Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM in reply to: Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners #747214July 3, 2012 at 4:22 AM in reply to: Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners #747150
SK in CV
Participant[quote=flu]Personally, I think all landlords should collude and pass this 3.8% surcharge directly to their tenants.
From now own, landlords should advertise in their rental the itemized cost.
Rental Cost:
$AA rental application
$YYYY initial deposit
$XXXX/month rent + $$$/month rental “surcharge fee”If prospective tenant asks, just say it’s a mandatory “fee” have to pay for obamacare. If all landlords did it, what choice do tenants have?
Spread the pain. Spread the pain.[/quote]
waaaa.
How is passing it on to tennants spreading the pain?
Spreading the pain would be for landlords with other income in excess of $250K to pay the tax themselves. Lower earning tennants have had their share of pain over the last 30 years.
July 2, 2012 at 10:16 AM in reply to: Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners #747037Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=spdrun]Let CA and other blue states secede and run their own affairs. Yeah, yeah, civil war. Different times now, and I doubt if DC would want to risk a nuclear civil war anyway.[/quote]
The State of California has nuclear weapons? When the hell did this happen?[/quote]
Nobody has a monopoly on crazy.
July 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM in reply to: Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners #747007Participant[quote=AN][quote=mike92104][quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]No, it came from the same place yours came from.[/quote]
http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html%5B/quote%5D
Those damn pesky numbers.[/quote]There’s some serious flaws in that calculation.
Just to name a few:
We hear all the time that half of Americans don’t pay any income taxes. The top federal rate is currently 35%. In order to use 17% for the “average”, that would mean that virtually every dollar of income that go to those that do pay taxes, must be subject to just under the maximum tax. Obviously, that can’t be true, since even high income taxpayers still pay lower rates on their income below the top tax bracket. In fact, most people who do pay taxes, don’t have a single dollar subject to the maximum rate.
Similar, but even more ridiculous on the state tax. The same 50% of taxpayers who pay no income tax referred to above, presumably pay little or no state tax, so including the maxiumum state tax rate as the average is absurd. It also fails to take into consideration the states that have no income tax or rates substantially lower than 10.1%.
All income is not subject to sales tax. In fact, no income is. Only spending. The caclulation in the link assumes 100% of income is taxed at a relatively high sales tax rate. Effectively impossible, since we’ve already deducted federal and state income taxes which can’t possibly be spent on taxable consumption.
The others aren’t near as egregiously wrong. But the last one is pretty funny. It lists estate, inheritance and gift as separate taxes. They are essentially the same thing. And amount to, on average, about $110 per taxpayer. That would be slightly over .1% of annual income for average taxpayers. Additionally, it lists something called “deficit allowance”. I’m reasonably sure there is no such thing as a “deficit allowance” tax.
But yeah, facts are pesky. And that link doesn’t contain many. It’s probably theoretically possible for some people to pay >50% in taxes. Whether it actually happens very often is pretty unlikely.
July 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM in reply to: Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners #746981Participant[quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]No, it came from the same place yours came from.
July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM in reply to: Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners #746977Participant[quote=mike92104]Add to that all of the other taxes we are forced to pay, and it’s estimated the average person pays over 50% (50 f-ing %!!). [/quote]
That estimate would probably be no closer to reality than an estimate of 10%. 10% sounds a lot better. I’d go with that.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Roberts “wanted” ACA? Really? Based on what reasoning? [/quote]I’ll give you some reasoning. Roberts has been called a corporatist. The ACA, with the mandate was (and since it is now intact, it remains) a multi-billion dollar gift to insurance companies. In that context, if he wanted the ACA, it was only with the mandate.
Was that meaningful in his thought process? I really have no idea. Scalia and Thomas are partisan hacks. I think it’s pretty clear they care about politics. I’m not sure Roberts does.
Obviously, I’m pleased about the ruling. But I’m far from convinced that Roberts is going to be a Justice that will be predictable as Scalia and Thomas (or Bryer and Ginsburg for that matter) have proved to be. I have no doubt that the Justices, just like most of us, make decisions, then go find support for those decisions. I don’t suspect Roberts is any different. But the zeitgeist in which he operates may be very different than his neighbors on that side of the bench.
Again, this is just a possible reasoning. In twenty years we may know more.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: It will definitely take something bigger than ACA, but, if you take the wider (and non-partisan) vantage, then Roberts’ decision was entirely consistent and in keeping with his views as a jurist.Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of “revolt”, but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.
Within the larger and looming battle over entitlement reform, this decision will have due weight. The days of the “Blue State Model” and the “New Deal/Great Society” Dems are approaching an end and for reasons other than politics or partisanship. Simple arithmetic is going to kill or severely curtail programs dating back to the 1930s. It’s becoming all of a piece and, as the saying goes, “The best laws are made in the courts.”[/quote]
His language was emphatic, clear, and as related to the commerce clause, non-binding dictum.
Justice Ginsburg said about a week ago that this term has been “more than usually taxing”. (I got quite a chuckle when I went back and found her precise wording.) Ignoring the precise wording she used, I think she was referring to her rebuke of Justice Roberts insistence of including dictum related to the commerce clause in this decision, when it was wholely unnecessary. She found the inclusion “puzzling”. While it may portend Justice Roberts’ future thinking, and potentially pursuasive to lower courts, it does not represent legal authority. So technically, as specifically related to the commerce clause, nothing happened.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Allan, my AP History teacher’s husband was a scholar of Woodrow Wilson. I don’t know much about Madison.
[/quote]
Very short version. Madison-limited federal government. Wilson – federal government solves problems. Wilson, think FDR New Deal.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]I’m less than convinced that this was a meaningful decision wrt that battle. It appears to limit the commerce clause to activity, rather than inactivity. There is some almost ancient precedent allowing regulation of inactivity, which was ignored (i think?) in the majority opinions. But then the court allowed regulation of inactivity through taxation (penalties). Arguably a wash. Powers under the commerce clause may suffered a little damage around the edges. It will take something bigger to shove Wilsonian evolution back in the bottle.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]”The Supreme Court upheld most of President Obama’s Health Care law, including the controversial individual mandate that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance or be subject to a fine. The court said that fine ultimately amounts to a tax, and therefore the government does have the power to impose it.”
“In other words, the Court said that Congress can impose a ‘tax’ on people if they don’t buy health insurance.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577494472052048242.html%5B/quote%5D
Yep. Roberts also said:
“The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits ‘for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’… Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ …There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’”
Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ‘taxes.’”
….
The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”
The court applied two different tests to determine whether the penalty is a tax under two different powers. It is not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction act, and is a tax under the taxing powers of congress.
In the same ruling, it was judged to be both a tax and not a tax.
Participant[quote=Veritas]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7cT5xD2aM[/quote]
Interesting. But the supreme court ruled that it’s not a tax. Nuance is importance.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Yeah, for a devout Catholic, that boy has a mouth on him. And, he ordinarily seems so sane…[/quote]Growing up, I always imagined conservative, religious people as well-dressed, well-behaved educated people who behave perfectly all the time.
Now, I know better. Conservatives tend to be the ranting and raving kinds full of personal flaws. Liberals are more composed, well-spoken and well-behaved. Think professorial Obama vs. ranting Gingrich. Compare and contrast Stephen Breyer to Antonin Scalia.[/quote]
Brian Brian Brian. What am I gonna do with you?
Conservatives look and talk just like liberals. They just tend to be a little whiter, a little more likely to have a penis, and they smoke less dope.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I agree, UCGal, but have you checked the price of COBRA lately? It is typically more per month than your employer even pays for your plan and can be VERY cost-prohibitive, depending on what kind of a plan you have at work. [/quote]
I’m pretty sure we’ve been through this before. The cost charged for COBRA (for most employees) can only exceed what the employer pays for the coverage by 2% for administrative costs.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/%5B/quote%5DI’m mildly surprised there wasn’t a single curse word in Scalia’s dissent. He has jumped the shark.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark
-
AuthorPosts
