57% Tax in NY under ObamaCare

Obama's proposed new national health insurance plan could result in top earners in New York paying 57% or higher combined income taxes. This could cause people and businesses to flee New York at a time when they can least afford it.

DEM HEALTH RX A POI$ON PILL IN NY
TERRIFYING 57% TAX LOOMS FOR BIGGEST EARNERS ​

Republicans in Washington and small-business defenders in New York said the House legislation would effectively place a stranglehold on businesses while running off top earners.

"Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession," said Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce.

"If there's one sure way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, this is it."

Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate."

"According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said.

Under the House plan, businesses with payrolls of $400,000 or more would pay an 8 percent penalty for uninsured workers, while companies with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 would pay slightly smaller penalties.

Adding to this burden, said Michael Moran of the State Business Council of New York, is that New York is already a high-tax state.

"Any additional taxes make New York even less competitive," he said.

Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an umbrella organization representing the city's major businesses, said that the estimated top marginal tax rate of 57 percent for New York actually underestimates the potential impact on businesses.

That's because it doesn't include the city's burdensome unincorporated-business tax, which snares many entrepreneurs.

"It could be between 62 and 63 percent," she said.

If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."

"It's something that's going to kill jobs. That's the result," said Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Among the most egregious provisions of the House proposal, she said, is a requirement that businesses pay the cost of 72.4 percent of individual health plans and 65 percent of family plans.

Those that don't hit the mark would face the payroll tax penalty. http://www.nypost.com/seven/0716200...ealth_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm?page=2​

New York will be particulary hard hit because taxpayers there will also be hit with high local taxes. But Obama's plan would kill jobs nationwide, especially in small businesses which are responsible for the majority of jobs in the US. This on top of our current financial crisis, on top of the proposed cap and trade legislation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But Obama's plan would kill jobs nationwide, especially in small businesses which are responsible for the majority of jobs in the US

Bush already killed the jobs.. where have you been?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and last time I checked back when marginal rates were in the 70's jobs were still being created. Its just false hoods and smoke and mirrors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mad why did you not post the source for this claim?

 

um he did

 

Perhaps an obvious question; and perhaps an obvious answer

Since when were small businesses the biggest earners?

 

Maybe that will encourage them to subsidize insurance for their workers. With a public option, that wouldn't be too expensive. (The top marginal tax rate should be more like 90%).

 

Well not suprisingly Mad is mixing state and local taxes. New York is a very high tax state...probably the highest in the country. By the way, Obama and the Feds have no control over state and local taxes.

Two, let's look as historical Federal marginal tax rates. Now this is more relevant as it is something for which Obama has responsibility (NO STATE and Local Taxes Included). Back in days when the economy was growing faster than anytime in recent history marginal tax rates were as high as 99 percent...a far cry from the current 35 percent. And even if you add in the 5 percent increase proposed in the House for the wealthiest of our citizens, the marginal rate goes to 40 percent...still a far cry from the 99 percent in the 40's, 50's and 60's.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

 

Arguing that Obama inherited this mess from Bush or Bush inherited this mess from Big Punani Clinton ignores the fact that a 57% tax has been proposed. Wtf, 57%? Just for better healthcare? Uh, no, for 57% tax I better get a golden scrotum, a daily steak, gills, you know, the essentials. Everybody knows New York borrowed and spent money in the 80s like crazy and are broke as a joke now just like California, so they're taxing the shit out of people (literally - as in taxing people for defecating - or so I've heard they're in the early stages of doing). It's like, "hey you, what's up with those terrible, oh so terrible rashes over your body, don't you want better healthcare?" "Could I afford it?" "You could if you paid 57% tax ..." "57% tax?! Fuck that, unless it comes with gills or something. What good is healthcare if I can't afford food?". Yeah, universal health care kinda sucks, it's hardly free, and most people usually die waiting in the lineups or develop cancer before they can do an actual checkup for cancer, etc. What sucks in America are the pharmaceutical companies, they're so obviously evil that we'll all look back one day wondering how it wasn't known sooner how comically evil they were. I've always considered the fact that all pharm companies have comic-book stormy clouds over them at all times with emanating wolf howls, bat screeches, and lightning strikes to be dead giveaways, but others need more convincing.

 

Obama's proposed plan is revenue neutral. We will end up spending much less than we spend now. Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

 

Here's a graphic from the article with some examples of hoq Obama's "revenue neutral" plan will affect New Yorkers.'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Once you get through all of the Republican hype and onto some honesty, you realize it is not what what people like Mad are representing it to be. And if Obama is successful, you come to realize that his healthcare reform will cut state and local spending on healthcare for indigents to zero. What kind of effect that is going to have on state and local budgets...maybe they could cut state and local taxes in places like New York.

 

How? Right now, all of that money is state and local tax money, NOT federal tax money! So it ain't gonna' save the feds one lousy penny! And according to the Dallas County spokesperson, if that money is not spent on the healthcare for welfare, it'll be used for something else ...but it damned sure is not going to be given back to the taxpayer! And that, my friends, is one of President Osama's major fallacies in this issue (and some of this other give-away issues!).

Do you, Joe, seriously believe that the state and local tax collectors are going to give that money back to the tax payers? I mean, seriously, ....do you actually and truly believe that????

Give-aways programs? Look at California's and New York's budget problems to see what effects it has on the general budgets and taxes. And Osama wants to give away far, far more than California has given!!

Baron Max

 

yeah except the people who would pay 57% would still end up with more money than most americans make in a year. Thats only the top bracket. and lets not forget that the whole taxing so people will get healthcare started a republican idea.

 

Mad, there is also a provision where if the savings generated by the program exceed a certain amount, those taxes never occur. The program is projected to save billions.

 

It's hilarious how we're supposed to get all outraged about the top 0.0001% of earners paying 50% taxes. My reaction upon looking at that cartoon was "yeah, and...?"

Oh no, guys that make a quarter million a year will only have $150k disposable income! What a tragedy! And to think that the money would be squandered on something as worthless as providing healthcare to the working poor! Shameful!

 

Well, first off, this is not an attempt to make things any cheaper, it is an attempt to get government more deeply entrenched into a sector of the economy that shows the biggest growth potential. It will happen.

Second off, when medicaid, social security, etc, etc. were all first proposed and outlined, their initial costs on paper where a FRACTION of their final costs.

This plan depends upon a HUGE expansion in the rolls of medicare and medicaid. I am someone that has had a near fatal condition that is dependent on monitoring from neurosurgeons and radiologists. I am very aware how medicaid works, I depend on it to survive. If it didn't exist, I would be dead now. I am quite fine with that, if that is the law of that land and of that jungle, so be it, great. However, it does give me a unique perspective on this issue as I have some personal experience.

I am not sure many of you know this, but nearly half the states are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Only the fact that they are not allowed to declare bankruptcy, and they are starting to use dodgy financial practices like rotating bill paying and paying with IOU's is keeping them a float. More than half of Medicaid is paid for by the state.

The state of Michigan is run by a very responsible and very moderate governor. Although the conservatives don't care much for her, she cuts equally, and taxes equally. Recently, she cut deeply into medicaid. A host of services were cut for everyone. Vision, Dental, Chiropractic, Ear, Nose and Throat; for everything but for an emergency. . . . . and a host of others I can not recall off hand. I deal with a lot of state administrators, and their hours have been cut so severely, they are all down to four day work weeks. I have no idea what the "gubenator" in California is doing to handle it's crises, can't be much different there. (can it?)

So there are several logical question that follow from this health plan, that they will make no attempt to answer while they try to ram this farce through. First, it is obviously going to cost more than this; Where the hell did they come up with these numbers? And second, Do they HONESTLY expect the states, with the fiscal anemia they are in right now, to pick up the cost of adding tens of millions more to the rolls of medicaid when the smart and fiscally responsible ones just cut deeply into those programs?

No, first things first. You want to improve health care in America? I would recommend a complete overhaul of medicare and medicaid, and do it right, they are a complete mess, riddled with fraud and abuse.

Next, redo the FDA. It's essentially run by the Drug companies. Yeah, that's right, that's who runs it. All of it's funding is derived from the drug companies. No research has ever been done to see if genetically modified food is safe, which it isn't. These companies make drugs, and then make up diseases for these drugs. Their idea of trial tests are putting the drugs on the market and seeing what happens. The FDA is a fraud and a farce. I don't eat meat because I have studied government and I KNOW what the inspection process is like, and I know what the relationship is between the FDA and the meat industry. Do any of you remember that massive beef recall last January out in California? Never a mention on what it was about, no pictures on the news of the cows going down. I swear, they don't care about the health of the people in this country, only the economy and the amount of money they can suck out of you.

Some may or may not remember the protests from the people of South Korea over a year ago when their government tried to force them to accept our disgusting tainted beef because the U.S. government arrogantly insisted it was part of "free trade," all the while insisting that since it kept it's citizens as blind and dumb to the dangers of the beef it was consuming as the cows it slaughters, that the Koreans Government and media should do likewise all for the sake of our multi-billion dollar beef industry. And you wonder why Asians are healthy and American are dumb, fat and lazy? Maybe because they pay attention and eat healthy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here are the facts. Sorry about the foreign language and subtitles, but you won't find it done by mainstream American press, to much money and interests against this type of thing. I couldn't post just written evidence, you need to SEE to understand why you and everyone you love's health will get so bad as you age. (link)

And here is the outrage. (link)

And finally, and MOST important, they need to quit poisoning the water. But like I said at the beginning of this post, one of the US governments biggest industries IS the medical industry, they need industrial pollutants in the water to keep cancer rates, autism rates, Parkinson's rates, Alzheimer's rates, etc. all high.

The FDA needs to keep the Cattle industry the way it is to keep downer cows in the fast food supply and in the school lunches to keep degenerative illness in the population. America's biggest industry NEEDS to stay healthy, and dammit, this government is going to get a piece of that pie one way or another!

The Senior Vice President of the EPA Headquarters Union Dr. J William Hirzy.

The Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception

This is why "ADD/ADHD" is rampant in America, why couch potatoes and lower IQ scores are rife in America, and not through out the rest of the world, it's in the water. . .

(link to Neurotoxicity report)

If they REALLY want to bring down health care costs, they would ban high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated any oil, mono sodium glutamate, etc. But you see, they don't, not really. Just like they don't want to CURE any disease, they just want to TREAT diseases. If you CURE disease, well, the costs of health care would REALLY shrink now, wouldn't they? But making lots of diseases and making people live longer. . . well, now, that's a cash cow, isn't it?

If you don't believe anything I'm saying, go ahead, PROVE me wrong, come up with some statistics SHOWING me that diabetes rates have gone down are or statistically the same. They aren't. You would think with all the sugar substitutes they would be. But sugar, pure cane sugar, if you eat it from birth, causes less type II diabetes, than this toxix crap we live off of from corn.

Same thing from any number and any class of disease. The percentage per population has gone up for them all. Arthritis, Alzheimers, lou gerhigs, MS, autism, asthma, cancer, you name. . . we're sicker today than we have ever been. No cures, just new drugs and new treatments. Oh, and NEW diseases too. :bugeye:

We don't need, "universal health care." That's just an excuse for the government to get it's greedy tentacles into a first rate highly productive world class medical industry populated with creative, industrious, brilliant, motivated individuals doing their best for the U.S.

What needs to be done, is to end the corruption, the ulterior motives of the government, and to wipe our the elites "plans" for the masses. A healthy dose of information is what's needed. And a new paradigm in thinking about health is what's called for.

 

Go back and reread what I wrote. I said that Obama's healthcare plan would reduce local expenditures for healthcare. So the Obama healthcare plan offers opportunites for lower local taxation.

I said opportunites, it is not up for the local tax collector to lower the tax. It is for the local elected officials or the local citizens to reduce their local taxation.

Bottom line is the taxation proposed by the House today is not cumbersome and very low by historical standards.

 

That's because many small businesses are stupid enough to pay taxes at the individual rate.

More good news, Obama's plan would move the US to the left of most of Europe. Our averaage top tax rate would be above that of all but three European nations. And some states would be right up there with them.:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A short video on ObamaCare and its costs:
http://online.wsj.com/video/who-paying-for-obamacare/B324A9E3-B95B-4323-ACB9-9C46B8200AC0.html

 

No 57% tax has been proposed. That's just one of Madanthony's typical headlines - you'll get used to them. He doesn't even live in New York.

Unfortunately, no - the reason US taxes are so high for medical care is that we remain stubbornly far to the right of the rest of the Western industrialized world: we insist on handing 40% of our medical dollars to corporate bureaucratic overhead and drug company or insurance executive compensation.

All other First World countries have more streamlined and efficient socialized (usually single payer) setups, and so they can deliver top quality medical care to their entire populace for about half what the US spends to deliver top quality to about 30%, second tier to another 40%, and lousy to the rest.

Obamacare is going to be expensive. But it's cheaper than any other option on the table right now, and it fulfills the major goal of guaranteeing the private drug and insurance companies their cut.