House Democrats plan to tax the “rich” to pay for health care bill

Courtesy of Charlie Rangel, the tax cheat.

To pay for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, House Democrats will propose a surtax on individuals earning $280,000 and up and couples earning more than $350,000, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said on Friday.

In all, the proposal is projected to generate roughly $550 billion over 10 years, which would cover about half of the estimated cost of the $1-trillion-plus health care legislation. The balance of the cost is expected to be covered by lower government spending on Medicare and other savings in the health care system.

But it remains unclear if the Senate would approve such an across-the-board income tax on the wealthy. Although some Democrats said they would gladly vote to tax the rich to pay for an improved health care system, most if not all Republicans and some centrist Democrats seem to be opposed.

The Ways and Means chairman, Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, said the surcharge would begin at 1 percent and would step up for individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $500,000, and step up yet again for individuals earning $800,000 and up, and couples earning more than $1 million.

Lawmakers were also planning to insert language that would increase the surtax in 2013 if expected cost-savings in the health care system do not materialize.

And they won’t.  So an increase is all but guaranteed.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “House Democrats plan to tax the “rich” to pay for health care bill

  1. House Dems should be required to participate in mandatory drug testing. Seriously. Because the rich aren’t going to help them pay for this boondoggle — and I don’t blame them. No, the rich are going to rebel and do one of two things: (1) they’ll move their money into any number of tax schelter schemes (eg. moving money offshore, paying themselves in deferred compensation, setting up irrevocable trusts, etc), or (2) they’ll pass along the costs to employees and/or customers, either in lowered salaries, benefit cuts, or increased product/service prices. Either way, the rich ain’t paying the freight and, when the public realizes that Obama is going to be forced to tax their existing benefits or raise taxes, they’re going to be seriously pissed.

    Rangel et al are trying to create a smokescreen — supposedly soaking the rich — to prevent the American people from understanding what’s going to happen. Because they can’t simply tell the truth, or this new health care plan is DOA.

  2. Oh, it gets worse. Via CNN (h/t Tim Blair)

    ————-
    Researchers in the U.S. have proposed a new way of allocating responsibility for carbon emissions they say could solve the impasse between developed and developing countries.
    The Princeton researchers estimated that in 2008 half of the world’s emissions came from just 700 million people.

    The method sets national targets for reducing carbon emissions based on the number of high-income earners in each country, following the theory that people who earn more generate more CO2.

    “It’s fairer than some other ideas out there in the sense that we attribute responsibility for emission reductions based only on the number of high-emitting people in the country — if the country has large number of people who are high-emitters then it has more work to do,” said Shoibal Chakravarty, a research scholar at Princeton Environmental Institute.

    When researchers at Princeton started working on the project two years ago, one of their first aims was to find a reliable way to estimate the average emissions of high-income earners.

    “There’s actually a very strong relationship in every country between emissions and income,” Chakravarty told CNN.

    “By and large for every 10 percent increase in income, the emissions from a certain person go up about six to 10 percent. This is true pretty much everywhere in the world.”

    Researchers based their estimates on decades of data from national statistics offices and the World Bank.

    “What happens is that initially people spend their money mostly on direct use like transportation, air conditioning, heating and cooling and so on,” Chakravarty said.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/07/07/carbon.emissions.allocation/

  3. Slightly off topic – I had the misfortune of going to the neighborhood pizzeria and having to listen to the goofy asinine Wolf Blitzer and the despicable drunk driver Jack Cafferty on CNN’s “Situation Room”. I could not wait to get the hell out of there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s