The Obamanation

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That may be, but it is irrelevant. 1% of ($280,001 - $280,000) is one cent. There are a couple more gradations, until it is 5.4% of anything over $1 million. So someone making $1,000,001 would pay 5.4 cents plus whatever the formula works out for the income between $1 million and $280,000.

No where does it say that the tax is only on the income over $280,000. It says income earners who make more than that amount.

[TheMercenary]

From Shovel Watch.

Questions Spread About Stimulus Job Numbers

The Associated Press’s Ryan Kost reports on the difficulty of obtaining accurate numbers of jobs created by the stimulus [1]. Welcome to the hunt, AP! ProPublica is happy [2] to have the company. Kost notes that in Oregon, lawmakers say the stimulus has created 3,236 jobs — even though the average job lasts just one week, after which workers are once more unemployed. “Sometimes some work for an individual is better than no work,” the AP quotes Peter Courtney, president of the state Senate, as saying.

New Jersey has passed a stimulus bill of its own [3], reports the Star-Ledger of Newark. The bill includes incentives for developers. However, the Star-Ledger notes, the bill does not call for recipients of tax breaks to meet any new standards on transparency — a point of contention after last week’s arrests of three Garden State mayors on charges of accepting bribes from a would-be developer.

New York City will be left out of $1 billion in stimulus funds meant to avoid police layoffs [4], the Daily News reports. According to the paper, Justice Department officials decided the money should go to cities with a combination of serious budget shortfalls and high crime rates. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it doesn’t make sense to punish New York’s police force for its success in keeping crime low. The AP adds that Seattle, Houston and Pittsburgh will also be left out of the funding program [5].

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons is pushing to hire a “stimulus czar,” [6] reports the AP. The position is expected to cost $500,000, money that would come from the state’s contingency fund, since it wasn’t included in Nevada’s budget. Neighboring California has such a position, as do a number of other states.

The New York Post reports that tens of millions of dollars in stimulus money is going to toilets [7]. Various federal departments are spending a share of their stimulus funding to build and repair toilets, including $2.8 million for toilets in national forests in New Mexico alone, the Post‘s Geoff Earle reports.

http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimul...ob-numbers-728

[Happy Monkey]

It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about income taxes.

But much of the rest of the money would come from a new tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals earning more than $280,000. The taxes, which would take effect in 2011, would affect about 2.1 million taxpayers, the nonprofit Tax Policy Center projected.

The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million.

The description is poor, but it does rule out your math. The 5.4 percent is explicitly applied only to income over $1 million. And the tax explicitly starts at 1%. I interpret that to mean that it is 1% for anything over $280,000, but, even if this tax worked completely differently from income and payroll taxes, and suddenly turned on, applying to all income, at $280,000, the number would be $2,800.

But that's not how progressive tax systems work. It reminds me of the people during the election who thought they would outwit Obama by lowering their income.

[TheMercenary]

But no where does it say that it is on income only over that amount and I have never heard of anyone try to make that connection. If it were true they would certainly never pay for the 1 Trillion Dollars needed over the next 10 years.

I am quite aware of how progressive tax systems work and they are completely unfair.

[Happy Monkey]

Like I said, that's how income taxes work, and I'm fairly confident that my interpretation is correct. And even if I'm wrong, the number is $2,800, not $15,120.10.

There aren't many places in the tax system where earning an extra dollar will decrease your take-home pay. A few aid programs have hard cutoffs if your income is too high, which is equivalent to a sudden tax increase. But the actual taxes seldom (never?) operate that way.

[TheMercenary]

There aren't many places in the tax system where earning an extra dollar will decrease your take-home pay.

What?

The more you earn the more you pay in tax in our system. The majority pay little to no income taxes. That is an unfair system. The taxation burden is being placed on a minority.

[TheMercenary]

Further, the % goes up in 2012 in each income bracket.

H.R.3200
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

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



SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General- Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:

`Subpart B--Surcharge on High Income Individuals

`Sec. 59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.

`SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--

`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

`(b) Taxpayers Not Making a Joint Return- In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting for each of the dollar amounts therein (after any increase determined under subsection (e)) a dollar amount equal to--

`(1) 50 percent of the dollar amount so in effect in the case of a married individual filing a separate return, and

`(2) 80 percent of the dollar amount so in effect in any other case.

`(c) Adjustments Based on Federal Health Reform Savings-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, subsection (a) shall be applied--

`(A) by substituting `2 percent' for `1 percent', and

`(B) by substituting `3 percent' for `1.5 percent'.

`(2) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS-

`(A) EXCEPTION IF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS BASE AMOUNT- If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $150,000,000,000 but not more than $175,000,000,000, paragraph (1) shall not apply.

`(B) FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $175,000,000,000, paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) (and paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall not apply to any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012.

`(C) EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- For purposes of this subsection, the term `excess Federal health reform savings' means the excess of--

`(i) the Federal health reform savings, over

`(ii) $525,000,000,000.

`(D) FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- The term `Federal health reform savings' means the sum of the amounts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3).

`(3) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- Not later than December 1, 2012, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--

`(A) determine, on the basis of the study conducted under paragraph (4), the aggregate reductions in Federal expenditures which have been achieved as a result of the provisions of, and amendments made by, division B of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 during the period beginning on October 1, 2009, and ending with the latest date with respect to which the Director has sufficient data to make such determination, and

`(B) estimate, on the basis of such study and the determination under subparagraph (A), the aggregate reductions in Federal expenditures which will be achieved as a result of such provisions and amendments during so much of the period beginning with fiscal year 2010 and ending with fiscal year 2019 as is not taken into account under subparagraph (A).

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What?

Exactly what I said.

There aren't many places in the tax system where earning an extra dollar will decrease your take-home pay. And I would agree that any place that does happen should be fixed.

When you enter a new tax bracket, it only applies to the income in that bracket. I don't know the numbers offhand, but I'll make some up for illustration.

Brackets:
$0-$10,000 0%
$10,000-$100,000 20%
$100,000 and up 40%

If you make $10,000, you pay nothing.
If you get a $1 raise, your take-home increases by 80 cents. It doesn't decrease by $2,000.
If you make $100,000, you pay $18,000 in taxes.
If you get a $1 raise, you pay $18,000.40 in taxes, for a take-home increase of 60 cents.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Further, the % goes up in 2012 in each income bracket.

Except the 5.4%.

So your post verifies that my interpretation was correct, with some updated numbers.

Someone making $350,001 would pay one cent, or two cents in 2012.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So your post verifies that my interpretation was correct, with some updated numbers.

Someone making $350,001 would pay one cent, or two cents in 2012.

Wrong. The math shows would never pay for it at that amount.

Given the US is about 305million people, the top income earners are about 2.5% of that or about 762,500. A one cent tax will not rais 1 trillion dollars.

[Happy Monkey]

You just posted the proposed law. Did you read it?

`SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--

`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

(edit)
The only people paying one cent would be people earning $350,001 exactly. With an income of $500,000, you'd pay $1500. With an income of $1,000,000, you'd pay $1500 + $7500 = $9000. For an income of over $1,000,000, subtract a million, take 5.4%, and add $9000.

[TheMercenary]

Yep. 1 percent of the agi as tax payers income exceeds $350,000 is $3500.

[Happy Monkey]

See my edit, and read closer.

If you make $450,000, "so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000" is $100,000, and you pay 1% of that.

[TheMercenary]

Dude. You can't pay the bill with that.

[Happy Monkey]

I can't speak to that, but that is what it says.

[TheMercenary]

Tax tables from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbe...22&DocTypeID=1

It is on the whole AGI. Not just the amount above the lowest ceiling.