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.

 

Pelosi: Raise Taxes on All Workers Next Year

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Pelosi: Raise Taxes on All Workers Next Year

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is saying the current payroll tax structure should be allowed to expire Jan 1st.

Obama and other Democrats have been "quietly" saying the same.

Many people think the tax "increases" would further damage the already ruined economy.

Now Why would Nancy make such a potentially damaging statement a few weeks away from the elections?

Maybe it's because many Democrat supporters will be unaffected ?

But then again, many would be negatively affected and thus her statements could cost votes.

She also ties in a new tax structure, but how will voters view a generalized "pie in the sky" statement ?



The Social Security payroll tax cut should be allowed to expire at the end of this year and lawmakers should turn instead to overhauling the entire federal tax code, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday.

The 2 percentage point reduction in the 6.2 percent payroll tax, first enacted last year, had been a major element of President Barack Obama's proposals to rejuvenate the economy. The effort to renew it for 2012 prompted a prolonged battle with Republicans last winter, especially in the House, and resulted in an eventual GOP surrender and a major victory for the president.

There has been little talk among Democrats about reviving the payroll tax cut yet again for next year, and Obama did not propose renewing it in his 2013 budget. Even so, few Democrats until now have said openly that the measure should be allowed to lapse......




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The economy does do better under a higher tax bracket history and facts prove that. Reagan's trickle down economics was a total failure but Clinton's trickle up economics worked.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Well considering this is the same nutjob that thinks $1 in food stamps magically makes $2.50 in economic growth, I am not suprised she thinks raising taxes would help the situation, as forcing more people onto food stamps would obviously boost the economy onto the black over night.

-sarcasm off



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The Social Security payroll tax should expire?

That is what she said seriously?

And just how the hell is SS suppose to be funded when it already can not be funded?

Make the employer pay more?

Make the employer the only means of paying for that "fat retirement check" which also means how the hell is medicare suppose to be funded?

Pelosi hates old people!!!!!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


How does raising taxes cause trickle up prosperity? Letting people keep their money allows them to have more to spend, making more demand for goods and services, making more jobs, making more revenue.

The .gov taking more in no way equates to economic prosperity.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Anyone who votes for Obama after what she said, well, you get what you deserve.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Sigh.

Depression under Wilson started after he raised taxes.
Depression under Hoover started after he raised taxes.
Depressions prolonged under FDR after he raised taxes.

Coolidge lowered taxes and it was at the time the most prosperous time in US history.
JFK lowered taxes and we had better economic times.
Reagan lowered taxes and we had the largest economic boom in history
Bush lowered taxes and we had 52 straight months of job growth, the longest in history.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by buster2010
 


How does raising taxes cause trickle up prosperity? Letting people keep their money allows them to have more to spend, making more demand for goods and services, making more jobs, making more revenue.

The .gov taking more in no way equates to economic prosperity.


Yes it does. Because people start investing to get out of taxes.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 





Reagan lowered taxes and we had the largest economic boom in history


Economic boom for who? Under Reagan the national debt went up 186% and personal bankruptcy's went up 610%. If there was a boom it was only for a small portion of the population.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by buster2010
 


How does raising taxes cause trickle up prosperity? Letting people keep their money allows them to have more to spend, making more demand for goods and services, making more jobs, making more revenue.

The .gov taking more in no way equates to economic prosperity.


Yes it does. Because people start investing to get out of taxes.


The only people who invest are the RICH who can afford to lose. There maybe 47% that are "poor" but that same 47% still spend money, and they can't afford to pay more taxes in any way, shape or form! I know I'm not supposed to hate any of God's creatures but Pelosi is the closest thing to a snake that I have ever seen. And I hate snakes.
edit on 23-9-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Dear xuenchen,

You know, you might be the closest thing ATS has to an Andrew Breitbart. I don't know how you manage it, but you are indispensible.

Please allow me to babble for just a minute. We've heard about "Taxmageddon" beginning in January before a new President could stop it. Now this, also planned for January, and it brings to mind Obama's off-mic comment. Something like "You tell Putin, that after I'm reelected I'll be more flexible." That translates, for me, to "After I'm re-elected, I'll be able to do things that the American people would kick me out of office for, if I did them before the election."

Your find persuades me that if we re-elect Obama we will have a different kind of President. An aggressive, authoritarian president, but one that will please some of the posters on this thread, and the members of CPUSA, but I don't think I'll care for it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Sigh.

Depression under Wilson started after he raised taxes.
Depression under Hoover started after he raised taxes.
Depressions prolonged under FDR after he raised taxes.

sigh


Eisenhower had a 90% tax rate, JFK had a 70% tax rate sigh

George W Bush lowered taxes and sigh,,, it created the largest economy imbalance in US
history sigh.

Clinton raised taxes and sigh, we reversed Bush's Reagan national debt model, sigh



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Pelosi: Raise Taxes on All Workers Next Year

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is saying the current payroll tax structure should be allowed to expire Jan 1st.


WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH?????
I thought you were a Christian?

If I sell something for 4 dollars a pound and for a while I discount it to 2 dollars a pound, when the discount stops - did I raise the price or stop letting you have a cut?

Which is it?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


Star for you sir!

47% is almost half, that means that every time you see 2 people, chances are that 1 of them is poor.

Poverty is the level of income needed to "survive" in a given economy, is either barely met or not met at all.

There is not one single reason that in the by far richest country in the world has half its population at or below the poverty level, except for person greed on the part of those that have more than enough, but still crave more.

If you have more than enough, why do you need more? Is it so you can look out your gilded towers windows at the starving masses and feel "superior"? Or is it that you enjoy forcing others to suffer needlessly?

I can't rap my mind around, having billions or even millions and not walking around in the poor side of town handing out money. Like it would even hurt your finances at all to help the half of this country that is suffering.

I know a lot will try to throw out the "why would I give druggies money to buy more drugs?" Arguement. However it has already been proven most of the poor are not druggies, as per the states that lost millions trying to reduce welfare rolls by drug testing the poor. As 90 plus % passed easily. You can't buy drugs if your broke, it takes money for that.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 





Reagan lowered taxes and we had the largest economic boom in history


Economic boom for who? Under Reagan the national debt went up 186% and personal bankruptcy's went up 610%. If there was a boom it was only for a small portion of the population.


details

sigh



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

Dear xuenchen,

You know, you might be the closest thing ATS has to an Andrew Breitbart. I don't know how you manage it, but you are indispensible.
Thats because all his threads originate from Breitbarts Site.

Check a link once in awhile.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by buster2010
 


How does raising taxes cause trickle up prosperity? Letting people keep their money allows them to have more to spend, making more demand for goods and services, making more jobs, making more revenue.

The .gov taking more in no way equates to economic prosperity.


Yes it does. Because people start investing to get out of taxes.


But wait....

I thought money available for investments was already taxed at least once ?

And taxed again when profits are taken.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by xuenchen
Pelosi: Raise Taxes on All Workers Next Year

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is saying the current payroll tax structure should be allowed to expire Jan 1st.


WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH?????
I thought you were a Christian?

If I sell something for 4 dollars a pound and for a while I discount it to 2 dollars a pound, when the discount stops - did I raise the price or stop letting you have a cut?

Which is it?




A single item on sale does not compare to the entire U.S. economy.

Plus, a single item on sale is "on sale" because they can make more money by selling in higher volume.

Do you understand what a massive tax increase will do to the whole economy ?

And just how are the tax "cuts" a "sale item" ??

:shk:



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   


Eisenhower had a 90% tax rate, JFK had a 70% tax rate sigh


When I see this i get irked so lets break down what some people are missing:

1. medicare did not exist started in 65
2. the population was considerably less
3. the value of the dollar was more
4, the industrial base of this country was considerably more,

The largest federal spending consumption is entitelment spending that has become mandatory,



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The article also claims that the benefits of the tax cut equate to roughly $1000 per worker earning $50,000 per year. It also states that 160 million currently receive the tax cut. I'm sure the numbers don't add up equally, but if they did what this would mean would be that by receiving only $1000 less per year ($49,000 a year doesn't seem hard to live on), then the government would have an additional $160 BILLION to trim the deficit.

Since most of the workers don't earn $50,000 per year, let's cut that number in half. 80 million would lose $1000 in taxes. 80 million would lose $500 in taxes. ($25,000 to $24,500 still doesn't seem like a make or break difference.) That's still $120 billion. Even if it tumbles down to $60 billion, that is a lot of money to shore up the economy.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the money would be managed accordingly by the government, but the principle is there to consider.

Also Pelosi seems to feel that rather than the tax cuts themselves, the more important issue is to reform the entire tax system. This could actually benefit the workers to a greater extent than the initial tax cut itself.

And while they feed us this information regarding the pro's and con's of tax strategy for debate, what about the more important issue of wages themselves? If more people were able to earn an annual wage of $50,000 the tax structure wouldn't seem so harsh and the economy would be more easily bolstered and the deficit simpler to tackle.

Just my humble opinion. Grains of salt welcome with every dose.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join