Quick Fact: Doocy claimed Senate bill adds tax that "you" pay "every time you get your paycheck"
Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy stated of the Senate health care reform bill released on November 18, "they're gonna add payroll taxes on your Medicare that you pay for every time you get your paycheck."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Sure, people are going to wind up with health care, but it's not free. It's going to wind up - they're going to wind up reducing Medicare in a big way, plus, you know, they're gonna add payroll taxes on your Medicare that you pay for every time you get your paycheck.
Fact: Only income that exceeds $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for households would be taxed at higher rate
Contrary to Doocy's suggestion that everyone would see a payroll tax increase under the Senate health care reform bill, the Congressional Budget Office noted on November 18 that the bill includes "a new provision for additional payroll tax on high-income individuals." The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision will raise $53.8 billion by the end of 2019. From Section 9015 of the Senate's "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act":
[T]here is hereby imposed on every taxpayer (other than a corporation, estate, or trust) a tax equal to 0.5 percent of wages which are received with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) during any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, and which are in excess of --
''(A) in the case of a joint return, $250,000, and
''(B) in any other case, $200,000.''
Mr. Doocy has the Personality of a Vampire still lying in his Crypt.
It's only the Extreme Ignorance of Brian Kilmeade that elevates this man's game.
Mr. Kilmeade could even make a Dunce Cap feel a Deep Sense of Shame.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Also, why is it do you think that the federal government confiscates taxes from your paycheck instead of just taxing you at the end of every quarter or the end of every fiscal year? Might it be that it would be much more obvious and painful just how much the state takes form the product of your labor when the taxpayer has to actually write the check every year in one large amount? They do it incrementally paycheck by paycheck so as not to incite as much opposition. If you don't think that you will eventually have automatic deductions from your paycheck, then I suspect you are too trusting and a bit naive.
Look at the history of the federal income tax for evidence of government promises being broken. This tax was only suppposed to hit the top 1/2 of 1 percent of all wage earners. The things that people will believe! The citizenry approved of this becuase they thought it wouldn't affect their own personal finances (this is mistaken, too). Most people will always give sanction to a little larceny so long as they think that they will benefit, or at least not be hurt by it. So long as the theft occurs through the medium of government then people's moral compass gets a little off. That promise of only taxing the top 1/2 of 1 percent of wage earners didn't last 10 years though. Now everyone in the middle class pays it.
Another great example of government deception is the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. It was sold to americans as insurance where the tax payer's 'contribution' would be equivalent to an insurance premium. The 'contribution' was never akin to an insurance premium. The federal government admitted as much in a Supreme Court case from the 60's. Social Security has always been a transfer program or welfare program if you prefer. We currently have in many instances well-off older people collecting benefits from Social Security and Medicare while many far less well-off people are forced to 'contribute' to these programs. Only the mob and the federal government would have the gall to call something a contribution that is taken by threat of force.
Having seen the proof of poor government projections and outright deception in these instances(among many other unmentioned instances), why would anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature trust them now? You are asking the government for something that they are incapable of delivering on.
Cheers!
rich people to steal from? As opposed to conservatives like you who steal from the poor? Just calling it what it is, you know.
the state takes form the product of your labor What? No bleating about how the state is actually taking that money from the employer, who is the one responsible if it isn't paid. Gosh, you're not even aware of how payroll deduction actually works.
the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. It figures that you'd try to belittle a program that not only works but is solvent.
The federal government admitted as much in a Supreme Court case from the 60's. Which you don't cite because it's something someone told you about over at the Hayek site?
Deliver on? You must have forgotten to mention the Defense budget? Let's talk about performance bonuses paid for nonperformance? Projections? Program cost overruns for the Littoral ship, the, well, the list is so long, you must have forgotten to include them.
Instead you try to pick on one program, Social Security, which was the only thing making the conservative Congress;s budgets less deficit ridden than they were.
Conservatives doubled the debt in 8 years. Conservatives passed Medicare Part D as a vote pander exercise.
Conservatives passed the PATRIOT Act.
Conservatives blindly supported war in Iraq
Conservatives like you support torture as a policy.
Grow up, your tired tirade is factless and weak.
•solvency - the ability to meet maturing obligations as they come due
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Since we know SS will not meet it's "maturing obligations" without major changes (more taxes probably), that's not really a good example, is it?
He's clearly a paid troll who is simply collecting a paycheck right now to derail threads. That's about as low as one can go. He hates me because I challenge him and other trolls when they go off topic, and I don't get frustrated - but he sure does! It's very entertaining, and the fact that I laugh at him and make others laugh at him irritates him to no end.
Keep bugging him. It works.
See the Thomson-Reuters study on health costs. Insurance overhead and profits run more than 30% vs. only 6% for Medicare.
If you don't think there's some stealing going on, you're a bigger fool than you seem right here.
Those assumptions include GDP growth below the long-term actual growth. If GDP growth equals the long-term actual growth, SS isd solvent for well beyond the 75 year horizon in the Trustees' projections.
You fall for the so-called infinite horizon projections used by such stalwarts as the American Enterprise Institute or Pete Peterson.
If conservatives, like you and Geo W Bush, hadn't screwed the economy, the SS projections would look even better.
And don't even think about arguing that the notes held by the Trustees are just paper. I'd hate to think you're that stupid.