Thursday, July 16th, 2009

"Successful New Yorkers" To Be Screwed By Obama, Say 'Post'!

KILLING JOKEI saw this morning's New York Post and it raised in me a great interest! "Successful New Yorkers" will pay 57% tax under Obama, says the front page of the paper! (Their alleged "front page" online says something different than on newsstands; in that universe, only New York's "risk takers" will pay 57% tax.) Well, I am a highly successful New Yorker! I am concerned! What does this mean for me?

Oh my God, a handy graph. I am also a filing-as-single worker without my own health insurance! Gasp!


And yet, these figures so little resemble my tax bill. If you're making $80,000 a year, and the feds are getting 16 grand, YOU ARE DOING YOUR TAXES WRONG. Your home office is NOT BIG ENOUGH, for starters.

But what if you are a white person who likes to wear sweaters around his neck?

Okay so, if you are making $1.5 million a year, as their "rich people graph" shows, and you are paying half a million in federal taxes alone, then it is time for you to start a foundation to churn out some of that cash and also to fire your tax attorney. NO ONE who makes $1.5 pays out half a mil to the feds. This is what we call "lies."

Here is the extra-hilarious part:

The [healthcare] legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don't offer health care.

Ha, yes, HOW ONEROUS that they should pay a small 8% tax, because they refuse to care for their workers and want them to clog our emergency rooms and you know, die. I'm sorry, perhaps I was French in a number of my past lives, but this is absurd.

33 Comments / Post A Comment

KarenUhOh (#19)

Questions? Comment?

1. What the hell is Ms. No Health Insurance-16 K Taxes trying to hand me? Is she in the Medical Examiner's Office? But that's impossible! THEN she'd have health insurance! Is she a grave-robber?

2. That's no sweater on Rich Sweater Stupid Tax Accountant Man. That's an endangered species ocelot, and so #2 Man will end up applying lotion to Bernie Madoff in Atlanta. Hell, the wife is ALREADY in stripes.

davidwatts (#72)

I think in #1 they are implying that you make $80,000/yr serving muffins to people. . . or that if you're making $80,000/yr you can HIRE someone to serve you muffins? Or. . . damn you, Post, and your complicated intellectual arguments!

Well, it may seem like a tiny factor to some, but 8% of a small business' $400,000 payroll is about $35k, which equates to someone's yearly salary. So, consider that job cut.

davidwatts (#72)

Or, you know, they could just offer health care. Which may well cost less than $35,000! Which is kind of the point!

I wouldn't be so sure…

In New York, $35,000 a year would provide good health coverage for about 6 employees.

Rod T (#33)

Assuming that 400K payroll company has eight employees (One Executive @100K, two managers @60K, five worker @36K) and assuming they contribute 50% toward healthcare, the per annum health expenditure for the company is about $4800/worker, or total $33,600.

Eight percent of 400K is 32K. So essentially, the government is telling you "Insure your workers or pay into our system."

As a country, we have a value system that doesn't really want the sick to go untended. Callous as we may come off on the Internet, we will generally take care of our sick. Most polls in the last six months have seen a turn to acceptance to an increased governmental role in making this happen.

As a small business manager, I assure you I'd rather have a healthy productive team over frail workers with high employee turnover.

sigerson (#179)

After deductions and other tax credits, my wife and I pay 27.6% to the Feds. And I am in the top 1% of income earners. No apologies.

Yeah, hovering around 1/4 of income as a tax rate is not crazy. I think that is more like what real people pay in the real world.

It is also TOTALLY not 3/5ths, New York Post!

whowhahuh (#57)

I could be reading this incorrectly, but these are not the current rates, but what will be…I pay absurdly high taxes because I have no kids and no mortgage. approx 35%, it's still better than having kids and a home was just whacked in price.

Are you just taking the opportunity to brag about being married? Because that's so uncool, dude.

sigerson (#179)

Not bragging, honest! I am a fully domesticated animal, so I reflexively include references to She Who Shall Be Obeyed, lest I be perceived as taking credit for a joint endeavor.

I was only joshing about the 1% bit. Congratulations on both accounts!

brent_cox (#40)

How did these people get so wealthy if they are too dumb to cheat on their taxes?

Rod T (#33)

Actually, Lady 80K looks pretty much right to me. As a non-freelancer, non-homeowner, childless, unmarriable, there's not much you can deduct. And when I did have freelance income on top of regular income (see 2007) it pushed me into this amazingly punitive tax bracket, where I wrote off not only my home-office expenses, but my Fire Island share expense, ferry and train tickets, digital camera, and STILL ended up owing a ton.

REALLY??? I'm shocked by that. (Also that's terrible.) And true: it is amazingly punitive to be self-employed, which is OUTRAGEOUS, and UNAMERICAN, but fortunately (and not) there are a ton of expenses involved and I find it works out fairly well actually!

I guess we all have to get gay-married or something.

I think I need a new accountant. Can someone totally DM me? kthx!

Rod T (#33)

Did you just propose to me? Because … I … I … well, my answer, … it's no.

Emily (#20)

Yeah, um. I also need a new accountant. Doree's and my accountant is making me pay as much as that muffin lady!

atipofthehat (#797)

For those with freelance income… Do you have a corporation? Get one!
- 100% of medical is untaxed
- 100% of business-related expense = untaxed (computers, books, internet access, office space, business meals/entertainment, travel, mobile phone, supplies, subcontractors…)
- You only get taxed personally on the amount your corporation actually pays you (if your Corp, Inc. makes $100,000 and expenses (which can cover many things you need) come to $40,000, and you pay yourself $60,000–you only get taxed on the $60,000. The corporation broke even, so you owe nothing there.

Kataphraktos (#226)

Well, if that couple is any indication, gay marriage is now legal, so abra cadabra, dear!

bennimaddi (#314)

me too!

fitta (#526)

I am like the sweatered couple, except that I don't have a sweater or a husband. I pay 37% of my income in taxes to feds, state, city. There is nothing a better accountant could do for me without breaking laws which is not advised in my line of work. My tax burden will be higher in 2009 as I dumped my apartment just before it was too late. The only way to boost my deductions would be to acquire some defendants. I prefer not to.

I appreciate your suggestion that I should start a foundation. Unfortunately, I cannot afford one. Despite my apparently ginormous income (from your perspective), I am at least 1 or 2 zeros away from foundation territory. Those things cost money.

Choire, you have been on my mind since I learned that I would be buying the healthcare for you and our other "creative" friends. I thought about the creative friends (no naming names) having things like brand new furren cars and summer houses. I do not have a summer house. I do not have a car. I understand why my creative friends would rather have a summer house or a hip zip code than the healthcare. But it seems to me that if I am going to buy them the healthcare, they could lend me the summerhouse. Or at least the car.

fitta (#526)

Dependents, not defendants. But, yeah, I need those too.

davidwg (#1,125)

oops – see comment at 6.52

davidwg (#1,125)

You may look like the middle class sweater people that the New York Post wants you to identify with, but if you can't afford furren cars summer houses or even a car then you aren't earning the upper class $1.5 million a year the figure says.

So don't worry, you are actually one of us.

fitta (#526)

I could afford them that if I wanted to stop squirreling all my money away under my mattress, in preparation for the impending doom during which my lack of sheep rearing skills will hurt me sorely, as I didn't see many corporate litigators being featured in The Road. $1.5M is a bit more than I make in these troubled times, but not really that rich in NY — certainly not "upper class" to me when my clients are billionaires.

My point was not about affordability but about choices. In my life some people choose the health insurance, some people choose the place on FI — oddly in NY Post speak, the latter are really the "risk takers".

Kataphraktos (#226)

I can tell you now that any couple making $1.5 million has accountants who have them paying around 20%, give or take.

David (#192)

The upside of media driven propaganda purporting that New York's "risk takers" will pay 57% of their total income in tax to the government is that it will A) persuade those lured by other such media as "Sex In The City" from moving here; B) provide a reason to give up and move to Florida; and C) be used by father's and mothers everywhere to dissuade their 20-somethings from seeking to develop a career here. All of these factors will result in an increase in the inventory of NYC apartments (and decrease rental rates) for those of us that remain and pay the real tax rates. So please stop making people less stupid about income tax rates!

davidwg (#1,125)

Isn't the balls out lie in this the 2.5 percent 'no healthcare' tax penalty for the $80K person?

Given that this implies that an $80K person pays twice the percentage that a $285K earner does (note the 1% for the $285K wall street guy), this is either a mistake or in fact:


i.e. There is a universal healthcare at 2.5% tax a year if you are earning, which equates to $2K for the $80K earner so much less than she would pay for healthcare now.

Am I reading this right?

More here:

davidwg (#1,125)

"$1.5M is a bit more than I make in these troubled times, but not really that rich in NY"

Sorry I take that back, you are not one of us…human beings that is.

If you and your misfortune denying, crypto fascist Ayn Randians scoff at a miserable 1% to help those who do not have a choice for decent healthcare, saying they do, then there is a self correcting solution:

New York will return to the crime ridden crack pit that it used to be, and people like yourself will live in daily mortal fear of being gang raped for a Birkin by some wilding thugs with similar sheep mentality when it comes to fashion.

beraysheet (#1,135)

Isn't that a little bit arrogant. If people like Fitta feel they are being punitively taxed or exploited, they will leave, taking their talents and wealth with them.

And if you think an extra 1% is all people like Fitta are looking at, you are delusional. The US is in serious shit financially. It's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy even before considering expanded or universal healthcare. Expanding healthcase may push it over, unless the government significantly ramps up collections. The current surtax proposal is just the first shot across the bow. At one point marginal tax rates in the US were 90%. Is it inconceivable that we end up there again with Obama and a democratic Congress capitalizing on populist outrage?

davidwg (#1,125)

You been drinking the uncool aid again.

Universal healthcare is unlikely to tip the US into bankruptcy because countries with it get a cheaper deal the the US does with its current system.

If you seriously feel sorry for Fitta who now early less than $1.5M for being punitively taxed or exploited then you have either got your priorities so inverted that your colon has teeth or you are plain thick.

The money that vaporized wasn't real, if America is bankrupt now it was then. And if the armies of ordinary people who have no jobs here or the 100 million people more worldwide that now have nothing to eat don't make you feel nauseated by a revolting creature like Fitta then there is another thing in America that is bankrupt- your morals.

Post a Comment