No problem. Move to a cabin in the woods of Montana. No one will bother you out there.

Grow up young Republicans and act and talk like adults please.

A reasoned discussion about the similarities between democrats and socialists? How about a reasoned discussion about the similarities between republicans and fascists? If you want to have a reasoned discussion about anything don't throw bombs and don't attempt to have a reasoned discussion in the comment section of a website. You dork.

4:23 and 4:28 - I'm a registered democrat. I thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. I'm a strong supporter of civil liberties. But I don't want my taxes to go up when i know the extra money is just going to be squandered. If the money was earmarked to pay down debt incurred in connection with the war, or even set aside for fixing social security I might be more supportive. But all of us know that congress is just going to spend every last dollar it can collect on the same stupid stuff it always does.

I don't have a problem with progressive taxation. But I already pay a higher percentage of my income than people who make less. I pay close to 40% a year, while people who make less and have kids or a mortgage pay closer to 20-25%. That's fine. I'm paying my share. But I just don't want to pay 4% more.

Is that really a crazy position to take?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html

5:07 and 5:14: Amen, brothers (or sisters)

5:10,

Fascists were leftists totalitarians, much closer to socialists than conservatives are. I know that most people in the U.S., in their ignorance, equate nazis and fascists, and think that both are close to Republicans, but the facts are that both fascists and nazis (a term derived from national SOCIALISTS) were lefties, thus closer to Democrats than Republicans (at least economically speaking) as far as the U.S. is concerned.

at least in terms of social policies and the legislation of morality, large numbers of conservatives are forehead-saluting, toe-tapping, arch-fascists

say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos, dude.

With AMT eliminated, this "surcharge" would have little impact on BIGLAW net salaries (and might even increase take-home pay for some).

(Warning- boring tax analysis). Due to high state and local taxes, which are only deducted if one itemizes deductions, a substantial majority of NY BigLaw (even BigLaw associates) falls within AMT territory-if they are not, they are probably doing something wrong. The other high tax states (MA, CA, PA) also have substantial BigLaw presence.

From a "fairness" perspective, this tax also makes sense because the parties most likely affected negatively (six-figure earners in low-tax states) already have a much higher relative standard of living than their similarly salaried counterparts in NY, MA, or CA.

I thought that only 1-2% of the total US population earns more than six figures. For the average Joe and Jane they'll never hit that salary level and will therefore be exempt.

I disagree with lowering corporate taxes and think the smarter strategy would be to crack down on corporations hiding out in tax havens (cough cough insurance cough Bermuda coug cough) and ending corporate welfare for most companies.
But that's just me...

so 4% on approx $35-40k tax liability each year?

guess i'll just have to go w/o hookers and blow once per year.

A lot of people are whining about how this would be a tax increase.

Then, a number of people pointed out that in reality, for most of us, it would actually be an effective decrease.

Then, people whine because the AMT should be repealed with no offset.

Jeez. If that's really your rationale, then stop whining. I want the AMT gone. If this is better than the AMT, great. I'm not going to cry in my beer because there's another alternative that's even better. It's a step in the right direction.

Now, if someone else comes up with plan that ALSO repeals the AMT, and has better side-effects than this one, then I might complain about this one.

"Is that really a crazy position to take?"

No, 5:14, it's not.

But the point is those who never before protested the occupation or this administration in general ought keep silent now.

What does that say abouy us as a nation if otherwise decent people only take an interest in politics when they are directly affected?

And to those bitches out there crying about how much taxes the rich pay: ever hear of Warren Buffet? Ya know, the billionaire. Well, he already demonstrated that the ultra rich wind up paying a lower percentage of taxes than does his middle class administrative staff.

I like your style NYC.

Just another excuse to beat the Democrat voting c*nt I call my wife. Cheers!

Support this tax if you believe the government can use your assets better than you. If you think you are a more efficient allocator of capital, tell them to go to hell.

Thanks 3:37 and Oregon. It's refreshing to see that the authoritarian followers here that consider themselves "conservative" are vastly outnumbered.

But that won't stop them from spewing their hateful ignorant bullshit. so my mission will never end.

Peace.

Frickin' blue state.

it's not a "net decrease." they are pulling the wool over your eyes if you believe that. They are claiming that it will be a decrease compared with what we'd have to pay when the AMT - a huge tax increase - affects more and more of us. Gee thanks!!! That's like saying "repealing tax cuts." Um, that's a tax increase. Repealing cuts is an increase. Similarly, saying it won't be as bad as the AMT is just saying that it may not be as bad a tax increase as you may have feared. But it's still a tax increase.

"

Support this tax if you believe the government can use your assets better than you. If you think you are a more efficient allocator of capital, tell them to go to hell.
"

Wrong question. The point of reference should be not you individually, but all $150K+ earners in the aggregate.

I have relatives and good friends in NYC, but this just goes to show how stupid NYC voters are.
Rangel will hurt his own constituents most of all. And they'll take it because NYC is a one party Dem town.
Congratulations all you Law Dems!

Corporations should not ahve to pay any taxes at all. In the end they are basically just passing the money along to employees, suppliers, and investors, who pay taxes themselves. There is no need for a double tax. Most private business these days is doen with pass-through entities such as LLCs anyway. We should just make all corporations work like LLCs.

And people who think the Iraq war makes any meaningful difference to the federal budget and the deficit are falling for propaganda. We have a $12 trillion GDP and a $3 trillion annual federal budget. $100 billion for the war sounds like a big, scary number, but is just a drop in the bucket compared to the whole budget. Meanwhile, entitlements make up over 50% of the budget, or more than $1.5 trillion annually.

Whats with the title of this post... are you trying to say that $150,000 or more is 'upper middle class' ? What are you smoking If you're making 160k you are well above middle class... you're in the high high class my friend. Welcome. Pay your dues.

150K is low tomiddle class if you liveinNYC...itis working class,8:53

First!

5:14 wrote:

"4:23 and 4:28 - I'm a registered democrat. I thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. I'm a strong supporter of civil liberties. But I don't want my taxes to go up when i know the extra money is just going to be squandered. If the money was earmarked to pay down debt incurred in connection with the war, or even set aside for fixing social security I might be more supportive. But all of us know that congress is just going to spend every last dollar it can collect on the same stupid stuff it always does."

I guess that means that there's no way we're ever going to pay down the debt.

All I can say to y'all is, one day, that debt is going to deliver the letahl blow to our economy, and neither your $160K, nor any savings you've accumulated will save you. If China called in all our debt that it owns in 50 years, there woud be no more FDIC to insure your savings.

Think about it.

Instead of raising our personal tax, keep the corporate tax high and stop wasting our money in Iraq - that is where all our tax dollars are being wasted from so called conservatives.

"3:16, I believe you're talking to me. I didn't go to a TTT. I don't even use that term - it's for douches. That said, I bet you any money that I went to a better law school than you did (assuming you went to law school), and I'll let you pick who will be the judge of that."

You are an idiot. Grow up.

"You don't think that a free public education is important for everyone, including the people that do not have kids? You don't think you should be forced to pay into that? No problem. Move to a cabin in the woods of Montana. No one will bother you out there.

Grow up young Republicans and act and talk like adults please.

A reasoned discussion about the similarities between democrats and socialists? How about a reasoned discussion about the similarities between republicans and fascists? If you want to have a reasoned discussion about anything don't throw bombs and don't attempt to have a reasoned discussion in the comment section of a website. You dork.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 25, 2007 05:10 PM "

Hilarious. Ditto 5:10.

The deficit is on track to become a surplus by 2010, assuming things stay the same, and even with the Iraq war (not that I favor it). Look at the actual numbers. The Dems want more of your money, because you are "rich" and have a "high income." Even in this thread, we are told how spoiled we are because we managed to bust our asses to make it into a highly-paid segment of a moderately-paid profession and must continue to work extremely hard, both in terms of skill demands and sheer effort, to stay there. If you make $160k because you busted your ass to get through school and bust it now in a career in which 98% of associates in big firms are building no equity (other than accruing sweat equity), you are still expected to give more and more of your money to people who, while in high school, did drugs, drank, and popped out a bunch of babies. In other words, you were in the library or volunteering in Haiti while those morons were driving around in jacked-up vehicles or lowriders, depending upon your location, drinking large amounts of alcohol, and not giving a damn about their futures.

Failing to disincentivize poor lifestyle choices is just as foolish as failing to incentivize good ones. Social safety nets that Dems want to stretch to fit tons of people who vote for them -- er, I mean, for those who are disadvantaged and haven't had opportunities -- is foolish, shortsighted, and selfish on the parts of those politicians. They essentially are buying votes, and it's so transparent that it blows my mind. Those safety nets were designed for those who truly needed it, not to make our country a magnet, both internally and externally, for unskilled losers expecting handouts.

If we continue marching down this path, America will look like Mexico, with elites in mansions up on the hill surrounded by fences, gates, and armed guards, and a mass of indistinguishable misery, the regular people, below it.