Pelosi’s House Health Care Bill Includes Millionaire Tax

From the New York Times, Pelosi’s proposed healthcare bill clocks in at 1990 pages and under $900M and, by CBO estimates, will shrink the deficit over the next decade, owing partially to a new surtax on individuals earning more than $500 thousand, or couples earning over $1 million. Recall that we used to have a top marginal tax bracket around that number, but it disappeared in recent times, along with other progressive elements of the tax code. Let’s preliminarily halt cries of “socialism” by debunking the myth that this is anything new.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. In a move that sounds like it’s ripped from The Onion headlines, a few wealthy Germans want higher taxes because they want to help their country and they feel like that have too much money and don’t know what to do with it!

  2. I don’t really get he defense of things that goes: We’ve done this before so therefore it’s okay. I know you’ve rolled this one out before, suggesting possible Obama tax hikes are okay because it’s just ‘resetting’ back to Clinton levels. But isn’t that all premised on the notion that the tax levels were okay under Clinton?

    I’m not saying if I think this is good or bad, I’m just suggesting you defend it on it’s contemporary merits, not based on tax codes of the past.

    1. Well, discussing the merits is a bit subjective. It can basically come down to that Democrats favor a more progressive tax structure and Republicans do not.

      However, pointing out that taxes of this level are nothing new combats the argument that such taxes would be “a very bad thing,” since it clearly wasn’t a very bad thing in the past. Shades of bad are debatable, but any kneejerk, vitriolic denouncement of this plan is unwarranted.

  3. > However, pointing out that taxes of this level are nothing new combats the argument that such taxes would be “a very bad thing,” since it clearly wasn’t a very bad thing in the past

    Speak for yourself. If you are for a millionaire’s tax, then you have never had to pay one…period. It’s easy for the have-nots to want others to pay. That’s why every single study conducted on philanthropy shows clearly that liberals give the least money…despite the fact that they do the most complaining about the amounts others give.

    What a joke.
    -Paradigm

  4. The historicity of the tax simply proves that the instrumental effects of the tax — “OMG THE RICH WILL ‘GO GALT’ AND REVOLT FOR NO REASON” — are trumped up hysteria, bolstered by crappy “novels.”

    As for the rest, I find it hard to cry for the poor widdle millionaires. First, they benefit disproportionately from the security and integrity of the American government, as they literally have more “invested” in its stability. It’s not fair to ask them to pay back in accordingly.

    Further, have you had to pay in that tax bracket? I’m shortly to enter the second (or third) highest tax bracket, and my only complaint is that I’m already being taxed at that rate, before my actual income reflects it (the law firm planned its disbursals pretty poorly). When that actually becomes my income, I’ll have no problem with it, on the theory that my salary already reflects the tax rate, and I’m not losing money that my firm thinks should be “mine” anyways.

%d bloggers like this: