What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
1267 Comments
- methdwman3, on 07/14/2009, -116/+347I am uncomfortable with any healthcare bill that simply pawns the cost off to the wealthy. Where is the incentive for people to get their acts together and live healthier lives? As long as we have a culture of people allowed to do what they want on someone else's dime, costs will keep rising, and they will keep needing new revenue streams.
- 7papa7, on 07/14/2009, -185/+321I wonder how many millionaires will be moving out of the country and taking their money with them while they still have it? This is one of the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Raise taxes on those who can supply jobs in a recession. Total ignorance has indeed taken over government.
- FuzzyBunny, on 07/15/2009, -18/+139Who the hell wrote and edited this story? Millionaire does not equal someone who makes $1 million a year. A millionaire is someone who has $1 million. There are many people who make significantly less than $1 million/year who are millionaires, including just about anyone near retirement age who hasn't neglected their 401k/IRA.
- Apokalyps2547, on 07/15/2009, -17/+121Where to?
Europe where the taxes are twice as high?
Communist China?
An insecure third-world country? - adamkparker, on 07/15/2009, -58/+155This only effects people making over a million dollars a year. In that, if you were making a million dollars (even) a year this tax could cost you $54,000 (est). I don't see the big deal, millionaires (and up) pay less of a percentage of their income than the other demographics. So it's okay for someone making $20,000 to turn over more than their income than a millionaire? Which person do you think it effects the most?
- Toloran, on 07/15/2009, -57/+148To all the people overreacting about this: The rich don't pay their taxes anyway. They find legal ways to either massively reduce their taxes (through the various loopholes in the tax code) or just don't pay them at all.
- veganpa, on 07/15/2009, -26/+116Do you people understand what marginal tax rate means?
Yeesh. Only two comments needed for Hitler to come up. Man, the crazies are out in full force. - freakincampers, on 07/14/2009, -98/+187Just what we need in a recession, more taxes.
- alternet09, on 07/14/2009, -43/+130Don't you just love the fact that tax evader Charley Rangel is the one calling for this tax?
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -5/+85None, they have to make that much money every year to be hit.
- pintomp3, on 07/15/2009, -37/+114Screw the sick and dying, Paris Hilton needs the money to buy another coat for her dog.
- Delphium226, on 07/15/2009, -37/+113Ah yes, the trickle down economics that worked so well for the last 8 years and led to this time of prosperity.
/S - zacharytelschow, on 07/14/2009, -131/+203That is good not.
- SteelChicken, on 07/15/2009, -6/+77Oh Digg, how your flavor has changed in the last 8 months.
- Schpamm, on 07/15/2009, -19/+85Look.... I'm not naive enough to think that taxing the rich won't affect the economy, but it is difficult to feel sympathy for those who earn over $1,000,000 a year. AGAIN PEOPLE, READ THE DETAILS! It's not if you have an ESTATE worth over $1,000,000, it's if you EARN over $1,000,000 a year. These people are the elite wealth of this country. There are historical record that indicate higher tax rates on the super-wealthy did not affect the economy. Herbert Hoover slashed taxes by record levels in 1929, and we still had the Great Depression. From 1947 to 1973, the top marginal tax rate was NEVER below 70% (twice the current standard) yet average median family income rose 2.7% a year. Don't believe the folks who will tell you that all taxes are bad. The lower and middle classes can always use a tax break in a consumption-oriented society but there's only so much you're going to get out of the nation's elite rich other than an overvalued housing market.
My biggest problem with this health care plan is it seems to penalize the middle-class and offers a better health care plan for those who don't work, or those who have bypassed college and other common sense income increasers. You could be a single person making over $40,000 a year and stuck with whatever mediocre healthcare plan your business offers since you do not qualify for the new government healthcare plan. Meanwhile, Florence who has no high school degree, 3 kids she never should have had in the first place, and no husband (of worth), will be much more comfortable with her government plan that offers better rates and even provides preventitive care, mental health care, dental care, and other options sometimes left off of large business healthcare plans for the sake of saving money.
Congratulations to our nation's poor who will now be cruising, and congratulations to the rich who will be able to afford any quality of care possible since the United States is the greatest country in the world for paid healthcare. But what about us in the middle-class or slightly-upper-middle-class who have been responsible, but just not lucky or talented enough to hit it big? Will we get the same healthcare as Dan the career McDonalds fry cook? - lendrick, on 07/15/2009, -9/+75None whatsoever. The surtax is on people *making* over a million a year (the article misuses the word "millionaires"). All told, most of those people pay about 15%, while the rest of us are paying about 25%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - dalittle, on 07/15/2009, -15/+78Them moving is a fantasy or they would not make such a big deal about keeping their unrealistic tax breaks. Let them leave and take their lobbyists with them.
- chriskzoo, on 07/14/2009, -117/+180Brilliant - hit the people that are most capable of moving out of the country without consequence.
- Delphium226, on 07/15/2009, -30/+92Dear poorly paid, ignorant schlubs,
Thanks for fighting for our rights. While we won't reward you with an increase, or may take the opportunity to lay you off, citing the 'bad economy' - please be assured we love you silly little toads for fighting so we can take home even more money to spend on more ridiculous gold-plated *****.
Please, don't forget to attend some more of those tea parties. Sorry I can’t make it that day, I’m flying off to the Bahamas on my private jet.
Oh yes, please take the day off as annual leave, don’t think I’m gonna be that ‘understanding’!
Yours,
A Member of the Filthy Rich - LoneStarLizard, on 07/15/2009, -15/+77I don't like Obama either, but Godwin's law on the second post? c'mon already.
- stackolee, on 07/15/2009, -16/+7572% of Americans apparently support a public health care option, while 72% of the first responders to this article are up in arms (Hitler mentioned in the second reply).
My only complaint would be that I'm nowhere close to being a millionaire, but I wouldn't mind being taxed for a public option. I'd rather give the government $100 a month than give my scummy insurance plan $50. At least I wouldn't have to worry about getting kicked off the plan for a 'pre existing condition' should I ever need really serious medical surgery. - powatom, on 07/15/2009, -33/+92Anyone who objects to this is a moron who needs to understand the difference between a millionaire and somebody who earns more than a million annually.
- Jaq524, on 07/15/2009, -22/+79Do you really think people are going to actually make their home in another country just to avoid a 5% tax? Seems kind of drastic to me, especially when taxes have certainly been that high in the past.
Besides, it's certainly worth it if it means bringing the health care system closer to what's acceptable for a first-world country in 2009. - LoneStarLizard, on 07/15/2009, -28/+82How naive can you be? People will always put their interests first, and if it doesn't make sense for them to stay here, then they will leave. That does not make them traitors, it makes them not idiots.
- Apokalyps2547, on 07/15/2009, -27/+77Judging from these comments, I'm guessing you actually believed Reagan's "trickle-down" myth. That's pretty sad.
- monkeybreath, on 07/15/2009, -6/+54And where will they go? Europe? China? Canada? They'll end up paying more in taxes there than in the US. Maybe Mexico? They'll have to spend a fortune on personal body guards for themselves and their family. I know, Russia! Er... never mind.
- bamatime, on 07/15/2009, -3/+50HAY GUYS I'M RICH. Who cares what his estate is worth. This has nothing to do with that. Does he earn over 1 million a year? That's what this is about. If his estate is worth only 1-1.5 million then he probably makes far less.
- mollydog12, on 07/15/2009, -22/+67"As long as we have a culture of people allowed to do what they want on someone else's dime, costs will keep rising, and they will keep needing new revenue streams."
the revenue stream will dry up as more realize there's no advantage in aspiring to something better. why work to pay for what others are getting for free. makes no sense. - mollydog12, on 07/15/2009, -25/+69"I guess their true allegiance resides in their bank accounts."
it always does. why do you think the welfare class and unions vote democratic. they get paid. - Husky217, on 07/15/2009, -30/+72No, the government has betrayed its people. The government is to represent us and protect our liberty... not seize as much of our wealth as possible for their own gain or agendas.
The rich have already provided much to the government and other citizens. Taxes, employment, products, services, etc. They pay an unusually large amount of the nation's taxes. Some will argue that they should, but at least be grateful since you benefit from them. - pintomp3, on 07/15/2009, -16/+57Have fun in Somalia.
- SQLDigger, on 07/14/2009, -64/+105Even though the title is not completely accurate (a millionaire is someone in possession of at least $1,000,000, and the tax is only on people whose *annual income* is at least 7 figures), this is still complete and utter *****. This ultimately means less money for private investment and innovation, and more money for wasteful, inefficient pork spending.
- Nice2BHere, on 07/15/2009, -16/+56Most of these commentors are missing the point, that a small tax hike on the very rich will impact the millionaires' lifestyles much less than a similar tax increase on the middle-income population. Meanwhile, the amount of money generated for universal health care will help it to exist so that millions of people can benefit. It is inexcusable that 45 million people in this great country can't even afford to go to the doctor, while most if not all progressive countries around the world offer universal health care for their citizens.
- richmomz, on 07/15/2009, -38/+78In other news, banks in the Cayman Islands reported a huge surge in the number of new U.S. customers today...
- MWeather, on 07/15/2009, -12/+51"starting to hit just a little closer to home , eh?"
10 times the average US salary is close to home? - GreatSunJester, on 07/14/2009, -93/+131And these people happen to make the biggest donations to charities as well as make the big purchases. They are not suddenly going to MAKE 5.4 percent more money. What they will do is simply cut 5.4 (or more) percent of moneys they would have donated/spent. Congrats, congress, on your new pork cash infusion. Charities and businesses will receive less money.
By then way, if a business makes less money, it does not pay as much in taxes..... OOOO... Congress, better raise that from 5.4 percent to 6 percent to make up the difference. - legolas68, on 07/15/2009, -21/+58It's not just millionaires boneheads! There is also a little gem called "a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals." The headline is misleading.
- Cerialthriller, on 07/15/2009, -12/+48 i wish it was hitting close to home. I will happily pay 10% in taxes if I get a raise to $400,000.
- oldhick, on 07/15/2009, -13/+49Can you explain how the wealthy benefit the most from the government?
- JimSwarthow, on 07/15/2009, -12/+46way to completely miss the point. dimwit.
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/15/2009, -22/+55It's 5.4% ON TOP OF the sky-high tax rate they already pay.
- vbullinger, on 07/15/2009, -10/+42@Charlotte_Web is right. Also, that's just _for now_ It could (would?) always go higher. And higher. And higher... It's a dangerous precedent to set. It's also stealing from A to give to B. That's not right. Tyranny of the majority is not good.
I'm not rich, and I wouldn't be hit by this, but I don't think they should have more of their money stolen in order to benefit anyone else. - stackolee, on 07/15/2009, -14/+46Yeah, because providing public health care to all Americans is somehow equal to (if not worse than) all of the following the following atrocities:
1. Starting the holocaust to erradicate Jews, Gypsies, invalids.
2. Invading half of Eastern Europe and Northern Africa
3. Blitzing Britain.
4. Starting Volkswagon. - AZExile, on 07/15/2009, -20/+51To those smart Democrats out there who understand our position and respectfully disagree, I apologize for insulting your intelligence.
For those others, however, who make up the majority of the digg community, you need to realize why this is horrible in the eyes of a republican. This isn't about a 5% tax increase. Truly, the millionaires can take it (well... single millionaires and not small businesses who are not incorporated, but that's a different story that we'll address in a bit.) This is about what is *right* for the government to do.
It is not fair, just because you are more successful than those around you - to be forced to pay more for the same services rendered to others. While you'll see some republican extremists cry "socialism" about this, the basics of it are pretty simple: the government has no right to discriminate against the more wealthy. Imagine for a moment, that instead of the rich having to pay more to government, it was "all people of Mexican descent must pay an additional $100 per year in taxes." Certainly doesn't seem right. Certainly seems discriminatory.
Furthermore, there is the aforementioned problem of small businesses. The main employer in the US is small business. I don't have the figure in front of me, but I believe small business employment accounts for around 70% of all employment (if pressed, I'll find the figure, just say +/- 10% of that number.) The problem is, until a business becomes large enough to be incorporated, the entire income of that company is counted as individual income. That individual income is taxed then based on the bracket. Note that there is nothing being done with this 5% tax hike to alleviate the operating costs of those businesses.
If you find this reasonable, if you want more state's rights but realize that "Libertarian" is a bit too extreme. If you want a solid centrist flag to rally around that does not believe in the government governing morality, please consider joining the modern whig party.
http://modernwhig.org - b4gk1lz, on 07/15/2009, -15/+45Gotta love how the govt can rob people w/o using a gun. Its amazing the entitlement mentality in this country...people think they deserve to have something just because somebody else has it.
- Delphium226, on 07/15/2009, -14/+44^^^ LOL at you crazy ***** ^^^
- eliot2000, on 07/15/2009, -50/+79LOL. (runs around in a circle shreiking and knocking things off shelves in my home) This will end the ***** WORLD. If we get even half the way to how high taxes on the rich were under Reagan, the entire economy will collapse and all the clothes in our closets will burst into flames.
- jdames1980, on 07/15/2009, -14/+43Once again people.. lets look at the historic tax rates and not freak out about this.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/127094-90-aig-tax- ... - altgeeky1, on 07/15/2009, -3/+31China stopped being Communist - a worker run state - LONG long ago. China is now run by corporations and investors. If you have money in China, you literally live in a different country.
I'm sure plenty of neoconservatives would LOVE to denounce America in exchange for a tax-free life there, but at the moment China is not marketing tax-free living zones.
Places that ARE havens for neoconservative types who want to evade their nation's taxes are Dubai, Luxembourg, Monico, I think Costa Rica, etc. Most of these places have zero-tax for wealthy expats who choose to live and spend there. These aren't the same tax rates that the natives (excuse the term) pay.
This might even become a real growth industry. Think about it... the rich - working for the banks and investment class - can hijack a national crisis (September 11) to railroad HUGE tax cuts which fuel their spending... and this is the beautiful part... those same tax breaks lead to massive borrowing FROM the investor class for yet more profit. It's a closed loop! A perpetual money machine. Then when the good times are over and the loans have to be paid back, just LEAVE the country!
Neoconservatives didn't invent this idea, locusts did. - darkened, on 07/15/2009, -18/+46If you make $20,000 you will most likely not pay income tax. Stop this bs, the wealthy pay almost the entire tax burden of the USA!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1276 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is