It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats' Plan Would Benefit Middle Class, Target Rich

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I posted some comments with this when I put it up. It finally posted, but sans original comments. I've been robbed! But I've decided, on second thought, it's just as well.


WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic congressional leaders plan on Monday to unveil proposed legislation to boost the middle class by giving many families a tax cut that would be countered by a fee on financial transactions and reduced tax benefits for the top 1 percent of earners, the Washington Post reported.

The plan, which Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland was to introduce, could create a windfall of about $1.2 trillion over a decade, the newspaper said. As much as $800 billion of that could come from a 0.1 percent fee on stock trades, mostly from high-volume transactions, Van Hollen told the Post.

The legislation calls for a "paycheck bonus" of $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for married couples, a bonus of $250 for people who save at least $500 a year and reduced "marriage penalties" for couples.

Income equality has been a major issue for Democrats, but the proposal would have little chance in Congress, where Republicans now have majorities in both the Senate and House.




The Post said Van Hollen's plan would encourage corporations to raise workers' wages and limit their deductions of bonuses paid to executives in excess of $1 million. It also would cut back tax breaks for the top 1 percent. (Writing by Bill Trott; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Maybe this will give people the opportunity to gain back a little cash stolen by the Wallstreet thieves. I never had a 401-K, but I know many who had theirs wiped out in 2008. I suffered enough without a 401-K. Tried my hand in the stock market. It was amputated.
edit on 1/12/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: Where's Southern Guardian when you need him?




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I have to know.

When it comes time for you to be taxed, how much do you think you should lose of what you make? Just give me a percentage.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Can we just implement a flat tax already?

Or, better yet, no income tax at all?

Other than that, this this whole redistribution-of-wealth crap the dems keep dreaming up would do nothing overall to better the system--it only aids in foggying it up even more.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

0%



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Alrighty then! Bye bye middle class, hello two-class system like much of the rest of the world.

Enjoy your poverty guys, because if you believe you'll be in the top income bracket, ya better think twice.

Let's see, with a two-class system.... that only leaves one default. Hmmm.
edit on 1/12/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: Oh, just wasting my time. : )



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I know, but people who are in charge of wealth redistribution can almost never come up with a percentage when you ask them likely because they know that any percentage they think would really be fair has been passed long ago by the tax code.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Can't do it can you?

Likely because you know that people who are making less than six digits are already being taxed over 40% in the current tax regime by the last time we were told they were going to "tax the rich."



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You think you should lose none of your money? Did I misunderstand your post?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Increase Capital Gains tax to 95%

Everyone wins.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Do you think I should, just for making a living, trading my time, effort, skills and knowledge that the gov't has zero direct part in me having or achieving?

Are you saying that I should lose some of my money, just because the government says it can take it via the 13th Amendment?

There are plenty of other ways the federal government can get enough money to run this country efficiently (emphasis on the word efficiently) without taking the hard-earned money that its citizens make in exchange for their labor to do it. Before 1913, it did just that (more or less).


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Ja reply to: ladyinwaiting

Isn't that just wonderful? Legislation that could actually help millions of people. Something that could put more money into the hands of those that need it.

But, wait. This was proposed by Democrats and Republicans now hold the upper hand in Congress which means that the chances of this being passed is somewhere between zip and 0. Where was this a year ago or two years ago or any time in the past 6 years that Democrats had control of Congress and the White House?

I don't believe this was put up with the intention of it passing into law. The purpose of this is to point fingers when it gets shot down.
edit on 1/12/2015 by N3k9Ni because: Typo



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Alrighty then! Bye bye middle class, hello two-class system like much of the rest of the world.

Enjoy your poverty guys, because if you believe you'll be in the top income bracket, ya better think twice.

Let's see, with a two-class system.... that only leaves one default. Hmmm.


If the middle class ever dies (which it hasn't...your alarmism doesn't reflect reality), it will be becuase of government, not in spite of it.

Show me a socialist country that has a thriving middle class. All wealth redistribution does is morph the poor and middle classes into one that exists closer to the poor end of the spectrum, and keeps the elite class thriving like it always has. Unless my math is incorrect, that's still two classes, and now the bottom class is even more miserable than before when it was spread out over a more broad spectrum.

Let's not base threads on irresponsible alarmism--it does absolutely nothing in the efforts to deny ignorance.

A government with the control of the purse strings of private companies is a government who has overstepped its role and overinflated its ego immensely. Big Brother does not know best.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
And who is this middle class? It seems like the targeted income for this class have been moved lower and lower. Pretty soon, most people who works will be too rich to be middle class and only those who make living salary or less will benefit. Every time I hear Politicians speak about the middle class it makes me laugh.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

IMO if everyone gave 1% of their earnings, then no one should be exempt. But then again living off the premise that you shouldn't give a dime (while living off the system) is essentially freeloading. So if you don't even contribute so much as a Christmas cookie to the firefighters, why should they prevent you from becoming next week's bbq if there was a fire?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
personally, considering just how much money the gov't and fed have dumped into the economy to keep those markets from tanking
why shouldn't they pay a little of it back?

oh and by the way your IRAs other pensions funds are all set up to pay for the next financial crisis which is probably not that far away



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Show me a socialist country that has a thriving middle class.


Welcome to The Netherlands.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Sounds great, I just have zero faith in the fed to write a law that doesn't have loopholes big enough to sail a super tanker through....

So the middle class will end up eating it yet again.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Obama would never sign this.

But Democrats are already campaigning for 2016.

Let's see which candidates will jump on this.




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Typical democrats, a day late and a dollar short, if they really cared they would have done this 6 years ago when it might have had a chance of passing.
With republicans controlling both houses of congress the democrats know they don`t have a chance of getting this passed, but it makes them look like they care and makes the republicans look bad.
The sad thing is a lot of people will fall for this cheap shot at making the republicans look bad.

maybe when the Dem. won the presidency in 2008 the first thing that they should have done (if they really cared) was push this through but instead they spent a lot of time pushing that abomination called obamacare.
Both parties engage in this type of disingenuous game play and it makes them both look bad when they do it.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
double post
edit on 12-1-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join