Dems propose the''Rebuild America Jobs Act'' and .7% tax on millionaires.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:28:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Dems propose the''Rebuild America Jobs Act'' and .7% tax on millionaires.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Dems propose the''Rebuild America Jobs Act'' and .7% tax on millionaires.  (Read 1403 times)
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 21, 2011, 11:53:50 AM »

Democrats said Friday they’ll turn to a separate jobs bill that will provide funding to rebuild roads, bridges and airports, and create a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private and public capital to finance projects.

Like other Democratic jobs bills, the infrastructure legislation will be paid for by taxing the wealthy – in this case, a 0.7 percent surtax on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million a year.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66557.html

I live near the Tappan Zee bridge. It was built in 1955, to last 50 years (until 2005). They never expected it to handle the amount of traffic it currently gets.

Would be nice to build a new bridge to replace it, before it falls down.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2011, 12:07:08 PM »

I live near the Tappan Zee bridge. It was built in 1955, to last 50 years (until 2005). They never expected it to handle the amount of traffic it currently gets.

Would be nice to build a new bridge to replace it, before it falls down.

then why doesn't the Port Authority, or MTA, or your state issue bonds and do what is necessary?
Logged
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2011, 12:23:16 PM »
« Edited: October 21, 2011, 12:27:01 PM by Jacobtm »

I live near the Tappan Zee bridge. It was built in 1955, to last 50 years (until 2005). They never expected it to handle the amount of traffic it currently gets.

Would be nice to build a new bridge to replace it, before it falls down.

then why doesn't the Port Authority, or MTA, or your state issue bonds and do what is necessary?

Of course the Federal Government will NOT pay the entire cost. Being part of the interstate highway system, Federal, State, and Local authorities will share the cost.

Our governor, in case you haven't noticed, is focused on cuts cuts cuts to the NY budget. He is trying to build up his fiscal responsibility bona-fides, so he won't allow NY to foot the entire bill, which would certainly put us in more debt.  

Avoiding new debt with a .7% tax on millionaires sounds quite fiscally responsible.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2011, 02:40:35 PM »

Should be 70%.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2011, 02:44:17 PM »

Avoiding new debt with a .7% tax on millionaires sounds quite fiscally responsible.

if you believe constantly getting a free ride off of others is going to make you fiscally responsible, then you'll end up joining the Occupy movement protesting the fact that you put yourself into debt by making dumb choices.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2011, 02:46:17 PM »

Logged
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2011, 02:55:43 PM »
« Edited: October 21, 2011, 03:01:44 PM by Jacobtm »

Avoiding new debt with a .7% tax on millionaires sounds quite fiscally responsible.

if you believe constantly getting a free ride off of others is going to make you fiscally responsible, then you'll end up joining the Occupy movement protesting the fact that you put yourself into debt by making dumb choices.

The millionaires are the ones getting a free ride on the back of society.

The dumb choice we made that put us into such debt was the ridiculous tax-cutting for the wealthy that has been going on since Reagan.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2011, 03:02:29 PM »

The millionaires are the ones getting a free ride on the back of society.

The dumb choice we made that put us into such debt was the ridiculous tax-cutting for the wealthy that has been going on since Reagan.

check you facts - the top 1% pay an ever increasing share of the tax burden over the last 50 years
Logged
MSG
MSG@LUC
Rookie
**
Posts: 66
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2011, 04:32:23 PM »

The millionaires are the ones getting a free ride on the back of society.

The dumb choice we made that put us into such debt was the ridiculous tax-cutting for the wealthy that has been going on since Reagan.

check you facts - the top 1% pay an ever increasing share of the tax burden over the last 50 years

Yeah when you keep getting more and more of the nations wealth you have to pay more taxes. Its pretty disingenuous to say their tax burden has risen with out including that their percentage of the nations wealth has also increased during that time period.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2011, 05:35:23 PM »

The millionaires are the ones getting a free ride on the back of society.

The dumb choice we made that put us into such debt was the ridiculous tax-cutting for the wealthy that has been going on since Reagan.

check you facts - the top 1% pay an ever increasing share of the tax burden over the last 50 years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ntCQSC4gEs
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2011, 01:57:25 PM »

0.7%? What a joke.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2011, 02:29:53 PM »

It will be negiotiated down to a one time $7 fee called Obamatax by Hannity and Barack will succumb to the pressures of granting everybody a waiver for it.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2011, 02:32:55 PM »

This.
As a comparison, a typical person earning $50000 a year and having an 0.7% tax increase would have to pay a whopping $350 more each year. That's less than a dollar a day.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2011, 12:49:25 AM »
« Edited: October 24, 2011, 12:53:16 AM by anvi »

The millionaires are the ones getting a free ride on the back of society.

The dumb choice we made that put us into such debt was the ridiculous tax-cutting for the wealthy that has been going on since Reagan.

check you facts - the top 1% pay an ever increasing share of the tax burden over the last 50 years

Yeah, since '79, the top 1% of income earners have seen their share of the total tax burden increase by about 13%. Why is that?   During the same period, their marginal rates have dropped from 70% to 35%, their long-term cap gains tax rate has been reduced from 28% to 15%, their share of gross and net annual household income has more than doubled, and their mean after-tax income has grown, adjusted for inflation, by almost 180% compared to the barely over 20% mean after-tax income growth for the middle quintile.  In short, they're paying an increasing share of the tax burden now because they're getting increasingly wealthy, by many times over, compared to every other tax bracket in the country.  So, in a progressive tax system, those who make more over time pay more over time--who'd have thought?

Now, don't get me wrong.  I don't pretend that drastically increasing taxes on this small group of wealthy households will even begin to solve our problems of entitlement solvency or deficits.  But now a .7% tax increase represents the apocalypse to them?  Well, good thing they've made all that money in the last thirty years--it helps them buy and pay for all the legislators that will protect them from pitching in a little more when the whole country, which has given them the very opportunity to make such fortunes, is in such trouble.  
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2011, 11:33:43 AM »

Democrats said Friday they’ll turn to a separate jobs bill that will provide funding to rebuild roads, bridges and airports, and create a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private and public capital to finance projects.

Like other Democratic jobs bills, the infrastructure legislation will be paid for by taxing the wealthy – in this case, a 0.7 percent surtax on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million a year.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66557.html

I live near the Tappan Zee bridge. It was built in 1955, to last 50 years (until 2005). They never expected it to handle the amount of traffic it currently gets.

Would be nice to build a new bridge to replace it, before it falls down.


They already charge $5 to cross the bridge. Maybe they ought to use that money.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2011, 03:25:16 PM »

I live near the Tappan Zee bridge. It was built in 1955, to last 50 years (until 2005). They never expected it to handle the amount of traffic it currently gets.

Would be nice to build a new bridge to replace it, before it falls down.

Like this? It would be nice to have a new bridge, I too cross it rather frequently. I'd also like a couple bridges from LI to the mainland to alleviate traffic (it's the only way to get from LI to the rest of the country), but then again I get off on large infranstructure projects.



Basically, I agree with the idea. We need to get things done. But we also need to bring construction costs down. Why are they so high in the first place?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.