Remember when...

I said that taxes would have to go up? Here's one such instance:

http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamabiden-marxist-hyperinflation.html

" Now let's look at Mr Obama saying he's going to give people tax cuts. He can't do it. Why? Because of all of the spending that they're going to be doing on their nanny state, taxes would have to go up. They'd simply have to."

Which brings us to this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24752.html

The title is "Max Baucus on how to pay for health care" (Max Baucus (D-Mont) is the Senate Finance Committee Chairman)

Here's how he wants to pay for the nanny state's health care spendulus:

" — Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise $100 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than $500,000 and couples that make $1 million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than $20,300 for a family and $8,300 for an individual could raise $240 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than $25,000 would bring $90 billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise $168 billion, while the second would collect $90 billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising $75 billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as $20 billion, and insurance providers, raising $75 billion.

-- Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up $30 billion, and a 10-cent hike could make $100 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members. (All links are Politico's and are left intact.)

The 5% surtax is interesting. Let's use the $1 million example. If I make 1 mill a year, I'd end up paying an additional $50,000 in taxes. (1,000,000 x .05) "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx. Certainly seems that way, doesn't it?

Getting "Buyer's remorse" yet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer's_remorse

Just remember ... I and others like me (the Department of Hussein's Sycophants refers to us as "potential domestic extremeists") did warn you.

Repeatedly.