New York to Tax the Rich

[BSB]

Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Agree on Tax Deal

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 -- 1:59 PM EST
-----
Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Agree on Tax Deal

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders on Tuesday announced that they had reached an agreement to raise taxes on New York state’s wealthiest residents as part of a deal to overhaul the state’s tax rates.

The leaders, seeking simultaneously to make the state’s income tax system more progressive and to boost tax collections during a down economy, announced their agreement as lawmakers began to arrive at the Capitol for an expected special session of the Legislature later this week.

The tentative agreement would not only raise taxes for the wealthy, but would also cut taxes for the middle class, by creating multiple new tax brackets and tax rates.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/nyregion/cuomo-and-legislative-leaders-agree-on-tax-deal.html?emc=na

[BT]

So Cuomo has his read my lips moment:

Any increase in tax rates for the wealthy would mark a reversal for Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, who ran for governor last year on a platform of opposing tax increases and said that increasing such taxes would hurt the state by motivating wealthy residents to move elsewhere.

[BSB]

The Feds will be doing it before long, read my lips, or no read my lips. It's a simple matter of mathematics.

BSB

[sirs]

Indeed....a mathematical abyss that'll take down the country.  You do realize that less and less people, under these plans are loaded with paying for more and more of the country to function?  Great article that painted the grim picture facing CA, where a state with a population in the millions, only has a small handful of folks actually burdened with the task of supporting the state.  Folks that can simply up and leave if they want, incl their $$$'s with them

Not to mention, that those "rich folks'" income fluctuates far more than most, depending on what their stocks are doing.  It's not a solid assembly line of money.  In a heartbeat, that money could dry up, if stocks tank, and the state that is relying on that, goes down the drain even faster

Apply that to the entire country, via the Fed, and the mathematics are indeed clear.  It becomes unsustainable, which it already has here in CA

[BT]

Of course . It's the season to buy votes.

Drive that wedge between the people, i got mine and you got yours. United we stand, divided we fall.

This is interesting:
For the last three years, individuals who earned more than $200,000 a year, and couples who earned more than $300,000, have also been subjected to a tax surcharge called a “millionaires’ tax.”

Under the proposal announced Tuesday, for married couples filing jointly, income from $40,000 to $150,000 would be taxed at 6.45 percent; from $150,000 to $300,000 at 6.65 percent; from $300,000 to $2 million at 6.85 percent, and over $2 million at 8.82 percent.

Changing the tax rates and brackets would allow the state to replace some, but not all, of the revenue to be lost when the so-called millionaires’ tax expires on Dec. 31.

[BSB]

Read my lips. We will being raising taxes on the wealthiest among us. We will be cutting back on Medicare, Medicare plan D, Medicaid, and other entitlements such as Veterans benefits. The next 20 years or so are going to be known as the suck it up years one way or another. So, we can do it the hard way, and agree on a plan, or do it the very hard way, and stumble along like we're doing now until we get knocked sideways.

The only question for us as individuals is, are you ready?

BSB

[kimba1]

Not to mention, that those "rich folks income fluctuates far more than most, depending on what their stocks are doing.  It's not a solid assembly line of money.  In a heartbeat, that money could dry up, if stocks tank, and the state that is relying on that, goes down the drain even faster


we`ve all seen large businesses disappear and somehow people do not not equate that to money loss to the owners. also when a company downsize it`s also making less money meaning less tax money for it tp pay. meaning the taxes might encourage increased downsizing. notice very few companies are even trying to increase production.downsizing is the few income choices at this moment.

[Christians4LessGvt]

I hope some of those New Yorker wealthy folks wise up
and get the hell out of dodge and move to Texas
where we will treat them with ZERO STATE INCOME TAX,
a business friendly environment, and zero demonization
for being successful and wealthy.

I got this e-mail today from our background check
company.....fricking California politicians being a
pain in the ass to business....hope business leaves
California and move here too!


 
Amendment to California Civil Code 1786
Goes Into Effect January 1, 2012

Effective January 1, 2012, employers must provide consumers with the web address of the screening company used to conduct the background check. This amendment to California Civil Code 1786 was signed by the governor in September 2010.

This amendment is in addition to current California law requiring employers to provide extensive consumer notification before a background check is conducted by an outside screening company. Consumer notifications must:

State the purpose of the report.
Give the name, address, and telephone number of the screening company.
Include a summary of consumer rights to see and copy any report about the subject of the report.
Include a box to check allowing the consumer to request a copy of the report.

Clients should immediately check their background screening notices to applicants and employees against our current Disclosure and Authorization Notice sample and make the necessary changes in order to comply with the amendment to California Civil Code 1786.

The Disclosure and Authorization Notice sample is located in the Compliance section of your backgroundchecks.com account.

For more information on how this update may affect your screening program and how backgroundchecks.com can help, please contact customer service.

[BT]

Read my lips. We will being raising taxes on the wealthiest among us. We will be cutting back on Medicare, Medicare plan D, Medicaid, and other entitlements such as Veterans benefits. The next 20 years or so are going to be known as the suck it up years one way or another. So, we can do it the hard way, and agree on a plan, or do it the very hard way, and stumble along like we're doing now until we get knocked sideways.

The only question for us as individuals is, are you ready?

BSB

Sure I'm ready, but when i hear politicians saying we are all in this together, i take that to mean everybody is in this, together. So i find it surprising that they would raise taxes on one group, then lower them for another, because you know, that just reeks of togetherness.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not all, and perhaps not even most, really wealthy people get their income from dividends, profit, and interest on stocks and bonds. If you have $20 million in assets, you simply send what you need to get by and keep the rest invested, quite often in private businesses or real estate. You do not need to declare any income from the sale of stock until you actually sell at a profit.


Most of the top 1% do not start businesses or hire any substantial numbers of people. To say they do is simply fiction.

[BT]

Which really doesn't address my question at all. If we are in this together, where is the togetherness.

[BSB]

Well, BT, if you'd like that to mean one group against another that's your business. I don't see it that way at all. We're in a bind, those who can help via taxes, should.  You don't ask a group of fat middle aged men to fight your wars for you. You send in the ones who are fit. That doesn't divide the two groups. That's just the way it is. Those who can, do.  Those who can't, do something else.

Besides, lets stop pretending the Bush tax cuts have helped. They haven't. They were in place in 2008 when the shit hit the fan, and they're still in place. What more proof do you want? Oh, and if you want to return everybody's taxes to the pre-cut %, that's fine with me. But for Christ sake, lets get in on, times a wasting.



BSB

[BT]

Well, BT, if you'd like that to mean one group against another that's your business.

yeah that is exactly what i mean.

Oh, and if you want to return everybody's taxes to the pre-cut %, that's fine with me. But for Christ sake, lets get in on, times a wasting.

That would be fine and reek of togetherness.

[sirs]

The article I was referring to earlier
----------------------------------------------

Are high-income taxpayers the enemy?

It's difficult to divine exactly what the Occupy demonstrators in California cities and on university campuses are protesting.

The former appear to be denouncing the greed of the "one percent" – those with the highest incomes – while the latter are opposing fee increases that university boards are imposing to compensate for reductions in state appropriations.

Whatever the underlying rationales may be, the media have lumped both varieties together and issues have been subordinated to verbal clashes over occupation tactics and official responses, some of which have been needlessly violent.

If there is a connection, at least in California, between the on- and off-campus occupations, it's to be found in tax system dynamics. And it's less a connection than a dichotomy.

The off-campus protesters, apparently, are incensed that those sitting atop the economic pyramid enjoy so much of the bounty.

In California, according to the most recent Franchise Tax Board data (2009), those with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more – just 34,000 tax returns out of 14.6 million – had 11.8 percent of the $881 billion total.

That may sound outrageous to some, but as recession gripped the economy in the last few years, the number of top-drawer taxpayers and their incomes dropped sharply – by more than 27 percent just from 2008 to 2009, for example, far more than any other income category.

We needn't weep for the wealthy; they can take care of themselves. But their incomes are much more volatile than those of us who earn paychecks because they are much more dependent on capital gains from stocks and other investments, and when recession hits, their income streams decline sharply.

That's where the effect on college fees comes into the equation.

California has a particularly progressive personal income tax system, which means that it's extraordinarily dependent on high-income taxpayers.

In fact, the top 1 percent of taxpayers generate about half of the state's income taxes, and income taxes constitute about 60 percent of the state's general fund revenues.

When incomes of those at the top decline, state income tax revenues take a beating and the state budget gets squeezed, forcing governors and legislators to either reduce spending or engage in funny-money financing.

And college and university appropriations are one of the few areas of the budget not protected by constitutional provisions, such as K-12 school aid, or subject to federal law.

Logically, therefore, those campus demonstrators should be praying for the much-despised one-percenters to enjoy big increases in their taxable incomes so that higher education appropriations could be increased and fees could decline.

Somehow, one doubts that will occur.

[BSB]

BT, are you agreeing that returning everyone to the pre Bush tax cuts position would be fair? I can't tell.

BSB