Democrats' Plan Would Benefit Middle Class, Target Rich

I think the bigger question is what types of income to tax. Income made from working is different from other types of income. But even more importantly, even income from working, when over a certain amount, should be highly taxed. I am not talking about the middle class workers, rather I am talking about workers receiving tens of millions of dollars, or the many cases in which workers are receiving even more than that. We could tax one person who makes an obscene amount of money and arrive at the same amount that we would get from charging hundreds of people at the same rate. I will always believe that one should be taxed based on the amount they are making because it makes sense. If we are talking about maintaining an average lifestyle, or in the case of poor people, just surviving, it stands to reason that lower income families or individuals are the ones who are punished by a flat tax rate. People want to complain about the rich people being taxed more because they will suffer, when the people suffering right now are the ones who can least afford it. If you're making tens of millions of dollars a year, and are struggling, you just suck at life.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spiting the Moon is a proverb. It means that you don't want something because your rival or enemy has it, even though it would be beneficial to you

Kind of like most of the posters on this thread.
Just sayin'

I don't want something someone else has or begrudge them for having it or don't want something just because someone else has it. I simply want to do my own thing and make my own way without taking from someone else or being taken from. We see the typical avarice and class envy, with people blaming others for their own shortcomings.

Speaking of parables, there is an old joke from the Soviet Union. Loosely translated it goes like this:

In America a farmer has no cow. He looks across the fence and sees that his neighbor has a cow. He becomes jealous and says that it is not fair his neighbor has a cow and he does not. He wants them to be equal. What does he do? He goes out and works hard and takes an extra job cutting trees in the woods and buys himself a cow. Now they are equal. (Screw, being equal, the farmer milks the cow and sells the milk and buys another cow, and then another, and then another--that showed his neighbor.)

In Russia a farmer has no cow. He looks across the fence and sees that his neighbor has a cow. He becomes jealous and says that it is not fair his neighbor has a cow and he does not. He wants them to be equal. What does he do? He calls the government man who goes into the neighbor's field and shoots the cow. Now they are equal.


That is the type of thinking I see in many of these threads.

Yes, but the idea that for some reason a person who has more than you should be punished for it because "they can afford it" is also not a good reason to just jack up rates on them. That smacks of someone who doesn't have wanting to hurt someone else simply because they do. It's pure greed and envy and wanting to use the state to steal what someone else has.

If we are all going to pay our fair share, then everyone should pay in and pay then same percentage of what we make no matter what that amount is.

I think for those who are poor, the option should exist to opt out, but it should be done in exchange for the franchise. In other words, no representation without taxation. And you must have paid in for at least four years to get your vote back.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I think the bigger question is what types of income to tax. Income made from working is different from other types of income

They epically fail to grasp this concept, and didn't learn a GD thing from the so called 'financial crisis'.

Where trillions were INSTANTLY whipped out.

Which means LOTS of people weren't paying ANY taxes for YEARS.

a reply to: Tardacus

Exactly my thought. Where were they with this, when they had the power to pass it? Why bring it out now?. These political games are killing us, while that's all it seems to be to them, a game. Not saying it's such a bad idea, tax Wallstreet, leave the middle class alone, but why bring it out when you know it has no chance.

This is a pretty big deal, not because the idea stands a credible chance in a Republican-led Congress – it doesn’t – but because of what a proposal like this says about Democratic priorities. As Ed Kilgore noted this morning, Van Hollen’s measure is “one of the more frankly redistributive proposals coming from anywhere other than the Progressive Caucus in a good while, and the central prominence of the financial transaction tax makes it a direct shot at Wall Street.”

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: TheArrow
Increase Capital Gains tax to 95%

Everyone wins.

Why ?

Flood government with money, and the money of special interests loses it's sweetness. Couple this increase in taxation with increased penalties for government misconduct and we turn around the society in 8 years.

This is one of the scariest posts I have ever read. But having seen your post record I am aware it is pointless to debate.
Boggles my mind some BELIEVE government would suddenly do the RIGHT thing if they only had more money.

Anytime government talks taxes my pucker factor increases 100%.
None of them have our interests at heart. It is their career to get as much money from us useless eaters as they can before they retire.
Anytime government talks we lose.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
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.

Newsflash.

Nobody's 401-k was "wiped out."

Any losses in their portfolio we the direct result of their own choices on how to invest their money. There is risk when investing money in the stock markets. They knew that.

Taxing large trades is not going to produce a 10-year windfall because in about 2 years those affected will move their trading out of the U.S.

a reply to: stosh64

Agreed. But I think we lose even when they're not talking.

They have proven time and time again they're not capable of handling the money they're given in a professional manner, an extra hundred billion won't set them straight, they'll squander it like they usually do.

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
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.

Well said. All for show, no doubt. Too bad as even a 0.1% tax on stock trades will be met with cries of "you're hurting the job-creators"! LMFAO. They've been soaking everyone for well over a decade and we have less jobs than ever. We do need to tax high-volume trades (much more than 1/10th of 1 percent) as well as tax the Bjeezus out of astronomical executive bonuses.
I would rather a flat tax on purchases be used but that dream ain't happening. We have to start with the system we have and what might reasonably have a chance of being passed.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
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.

Well said. All for show, no doubt. Too bad as even a 0.1% tax on stock trades will be met with cries of "you're hurting the job-creators"! LMFAO. They've been soaking everyone for well over a decade and we have less jobs than ever. We do need to tax high-volume trades (much more than 1/10th of 1 percent) as well as tax the Bjeezus out of astronomical executive bonuses.
I would rather a flat tax on purchases be used but that dream ain't happening. We have to start with the system we have and what might reasonably have a chance of being passed.

You do realize that every retirement fund has stocks and trades in stocks, yes? You want to tax my retirement fund every time the fund manager buys new or sells old stock for me? Screw that. You do realize that will add up to a hell of a lot of money during the life of my retirement fund, yes?

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Tardacus

Exactly my thought. Where were they with this, when they had the power to pass it? Why bring it out now?. These political games are killing us, while that's all it seems to be to them, a game. Not saying it's such a bad idea, tax Wallstreet, leave the middle class alone, but why bring it out when you know it has no chance.

Because they are playing you for fools.

They never intended to do this. They knew they wouldn't be able to pass this when they HAD the power to do it. It would have been political suicide. However it does play well to a certain demographic of theirs. They play this populist crap now that they KNOW it won't go anywhere so they can drum up support and try to get momentum going in 2016, and you'll all be frothing at the mouth and lining up to vote for whichever candidate jumps on this bandwagon.

And even IF they win, it still won't get done and for the same reasons they never did it to begin with.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Seems to me if they really wanted to help the poor or middle class they would FIX OUR MONEY.

I think the country needs more rich people.

When did poor, and middle class become career choices.

Wealth gets created by using investment vehicles, and that's Wall Street, and them evil bankers.

I honestly do not get their thinking.

Taxes on fiat money.

The less value the dollar has the more taxes get raised.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: stosh64

Agreed. But I think we lose even when they're not talking.

They have proven time and time again they're not capable of handling the money they're given in a professional manner, an extra hundred billion won't set them straight, they'll squander it like they usually do.

Good point, thank you

a reply to: Jamie1

NVM.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: NavyDoc

Seems to me if they really wanted to help the poor or middle class the would FIX OUR MONEY.

And that is THE root of the problem. This mess was inevitable when we handed control our currency to a private bank.

The fiat Ponzi scheme will crash on itself eventually, then maybe those who survive can learn from our mistakes.

My fear is that after the dust settles the same puppet masters will emerge from their holes and implement their new global plan.

a reply to: stosh64

Well I guess the DEMOCRATS should not have created it then eh.

Second verse same as the first verse with the third verse saying:

Oy vey.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Show me a socialist country that has a thriving middle class.

Ever hear of a country called Sweden? Today, Sweden, along with the rest of Scandinavia, is among the leaders in terms of quality of life, enjoys one of the world’s highest GDPs, and not surprisingly, continually ranks as having the happiest people on the planet.

What awesome idea. That would save the U.S. economy. Of course the republicans won't allow that.