Joined
·
11,706 Posts
Not that it's going to impact many of us...
Earn $1 Million a Year? Assembly Democrats Will Seek a Tax Rise Just for You
Earn $1 Million a Year? Assembly Democrats Will Seek a Tax Rise Just for You
Making A Million Per Year in NYS? Watch Out!!!!
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Joined
·
17,340 Posts
they won't miss it. The better plan (sratus quo): have your kids pay it while the deficit climbs.
![]()
Most are getting rich outsourcing your jobs. Why shouldn't they pay?
Most are getting rich outsourcing your jobs. Why shouldn't they pay?
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
likeitreallyis wrote:
they won't miss it. The better plan (sratus quo): have your kids pay it while the deficit climbs.
![]()
Most are getting rich outsourcing your jobs. Why shouldn't they pay?
This is a state tax issue LIRI. I know you have a knee jerk response to go into a "tax cuts for the rich tirade", but this tax has nothing to do with the federal deficit.
Now back to your regularly scheduled rhetoric......
![]()
they won't miss it. The better plan (sratus quo): have your kids pay it while the deficit climbs.
Most are getting rich outsourcing your jobs. Why shouldn't they pay?
This is a state tax issue LIRI. I know you have a knee jerk response to go into a "tax cuts for the rich tirade", but this tax has nothing to do with the federal deficit.
Now back to your regularly scheduled rhetoric......
Joined
·
6,791 Posts
Roccus7 wrote:
Not that it's going to impact many of us...
Earn $1 Million a Year? Assembly Democrats Will Seek a Tax Rise Just for You
I would not count on it...not that I make over a million a year, but clearly if they cannot push this increase on the millionaires, they will come back down to the 150K earners again to get it.
There are a few comments in there that are alarming, but this one scares me the most...
quote:
And they say the state needs to start looking hard for new ways to raise money because state revenues continue to soften with each passing day. unquote.
Since the Government does not (really) produce anything, their only real source of income is taxes.
and of course when they need money (they always need more money) instead of looking at downsizing and managing government better and possibly saving/cutting costs, they run home to momma...and with the Dem's momma is always those in higher income brackets.
Why do they always come looking to pick the pockets of the taxpayers?? It's getting so friggin old...
![]()
![]()
![]()
I don't care how much money these people have, the government has NO RIGHT to target them (or anyone else) for higher tax increase.
It is prejudice plain and simple.
Not that it's going to impact many of us...
Earn $1 Million a Year? Assembly Democrats Will Seek a Tax Rise Just for You
I would not count on it...not that I make over a million a year, but clearly if they cannot push this increase on the millionaires, they will come back down to the 150K earners again to get it.
There are a few comments in there that are alarming, but this one scares me the most...
quote:
And they say the state needs to start looking hard for new ways to raise money because state revenues continue to soften with each passing day. unquote.
Since the Government does not (really) produce anything, their only real source of income is taxes.
and of course when they need money (they always need more money) instead of looking at downsizing and managing government better and possibly saving/cutting costs, they run home to momma...and with the Dem's momma is always those in higher income brackets.
Why do they always come looking to pick the pockets of the taxpayers?? It's getting so friggin old...
I don't care how much money these people have, the government has NO RIGHT to target them (or anyone else) for higher tax increase.
It is prejudice plain and simple.
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
26,000 people, what would you like to bet that those folks will vote with their feet? I suspect than NJ and CT are going to get an additioal 26,000 citizens. You can manage a hedge fund out of almost anywhere and a lot of them are already in CT, the rest will soon follow. I'll also wager that they won't see 25% of that projected revenue increase if they pass the bill, its waaaay too easy to avoid.
In fact the state might well wind up loosing revenue if they pass this bill.
In fact the state might well wind up loosing revenue if they pass this bill.
Joined
·
6,791 Posts
and another thing...
they want to take the $$ and stick it into the general fund??
we all know where that money goes..
![]()
.
![]()
and give a big chunk to the mta...
granted roads need work, but are the tolls not high enough already?
oh yea...I forgot, tolls do not go to maintain the roads (except the NYS Thruway), they go to the TBTA, or PA..who by the way just jacked up the GWB by 35% in one shot.
they want to take the $$ and stick it into the general fund??
we all know where that money goes..
and give a big chunk to the mta...
granted roads need work, but are the tolls not high enough already?
oh yea...I forgot, tolls do not go to maintain the roads (except the NYS Thruway), they go to the TBTA, or PA..who by the way just jacked up the GWB by 35% in one shot.
Joined
·
6,791 Posts
MakoMike wrote:
26,000 people, what would you like to bet that those folks will vote with their feet? I suspect than NJ and CT are going to get an additioal 26,000 citizens. You can manage a hedge fund out of almost anywhere and a lot of them are already in CT, the rest will soon follow. I'll also wager that they won't see 25% of that projected revenue increase if they pass the bill, its waaaay too easy to avoid.
In fact the state might well wind up loosing revenue if they pass this bill.
they will just join the rest of them down in Greenwich...
26,000 people, what would you like to bet that those folks will vote with their feet? I suspect than NJ and CT are going to get an additioal 26,000 citizens. You can manage a hedge fund out of almost anywhere and a lot of them are already in CT, the rest will soon follow. I'll also wager that they won't see 25% of that projected revenue increase if they pass the bill, its waaaay too easy to avoid.
In fact the state might well wind up loosing revenue if they pass this bill.
they will just join the rest of them down in Greenwich...
Joined
·
17,340 Posts
Ross Perot's "sucking sound of jobs being shipped to Mexico thanks to NAFTA".. more rhetoric... when you guys gonna get your head out of the sand? When you fill your boats up at 5 bucks a gallon at the Marina?
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
Interesting, if not scientific, demonstration.
Just for kicks, I looked up the best states for business, tax climate wise.
Then I looked up unemployment rates by state
It was no surprise to me, that 7 of the 10 States in the best tax climate states are in the group of 25 states with the lowest unemployment, and 6 out of 10 States in the worst tax climate states are in the group of 25 states with the highest unemployment.
Seems as though less friendly tax laws tend to drive people away. Shocking!
![]()
Just for kicks, I looked up the best states for business, tax climate wise.
Then I looked up unemployment rates by state
It was no surprise to me, that 7 of the 10 States in the best tax climate states are in the group of 25 states with the lowest unemployment, and 6 out of 10 States in the worst tax climate states are in the group of 25 states with the highest unemployment.
Seems as though less friendly tax laws tend to drive people away. Shocking!
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Ross Perot's "sucking sound of jobs being shipped to Mexico thanks to NAFTA".. more rhetoric... when you guys gonna get your head out of the sand? When you fill your boats up at 5 bucks a gallon at the Marina?
you can thank Bush senior for that
Joined
·
11,706 Posts
Oh NO you don't!!!
NAFTA was passed during the William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton presidency!!
I just love the sound bites of his darling wife now saying, "We have to renegotiate NAFTA now!" OK Hillary, where were you 10 years ago since you say that hanging around the White House makes you qualified to be president!
This post edited by Roccus7 08:40 PM 03/06/2008
NAFTA was passed during the William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton presidency!!
I just love the sound bites of his darling wife now saying, "We have to renegotiate NAFTA now!" OK Hillary, where were you 10 years ago since you say that hanging around the White House makes you qualified to be president!
This post edited by Roccus7 08:40 PM 03/06/2008
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Roccus7 wrote:
NAFTA was the brain child of William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton!!
I just love the sound bites of his darling wife now saying, "We have to renegotiate NAFTA now!" OK Hillary, where were you 10 years ago since you say that hanging around the White House makes you qualified to be president!
sorry but bush senior signed that bill before he left office
NAFTA was the brain child of William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton!!
I just love the sound bites of his darling wife now saying, "We have to renegotiate NAFTA now!" OK Hillary, where were you 10 years ago since you say that hanging around the White House makes you qualified to be president!
sorry but bush senior signed that bill before he left office
Joined
·
11,706 Posts
Bush did start the NAFTA negotiations BUT...
In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993.
So it was pushed and signed into law by a "union loving" President, something everyone conveniently seems to forget. And now his misses is trying to "fix" something, something she supported.
Amazing how amensia is contagious during election time!
In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993.
So it was pushed and signed into law by a "union loving" President, something everyone conveniently seems to forget. And now his misses is trying to "fix" something, something she supported.
Amazing how amensia is contagious during election time!
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Roccus7 wrote:
In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993.
So it was pushed and signed into law by a "union loving" President, something everyone conveniently seems to forget. And now his misses is trying to "fix" something, something she supported.
Amazing how amensia is contagious during election time!
Bush Sr. SIGNED the bill. It didn't get started until Clinton. Clinton didn't approve it because it already was approved and signed. Although he didn't stop it either
and the younger bush signed in on CAFTA. Both of these have destroyed the American economy, and sent our factories to China, and Mexico and Brazil
In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993.
So it was pushed and signed into law by a "union loving" President, something everyone conveniently seems to forget. And now his misses is trying to "fix" something, something she supported.
Amazing how amensia is contagious during election time!
Bush Sr. SIGNED the bill. It didn't get started until Clinton. Clinton didn't approve it because it already was approved and signed. Although he didn't stop it either
and the younger bush signed in on CAFTA. Both of these have destroyed the American economy, and sent our factories to China, and Mexico and Brazil
Joined
·
11,706 Posts
Sorry STRIKERTHREE...
Getting conflicting data here. What I think happened is that George H. W. Bush negotiated and signed it, but it was passed into law under Clinton so they're both responsible.
One can kind of think of it as an economic "Bay of Pigs." Kennedy was saddled with the plan, but he did nothing to stop it.
Regardless, protectionism won't cut it in a global economy and Clinton was sanguine enough to realize that.
This post edited by Roccus7 09:09 PM 03/06/2008
Getting conflicting data here. What I think happened is that George H. W. Bush negotiated and signed it, but it was passed into law under Clinton so they're both responsible.
One can kind of think of it as an economic "Bay of Pigs." Kennedy was saddled with the plan, but he did nothing to stop it.
Regardless, protectionism won't cut it in a global economy and Clinton was sanguine enough to realize that.
This post edited by Roccus7 09:09 PM 03/06/2008
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Roccus7 wrote:
Bill was signed in 1993. Bubba was president then. Check the dates.
Actually, while it was happening I was very surprised that he embraced it, knowing what it would do for certain types of US jobs. At least he was intelligent enough to realize that you can't fight a global economy forever.
Protectionism cannot sustain itself. Either adapt to the global economy or become the bottom of the food chain of Darwinian Economics...
SORRY ROCCUS
[edit] History of the implementation
NAFTA was initially pursued by corporate interest[citation needed] in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[6] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[7]
Bill was signed in 1993. Bubba was president then. Check the dates.
Actually, while it was happening I was very surprised that he embraced it, knowing what it would do for certain types of US jobs. At least he was intelligent enough to realize that you can't fight a global economy forever.
Protectionism cannot sustain itself. Either adapt to the global economy or become the bottom of the food chain of Darwinian Economics...
SORRY ROCCUS
[edit] History of the implementation
NAFTA was initially pursued by corporate interest[citation needed] in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[6] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[7]
Joined
·
11,706 Posts
Like I said in the edited post...
Both Bush and Clinton "signed" it.
Bush negotiated and signed the proposal, Clinton helped it's passage through Congress in 1993 and signed it into law, so they're both responsible...
Don't forget that although Woodrow Wilson signed and championed the League of Nations, the US Legislature never approved it so we never participated. If Clinton was so anit-NAFTA, he could have tried to stop it's passage or vetoed it, two things he never did.
And where was Hillary then? Oh I remember, she was off "fixing" our healthcare crisis!
This post edited by Roccus7 09:21 PM 03/06/2008
Both Bush and Clinton "signed" it.
Bush negotiated and signed the proposal, Clinton helped it's passage through Congress in 1993 and signed it into law, so they're both responsible...
Don't forget that although Woodrow Wilson signed and championed the League of Nations, the US Legislature never approved it so we never participated. If Clinton was so anit-NAFTA, he could have tried to stop it's passage or vetoed it, two things he never did.
And where was Hillary then? Oh I remember, she was off "fixing" our healthcare crisis!
This post edited by Roccus7 09:21 PM 03/06/2008
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
Look under NAFTA and look to the left and theres a picture of GW SR signing in the bill along with canadian and mexico priministers
Look under NAFTA and look to the left and theres a picture of GW SR signing in the bill along with canadian and mexico priministers
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Roccus7 wrote:
Both Bush and Clinton "signed" it.
Bush negotiated and signed the proposal, Clinton helped it's passage through Congress in 1993 and signed it into law, so they're both responsible...
Don't forget that although Woodrow Wilson signed and championed the League of Nations, the US Legislature never approved it so we never participated. If Clinton was so anit-NAFTA, he could have tried to stop it's passage or vetoed it, two things he never did.
And where was Hillary then? Oh I remember, she was off "fixing" our healthcare crisis!
if GW SR never started it, it would never of happened
Both Bush and Clinton "signed" it.
Bush negotiated and signed the proposal, Clinton helped it's passage through Congress in 1993 and signed it into law, so they're both responsible...
Don't forget that although Woodrow Wilson signed and championed the League of Nations, the US Legislature never approved it so we never participated. If Clinton was so anit-NAFTA, he could have tried to stop it's passage or vetoed it, two things he never did.
And where was Hillary then? Oh I remember, she was off "fixing" our healthcare crisis!
if GW SR never started it, it would never of happened
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
STRIKERTHREE wrote:
Roccus7 wrote:
Both Bush and Clinton "signed" it.
Bush negotiated and signed the proposal, Clinton helped it's passage through Congress in 1993 and signed it into law, so they're both responsible...
Don't forget that although Woodrow Wilson signed and championed the League of Nations, the US Legislature never approved it so we never participated. If Clinton was so anit-NAFTA, he could have tried to stop it's passage or vetoed it, two things he never did.
And where was Hillary then? Oh I remember, she was off "fixing" our healthcare crisis!
if GW SR never started it, it would never of happened
Go back & forth all you want, but it is the same thing as the Kyoto treaty. Bush Sr. negotiated the treaty & signed it, just like Gore went and negotiated & signed the Kyoto treaty. Then when the NAFTA treaty came back ti the US for ratification, the Clinton administration pushed it through for passage. Clinton could have done the same thing with NAFTA that Bush 43 did with Kyoto and said - Ahhhhh, NO. Instead of killing the treaty, Clinton made it a major initiative for his administration and promoted its passage. They're BOTH responsible for NAFTA.
Roccus7 wrote:
Both Bush and Clinton "signed" it.
Bush negotiated and signed the proposal, Clinton helped it's passage through Congress in 1993 and signed it into law, so they're both responsible...
Don't forget that although Woodrow Wilson signed and championed the League of Nations, the US Legislature never approved it so we never participated. If Clinton was so anit-NAFTA, he could have tried to stop it's passage or vetoed it, two things he never did.
And where was Hillary then? Oh I remember, she was off "fixing" our healthcare crisis!
if GW SR never started it, it would never of happened
Go back & forth all you want, but it is the same thing as the Kyoto treaty. Bush Sr. negotiated the treaty & signed it, just like Gore went and negotiated & signed the Kyoto treaty. Then when the NAFTA treaty came back ti the US for ratification, the Clinton administration pushed it through for passage. Clinton could have done the same thing with NAFTA that Bush 43 did with Kyoto and said - Ahhhhh, NO. Instead of killing the treaty, Clinton made it a major initiative for his administration and promoted its passage. They're BOTH responsible for NAFTA.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
