Reid Mulls Higher Payroll Tax for Wealthy

Senate Majority Leader's Is Considering Tax to Help Fund Health Care Plan

(AP)  Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose details of private deliberations.

Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, declined comment and said the majority leader has made no final decisions and is awaiting detailed information from the Congressional Budget Office about the cost and coverage implications of the proposals he has drafted.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
Track the Progress of Health Care Reform
Key Provisions of the House Health Care Bill

Reid sent his proposals to the CBO more than two weeks ago and recently took the first step on the Senate floor to begin a debate on health care as early as next week.

The House passed its version of the legislation late last week on a near party line vote of 220-215, a victory for Obama as well as his allies in Congress.

In general, the House-passed measure and the one Reid is expected to propose are designed to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured, eliminate insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, and slow the overall rate of growth in health care spending nationally.

Reid has been merging bills cleared earlier by two separate committees but has a virtual free hand in the bill he crafts.

On one contentious issue, he has already said his measure will include an option for consumers to purchase health care from the government as a way to create competition with private companies. States could drop out of the system.

The House bill is significantly more generous in providing subsidies to help lower-income individuals and families afford coverage, and Reid is under pressure to find additional financing. Additionally, a Senate Finance Committee-approved proposal to tax very high-cost insurance policies has drawn criticism from organized labor, which wants it either modified or dropped altogether.

The House-passed legislation includes a surtax of 5.4 percent on income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples, a proposal that has drawn little if any backing in the Senate.

The House's passage of a health care bill was marked by last-minute controversy over abortion, the result of far-reaching restrictions that foes of the procedure succeeded in inserting into the measure. No government-run insurance plan could cover abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother were in danger. Nor could any health plan provide abortion coverage except for those three exceptions if any of its customers received federal subsidies.

Obama has called for changes to ease the restrictions, and it was not known what the impact of the House-passed bill would have on the Senate. Officials have said Reid was ready to propose that individuals receiving subsidies would be able to buy abortion coverage with their own funds.

[cbs_tom]

Appeal Socialist Classics
Edited by W.J.GHENT
The Tactics of socialism

THE CONQUEST OF POLITICAL POWER.
BY KARL KAUTSKY.
?We cannot abolish taxes. On the contrary. The stronger the proletariat the more social reforms are required which demand money, and hence taxes. Our aim is not the abolition of taxation, but a change in the method of its imposition, the taxing of the rich to the extreme limit. This will become one of the most effective means of the expropriation from the expropriators. Therefore we cannot dispense with tax officials?.

The thinking hasn't changed much...

[chitown639]

by cbs_tom November 12, 2009 2:40 PM EST
chitown639 is using the brainwashed logic that all of the money belongs to the government and through their kindness they bless us with a portion. Marxism thinking at its' worst!
_________________________________________________________

Well, actually if you take out a dollar bill right now...you probably won't be able to find YOUR name on it. You don't even get to decide the bills value. Basically, it's just a piece of paper.

[Mortarman-29]

But, I have that bill due to my labor. It is a value that was placed on my labor, which I earned. Thus, that value is my property.

[endurorob_5]

chitown639 November 12, 2009 2:15 PM EST
Cutting taxes is SPENDING....WHY DON'T YOU CONSERVATIVES GET THAT???

When the government cuts taxes it's actually spending the revenue it would have collected.....



By the way your logic on thisis rediculous. Saying that if the government takes less of my hard earned money to give to you is like the government spending the money it didn't take is just absurd.

[Mortarman-29]

Cutting taxes is spending? What are you talking about? You need to take some courses in economics!

If you are a salesman, and your employer cuts the % you get for sales, does that mean you spent money? Of course not. That is silly.

[cbs_tom]

chitown639 is using the brainwashed logic that all of the money belongs to the government and through their kindness they bless us with a portion. Marxism thinking at its' worst!

[Marc_1986]

Quite the opposite Chitown639. When the Gov't raises taxes it actually creates more Gov't spending. Raising taxes = more money the Gov't can spend.

[endurorob_5]

chitown639 November 12, 2009 2:15 PM EST
Cutting taxes is SPENDING....WHY DON'T YOU CONSERVATIVES GET THAT???

When the government cuts taxes it's actually spending the revenue it would have collected.....


When the money is spent and invested by the private sector it is done in a much wiser means than the government can do. When companies are taxed less they use that money to invest and those investments create jobs. The people that work those jobs pay taxes so revenue increases and government can further cut taxes.

[endurorob_5]

chitown639 November 12, 2009 1:57 PM EST


That's just silly talk....we can't sustain our economy by taking in LESS tax revenue. That's one of the ways Bush ruined the economy, by spending more than we we're taking in....


You cut spending and you cut taxes. It is simple math. The hard part for the libs though is you have to cut social services. People wil have to rely on themslves for certain things rather than rely on the government. But don't worry. As long as the dems are in power there will be no cutting of taxes and social services. There will most likely be large increases in both. You see the more you depend on the the government for support the more likely you are to continue voting for the politicians most likely to "give" you that support. And if your posts on here are any indication you are more thatn happy to continue depending on the government to support you.

[chitown639]

Cutting taxes is SPENDING....WHY DON'T YOU CONSERVATIVES GET THAT???

When the government cuts taxes it's actually spending the revenue it would have collected.....

[chitown639]

@endurorob_5

It seems that you've been pursuaded to believe that those feel compassion for the plight and misery of others within our borders do so for their own political interest rather than for the collective good of the public. You couldn't be more incorrect. We support social programs because we believe that America is to great of a country to have people starving in the streets and dying from lack of medical treatment. In America, we care about our fellow citizens. Perhaps you should move to a country where the government doesn't care about it's citizens welfare....I hear Somalia is nice this time of the year!!!

[Mortarman-29]

So, chitown, take your money and help those people. Do not take the money of others to help those people. That is not moral...that is theft.

[Mortarman-29]

?I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.? James Madison

[Mortarman-29]

?I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.? James Madison

[Mortarman-29]

Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge. You'd better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs -- arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

[chitown639]

by endurorob_5 November 12, 2009 1:50 PM EST
You just don't get it do you. Trying to support the economy by increasing taxes is unsustainable. The more you tax people the less they are going to spend and the more they will put away. Eventually you get to the point where everyone, no matter what they earn is at the same economic level. The engineer making $80k a year is at the same living standard as the high school dropout making $20k a year becaus the engineer is getting taxed $60k a year.
__________________________________________________

That's just silly talk....we can't sustain our economy by taking in LESS tax revenue. That's one of the ways Bush ruined the economy, by spending more than we we're taking in....

[Mortarman-29]

You dont get more tax revenue by increasing taxes. Ask NY! They increased taxes on the wealthy, and the wealthy just up and sold their houses, etc and left.

When you lower tax rates, you get more actual dollars into the treasury. Please see Department of the Treasury statistics. They confirm this.

[endurorob_5]

lmartink November 12, 2009 1:33 PM EST
Nope. The wealthy elite got massive tax breaks before the 1929 Depression. Just like the elite got huge tax breaks before the 2008 Financial Collapse. No matter how you spin it, the wealthy are not the key ingrediant to our economy.

I say sock it to 'em. I'm not nearly dumb enough to turn over more billions of dollars, and get skrewed a third time. No thanks.

You people who think the wealthy elite are the most vital component of our economy neeed to get some new material. It does not work.



What do you consider a massive tax break? What do you consider reasonable tax rates?

[chitown639]

It's so funny to watch these poor souls defend the wealthy against higher taxes simply because they feel obligated to oppose any and every idea that comes from the left, even when the idea is to their own personal advantage....It's absolutely hilarious

[endurorob_5]

You just don't get it do you. Trying to support the economy by increasing taxes is unsustainable. The more you tax people the less they are going to spend and the more they will put away. Eventually you get to the point where everyone, no matter what they earn is at the same economic level. The engineer making $80k a year is at the same living standard as the high school dropout making $20k a year becaus the engineer is getting taxed $60k a year.

[Empire-George]

It's really simple libs, increased taxes, means less disposable income, which means no one, including the rich will purchase anything, because the available disposable income has gone to Washington, so then every industry suffers and the economy comes to a standstill when people stop consuming or purchasing goods/services, due to the high tax burden.....really very simple, if you think about it

[Mortarman-29]

I never got a job from a poor person.

[Empire-George]

by Mortarman-29 November 12, 2009 1:29 PM EST
I never got a job from a poor person.
__________

I can't wait for all the welfare recipients to begin hiring workers and starting businesses.....huh, wait....um...I guess we aren't creating jobs, just creating more dependency among the poor.

[chitown639]

Yeah, just like that economic standstill we experienced during the Clinton-era when the wealthy had to suffer under Clinton's crushing tax-hike on the wealthy....LOL We even ended up with a balanced budget and surplus...that darn Clinton!!!

[lmartink]

Nope. The wealthy elite got massive tax breaks before the 1929 Depression. Just like the elite got huge tax breaks before the 2008 Financial Collapse. No matter how you spin it, the wealthy are not the key ingrediant to our economy.

I say sock it to 'em. I'm not nearly dumb enough to turn over more billions of dollars, and get skrewed a third time. No thanks.

You people who think the wealthy elite are the most vital component of our economy neeed to get some new material. It does not work.

[Mortarman-29]

You people think that taking property from someone (theft) in order to give to others that did not earn it is right, need to check your moral compass!

[bytheway59]

Our wonderful capitalist system allows people to make as much money as they can or want. if they want the system to be perpetual, then you have to give back to the system, in some way, some how. And no matter what taxes might be, those that "make" money always find a way to do so, it is called supply and demand. Taxes are the cost of doing business.

One last note, it is not 'your' money, you get to have while on Earth.

[Mortarman-29]

By the way, it is your money. It is the result of your ingeuity, sweat, etc. You earned it...its yours!

No person I know has a problem with paying taxes for the legal government programs and duties that it pays for.

What I do have a problem with is taking my money and giving it to people that did nothing to earn it. No one has a right to take from one person, in order to give to another. Charity, paid for by theft, is not moral. It is evil!

If I want to give to my neighbor to help him pay for his healthcare, that is charity...and that is noble. But, if I want the government to go take another neighbor's money, in order to help the first neighbor with his healthcare...that is theft...organized theft.

[chitown639]

Asking the wealthy in our country to pay their fair share isn't stealing.....it's patriotic!!!

The wealthy use more so they should pay more.

[Mortarman-29]

They use more? Are you crazy??

[Empire-George]

They do.....did you not know that we have a very progressive tax scale in this country.....they already pay a much higher percentage then those earning less.....but to flaming liberals such as yourself, you think the rich/wealthy have some bottomless pit of money, to fund every little social experiment you think up.

Only Joe Biden thinks paying additional taxes is patriotic.....in the real world, it's called stealing what's not yours.

[endurorob_5]

So what about those who use some but give nothing? Are they paying their fair share? And what do the wealthy use more of that tax dollars pay for? More welfare? More medicaid? More what? What do they use more of?

[endurorob_5]

chitown639 November 12, 2009 12:57 PM EST
@Chon75,
Giving the wealthy tax-cuts in hopes that prosperity will "trickle" down to the rest of us.....I think we call that "Trickle-Down" economics....I think we tried that before



And your plan is to what? Take what you do not have the ability or motivation to earn on your own?

[chitown639]

This is GREAT NEWS!!! Restore the tax code back to Clinton-era levels....

[Mortarman-29]

Why do you want to steal money that doesnt belong to you?

[Chon75]

This story reminds me of that Children's story where the farmer kills the goose that lays golden eggs because he wants more out of the goose.
When the wealthy spend money, it creates jobs. The poor cannot...at this time. With education and investment, they can turn into the wealthy.
It doesn't make sense to kill the wealthy...

[chitown639]

@Chon75,
Giving the wealthy tax-cuts in hopes that prosperity will "trickle" down to the rest of us.....I think we call that "Trickle-Down" economics....I think we tried that before

[Mortarman-29]

Yep, and it worked great!

[Sloughfoot]

Dah, we gonna tax the rich - more - hip hip hoorah. The surgeon, the lawyer, the business exec. Ooops, you there working stiff with sweat on your brow, your legal and medical fees just went up, your wages were frozen and your groceries cost more - Now really who do you think is going to pay the tax burden. You don't really believe the high and mighty aren't going to pass the buck - the tax bill down hill. If you do you're dumber than dirt.

[Empire-George]

What's with this Liberal Congress.....do they think the rich/wealthy have some bottomless pit of money to tap into ?

Eventually they will run out of other people's money

[endurorob_5]

USA_is_back November 12, 2009 12:05 PM EST
How true. The Paris Hiltons of the world need tax cuts!



Everybody who pays taxes needs tax cuts. Those who don't pay taxes need to make more of an effort to pull there own weight rather than ride on the backs of others.

[endurorob_5]

A democrat considering higher taxes? This is news?

[USA_is_back]

How true. The Paris Hiltons of the world need tax cuts!

[Mortarman-29]

It isnt your money.