Single person resident of New York City will pay a huge increase in taxes under Obama’s tax plans. www.freedomOK.net.wordpress

New York from ferry
New York from ferry

On Rush Linbaugh show 7-16-09 he listed figures that New Yorkers will pay. For a single person making about $80 K it was a whopping amount. Checking the web for the article not all the figures given on the show are on the Internet version of the story. For more exact figures check the Linbaugh page.

July 16, 2009

Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state’s top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.

New York’s top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent — rates not seen in three decades — to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.

OPINION: SLEDGEHAMMER HIT TO CRUMBLING EMPIRE STATE

EDITORIAL: HERE COMES OBAMACARE

OPINION: THESE PLANS WILL REDUCE YOUR CHOICE

The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state’s wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.

That means New York’s top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.

The non-partisan think-tank calculated the average local tax rate in New York State at 1.7 percent, and combined it with the 8.97 percent that high-bracket state taxpayers will shell out in 2011, when the health care plan is set to take effect. Tack on the 39.6 percent federal tax rate, 2.9 percent for Medicare and 5.4 percent for the health care “surtax,” and the figure is 56.92 percent for the Empire State.

In New York City, the top tax rate is 3.65 percent, making the Big Apple’s top combined rate even higher.

The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama’s ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The 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.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses — a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

Obama took to the airwaves yesterday with ads and TV interviews promoting the need to reform health care.

As a Senate health committee passed a different version of a health-care reform bill – a milestone for the issue – Obama said on NBC, “The American people have to realize that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

And in a Rose Garden speech, he said the “status quo” on health care is “threatening the financial stability of families, of businesses, and of government. It’s unsustainable, and it has to change.”

Asked if Obama supports the surtax on wealthiest Americans even though it would break a campaign pledge, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only, “It’s a process that we’re watching.”

Republicans in Washington and small-business defenders in New York said the House legislation would effectively place a stranglehold on businesses while running off top earners.

“Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession,” said Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce.

“If there’s one sure way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, this is it.”

Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that “in the middle of a recession, it’s a very strange way to legislate.”

“According to what we’ve read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan,” Lipsky said.

Under the House plan, businesses with payrolls of $400,000 or more would pay an 8 percent penalty for uninsured workers, while companies with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 would pay slightly smaller penalties.

Adding to this burden, said Michael Moran of the State Business Council of New York, is that New York is already a high-tax state.

“Any additional taxes make New York even less competitive,” he said.

New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year.

The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end.

Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an umbrella organization representing the city’s major businesses, said that the estimated top marginal tax rate of 57 percent for New York actually underestimates the potential impact on businesses.

That’s because it doesn’t include the city’s burdensome unincorporated-business tax, which snares many entrepreneurs.

“It could be between 62 and 63 percent,” she said.

If the House plan passes, Wylde said, “There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York.”

A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned.

“Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income,” he said. “That’s the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard.

According to the city’s Department for Small Business Services, there are some 220,000 small businesses in the five boroughs. The agency does not keep track of how many offer health insurance.

“It’s something that’s going to kill jobs. That’s the result,” said Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Among the most egregious provisions of the House proposal, she said, is a requirement that businesses pay the cost of 72.4 percent of individual health plans and 65 percent of family plans.

Those that don’t hit the mark would face the payroll tax penalty.

churt@nypost.com
COMMENTS
Report item as: (required) X
Comment: (optional)
User Image
snowcloud wrote:
What would Thomas Jefferson do?

What would Thomas Jefferson say?

Food for thought.
7/16/2009 5:01 PM EDT
Recommend

Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
yoyo1234

You are by yourself properly named.
7/16/2009 5:00 PM EDT
Recommend

Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
NYC deserves to lose ANY and ALL that want to move away from it and NYS to boot ! Some cry about pensions. At least those people put years of working for the city into the system on the books paying taxes– even city taxes if they lived in Nassau or Suffolk. Look at all the corrupt businesses , politicians , Tammany Hall wannabes , adult s-ex theathers that feed organized crime. No , many would rather go after retiress or workers . Well NYC is the next Mogadishu and NYS the next Somalia. I was born in Brooklyn in 1948 and taught to work and pay your taxes and don’t dare go on social programs that take from the taxpayers unless you are dying. Een when I came home from the navy after Nam my police recruiter said et a job don’t collect the un-employment you are entitled to The city does not like laggards or goldbrickers. Not today. The city politicians crave them because for a little of your money they get guaranteed votes. The laggards in numbers outnumber tax PAYING voters . That is the fact. Think what you will but don’t let your thoughts deceive your eyes.
7/16/2009 4:57 PM EDT
Recommend

Report Abuse
User Image
yoyo1234 wrote:
“Hev wrote: We were all for your…teachers–working people.”

Oh come on now, if there’s one thing I know Southerners aren’t “all for” it’s teachers and working.

That’s why the South is statistically the stupidest, fattest, poorest section of the entire country. And proud of it!
7/16/2009 4:54 PM EDT
Recommend

Report Abuse
User Image
TheHangman wrote:
So the point isn’t just 100% about the health care issue. Why doesn’t the post just come out and say that Taxes in New York are inflated dues to Political, Special Interest and Union CORRUPTION!?
7/16/2009 4:53 PM EDT
Recommend

Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
Hev wrote:
Leave New York? Don’t even think about moving to the sunny south. We don’t want you here ruining our states with your liberal nonsense. We were all for your police, firefighters, and teachers–working people–moving here, and retirees who want to escape the cold. But you liberal morons who elected this sicko with his twisted evil agenda are most definitely NOT welcome. We have southern hospitality for regular ‘folk.’ But you will see the deliverance side of us if you think you can move down here and then proceed to vote for outrageous liberal policies and socialist candidates.

I’LL SECOND YOUR POST IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!!!
7/16/2009 4:46 PM EDT
Recommend (8)

Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
When the government goes after the rich the middle class loses. Rich people have attorneys , tax accountants who use to work for the IRS and loop hole galore with exemptions from the tax code. Smaller wage earners $32, 000 for a family of 2 or more get tax money back and more money to bring them up to poverty level. Those who eventually get stuck with the tab are the middle of the road tax PAYERS .I am 61 and have learned one thing in those few years. Whenever Washington goes for tax money the middle of the roaders suffer. Cap and trade , health care , loss of local municipal revenue through prioperty tax loss and foreclosure. Who do you think will suffer the most from the cost of these calamities. Give me a break. I admit that I was NOT born yesterdy and received a decent education through college.
7/16/2009 4:45 PM EDT
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
User Image
Hev wrote:
Leave New York? Don’t even think about moving to the sunny south. We don’t want you here ruining our states with your liberal nonsense. We were all for your police, firefighters, and teachers–working people–moving here, and retirees who want to escape the cold. But you liberal morons who elected this sicko with his twisted evil agenda are most definitely NOT welcome. We have southern hospitality for regular ‘folk.’ But you will see the deliverance side of us if you think you can move down here and then proceed to vote for outrageous liberal policies and socialist candidates.
7/16/2009 4:45 PM EDT
Recommend (10)

Report Abuse
User Image
TParty4USA wrote:
If you voted for Obama:

Be happy! You get to eat what you cooked.

And don’t complain! You broke it, you pay for it.

So quit whining and get ready to pay those taxes, just like Obama orders. It’s your patriotic duty.

And have a little empathy for all those voters who did not vote for Obama and his promise of “change” you can “believe in” — they are the true victims of the folly of those who enabled fundamental “change” to “belief” in one nation under Obamaism.

Heck, in this era of “fair” taxation at the expense of everything else, it would only be “fair” to allow a “hope” tax refund to all who voted against Obamaism.

They didn’t buy it then, and they shouldn’t have to pay for it now. After all, that’s only fair.
7/16/2009 4:45 PM EDT
Recommend (8)

Report Abuse
User Image
vanj wrote:
Hangman wrote:
“So only people who live in New York will only be those who will be effected? What about everyone else in the country? What state will everyone be moving to where there’s no federal tax?”

Every state has federal tax. The article addresses the combined burden of federal and local taxes on residents of NY. It addresses the potential of this causing a “straw that broke the camel’s back” scenario developing regarding high income and business flight from NY at a time NY can least afford it.
7/16/2009 4:42 PM EDT 240425024_4a6dd99e16

Share

Bishop Wright says below that justice is treating people appropriately, i.e., making distinctions between different people and situatons …

The Anglians Know This Will End in Schism by Tom Wright, Bishop of Duram

“In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured.

Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship. Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.

___________________________________________________________________

Tom Wright is Bishop of Durham

for more go to: Fulcrum

Share

Aptos Psychologist: How to teach consequences for bevavior to autistic children. www.freedomOK.net/wordpress

1866137506_e3f7fa13a31

Yes, it IS possible to teach CONSEQUENCES for behavior to children with autism. Here is an account by a single mother with two children, one child has autism. What she says makes good, common sense to me. Dr. Jackson at cameronjacks@gmail.com

To email the author contact her at Sylraen@sbcglobal.net Here is what she writes:

“Saac was faced with two alternatives. He could either stay inside all day every day or go outside and face the terrifying noises that arrived with the onset of summer; cicadas rattling, mosquitoes humming, and bees that buzzed at every flower. He weighed his options on the playground carefully. There were steam shovels that pushed dirt around, swings that carried you to the sky, and best of all, his scooter equipped with his space helmet. Yes, of all the toys, the scooter was the best alternative. At least it was fast and he could hope to fly past the alien invaders and their cruel sounds and threats to overcome him.

Tentatively he peeked out the door, scanning the horizon. “So far so good,” he thought. No bugs. He boarded his scooter timidly and took off. Immediately he was bombarded with a loud whirring and humming in his ear. Shrieking, he flung himself to the ground and awaited a fate worse than death.

Corinne, his mom watched him sadly. This had been an ongoing struggle that she had no idea how to deal with. Then an idea struck her. She had just been telling Isaac a story about a boy named David who fought a giant. She had tried to explain that he had overcome the giant by his bravery and his faith in an attempt to help him understand. He didn’t seem to understand. To him, even facing a giant was preferable to facing the sounds that overloaded his senses as an autistic child.

Then she had an idea. She had bought him a set of toy armor. Why not put it on him and encourage him to go face the terrors with his sword swinging. Better yet, why not make him the character in his own giant story. That afternoon and for the next few days she worked writing out the story that was forming in her mind and sketching out the characters. When she was done she called him over and told him the story. It was called Isaac and the Scare Giant, about a boy who was tormented by a giant who jumped out every time the boy was afraid and turned him into stone. The boy won however because he made the giant disappear by saying some magic words and by swinging his sword of truth. When the story was finished Corinne reviewed the magic words with Isaac and sent him out to play, crossing her fingers and hoping Isaac understood.

Isaac mounted his scooter a little more bravely. At least he had amour on and a sword. He rode out, his heart pounding in his chest. Sure enough a cicada started to whir and rattle menacingly in the tree above him and felt his skin turn clammy. Ok, according to his mom there was a scare giant. Though he couldn’t see it like in the story, it was there and it was shouting. He looked at his mom and she was telling him to say the words. He brandished his sword with one hand, his finger in his other ear and muttered. “You’re just a bug. I’m not afraid of you. Go away bug or I’ll cut you in two”. He felt a little better and the rattling seemed to stop.

A mosquito was the next to pounce. He brandished his sword a little more vigorously and actually made it go away. It returned diving at his ears, its sinister whine rattling his eardrums. He hit it with sword again. The mosquito retreated, stunned. He fought that mosquito and every bug that came within reach till the sweat ran down his face. With a menacing scowl he mounted his scooter with a swagger that befit a warrior, daring any bugs or scare giants to frighten him again.

Prologue

That was five years ago and since that initial success, there have been many more battles with fear battles of all sorts for Corinne and Isaac. What was important was that they both learned what their enemy was and how to fight it. Of course there were days of battles with insect noises when Isaac cowered and ran to Corinne but she had learned to become his cheerleader. Instead of panicking or overreacting she spoke bracingly to him. “Fight him Isaac.” She would say, “Fight that giant. Get your sword and win this fight”. Though Corinne had written a picture book meant for a child, the truth of the story had helped her too and would stay with her for a long long time.

Moral of the story

It is important to find the right tools to enable the autistic child to fight his fears, for a fight is what it is and needs to be addressed as such.

Here are a few tools that Corinne employed:

– She realized that beneath every paralyzing fear is a lie.

– She addressed the fear and spoke the truth.

– She cast a vision for a fear free way of thinking by reading stories of others who had conquered their fears.

– She believed in her son’s ability to fight his fears and became his cheerleader in the battle.

Life is full of many battles to face. Depending on the severity of the autism, the battle can be harder and more difficult than any yet faced. It is helpful and encouraging to know however, that others are fighting similar battles and that the battle can be won on many fronts though the struggle may be long.

Fact- Isaac is a child who has been diagnosed with mild autism. Autism is defined by the Autism Society Of America (ASA) as: “Autism is a complex developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life and is the result of a neurological disorder that affects the normal functioning of the brain, impacting development in the areas of social interaction and communication skills. Both children and adults with autism typically show difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play activities.” Along with these symptoms is a hypersensitivity to noises and light which causes the child to act out or withdraw. www.definitionofautism.com/

Author: C.J. Yang
C.J. Yang is an Examiner from Chicago. You can see C.J.’s articles on C.J.’s Home Page.
Besides pursuing a teaching career and working on a novel she is a single mom to two children, one who is autistic. She can be contacted at sylraen@sbcglobal.net.

Share

Aptos psychologist: how to teach a child with autism the link between behavior and consequences. This works seems to me.

“It can take a great deal of time before an autistic child recognizes a link between behavior and consequences.

The child with autism can be just as precocious and just as adventurous as the typically developing child. Sitting still or paying attention at school is not always the highest priority. What makes the guidance of behavior so difficult when it comes to autism is the challenge of comprehension and explaining to them that certain behaviors are not acceptable.

This is the year we became successful with our son discovering that misbehavior at school will cause him to lose privileges when he gets home. At first we weren’t sure if it was an issue of memory or an issue of comprehension. It turned out to be neither. It was the link between the two concepts that had been elusive to him.

Behaviors to be discouraged vary and most require further explanation. “Kicking” is one behavior he had previously engaged in. This is a misleading term since the behavior was actually his desire to place his shoe on a peer or staff member. His intention was not to do harm, but to seek attention or a reaction of some sort. “Inappropriate touching” is a behavior that must be addressed for obvious reasons in a classroom setting. This can happen when an autistic child is discovering certain sensations. Explaining why the behavior is inappropriate is often not effective. “Destruction of property” in our case meant that our son feels the need to close any open laptop he encounters. He often does this with a great amount of force. We certainly do not want to pay for any broken laptops.

The school my son attends turned out to be helpful in implementing a system for providing awareness to his behavior. This system is the simple use of three different colored stickers that go on his shirt at the end of the day. A green sticker indicates that he had a good day. Red is bad, and yellow means there were some issues (also bad). Yellow days and red days would result in a loss of access to his favorite things at home. This meant no computer, no television and no Xbox. When he made requests for these items we would respond with “No Xbox, you had a red day!”

It was a matter of two to three red or yellow days before the connection was made. It was a noticeable moment of awareness both for us parents and his aid at school. The aid capitalized on this development by giving warnings when behaviors were beginning. “Don’t have a red day or no computer at home” helped to guide behavior. We were more than happy to comply with any consequences at home to maintain the continuity of the method. Everyone makes it known how well he’s done on the completion of a “green” day, even if lately this has been every day.

For an eight-year-old boy there are always challenges with behavior issues at school. In the case of an autistic child, improving misbehavior can seem like a daunting task. There will be more incidents in the future, but having a proven method of responding to these incidents brings confidence that they will be fewer and further between. As in many cases, establishing routines with consistency helps to show the autistic child the way.

For more info: Classroom discipline for autistic students

Share