Republican top priority.....Raise taxes on the poor

[Iceweasel]

The rich already pay a disproportionate amount of tax. So if you want more tax money (and what liberal doesn't?) guess where is coming from. You are blaming the wrong party.

 

[Redfish]

Keep the poor because they are poor? What a bunch of butt holes.

the number of americans below the poverty level has increased under obama's socialism. Also, the number of ultra rich has also increased under obama's socialism.

thats what socialism does. puts all of the money and power in the hands of very few.

and idiots like you want more of that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tie job growth and wage growth to all business welfare deductions.

 

[CowboyTed]

come on man, it's only ok to raise taxes on the "poor" when Democrats do it.


Single Largest Cigarette Tax Hike Goes Into Effect Wednesday
Published March 29, 2009
AP
Facebook200 Twitter2 livefyre0 Email Print
WASHINGTON -- However they satisfy their nicotine cravings, tobacco users are facing a big hit as the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.
Tobacco companies and public health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are trying to turn the situation to their advantage. The major cigarette makers raised prices a couple of weeks ago, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01.


Tobacco taxes are soaring to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. President Obama signed that health initiative soon after taking office.

all of it here:
Single Largest Cigarette Tax Hike Goes Into Effect Wednesday Fox News

And they still won't cover the extra Medical costs associated with Tobacco...

Hey Bum, pay your share...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep the poor because they are poor? What a bunch of butt holes.

the number of americans below the poverty level has increased under obama's socialism. Also, the number of ultra rich has also increased under obama's socialism.

thats what socialism does. puts all of the money and power in the hands of very few.

and idiots like you want more of that.

You are not fooling anyone, droid. Tie all corporate welfare deductions to job and wage growth and wage the economy take off.

 

[Redfish]

I don't have a problem with tying benefits to drug tests as long as they drug test those corporations that are receiving $440 billion
I don't want them blowing that money on drugs and hookers

Like Eric Holder's secret service?

Secret Service is Homeland Security

You people are so dense. The price increase would be small. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the raise in pay. That's ridiculous. The boost to consumer spending would also keep prices down. This it's hard to figure out.

so you think that giving 1% of the workforce a raise will boost the economy? Really? How much will the part time teens who lose their part time jobs spend? What will it cost the economy to have them roaming the streets instead of working?

you libs never think anything through to its logical conclusion. you are all about feeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooooootion.

Here's where facts always get you into trouble. The average age of a fast food worker these days is 29. Teens and adults are competing for the same jobs.

Adults who made poor life choices. Guess what? If you do manage to get a $15 an hour wage for fast food work, those people earning $8 an hour now will get to be unemployed, because you will attract a higher quality of worker, and given a choice an employer will get more value whenever they can.

of course, higher wages attract more qualified people and the job can be done with fewer workers. So the bottom feeders that the libs are trying to help will remain on the bottom and more dependent on govt hand outs

Keep paying low wages kiddos and they will remain there.

OMG, are you really that stupid? if you want out of poverty------WORK, EDUCATE YOURSELF, LEARN A SKILL, MAKE YOURSELF MORE VALUABLE TO AN EMPLOYER. Don't beg like a stupid slug.

 

[martybegan]

I don't have a problem with tying benefits to drug tests as long as they drug test those corporations that are receiving $440 billion
I don't want them blowing that money on drugs and hookers

Like Eric Holder's secret service?

Secret Service is Homeland Security

You people are so dense. The price increase would be small. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the raise in pay. That's ridiculous. The boost to consumer spending would also keep prices down. This it's hard to figure out.

so you think that giving 1% of the workforce a raise will boost the economy? Really? How much will the part time teens who lose their part time jobs spend? What will it cost the economy to have them roaming the streets instead of working?

you libs never think anything through to its logical conclusion. you are all about feeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooooootion.

Here's where facts always get you into trouble. The average age of a fast food worker these days is 29. Teens and adults are competing for the same jobs.

Adults who made poor life choices. Guess what? If you do manage to get a $15 an hour wage for fast food work, those people earning $8 an hour now will get to be unemployed, because you will attract a higher quality of worker, and given a choice an employer will get more value whenever they can.

of course, higher wages attract more qualified people and the job can be done with fewer workers. So the bottom feeders that the libs are trying to help will remain on the bottom and more dependent on govt hand outs

Keep paying low wages kiddos and they will remain there.

pay them wages above their work and they will never leave there.

If the best you can do or want to do is work at a McDonalds as an entry level worker and you are not mentally challenged, then you don't deserve a higher wage.

 

[Redfish]

Keep the poor because they are poor? What a bunch of butt holes.

the number of americans below the poverty level has increased under obama's socialism. Also, the number of ultra rich has also increased under obama's socialism.

thats what socialism does. puts all of the money and power in the hands of very few.

and idiots like you want more of that.

You are not fooling anyone, droid. Tie all corporate welfare deductions to job and wage growth and wage the economy take off.

ok asshole, give us a list of "corporate welfare deductions" and then tell us which party was in power when they were made law.

 

[BlackSand]

Keep paying low wages kiddos and they will remain there.

Minimum wage will always be the lowest wage ... Paid to the lowest skilled employees ... No matter how else you may want to define it. Paying minimum wage workers more will never make them more skilled ... Nor make them anything other than the bottom of the wage earner barrel.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

 

[Redfish]

Keep paying low wages kiddos and they will remain there.

Minimum wage will always be the lowest wage ... Paid to the lowest skilled employees ... No matter how else you may want to define it. Paying minimum wage workers more will never make them more skilled ... Nor make them anything other than the bottom of the wage earner barrel.

.

yes, and the lib myth that anyone is working their entire life and supporting a family on a minimum wage job is just that, a myth.

 

[Redfish]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

still waiting for you to define "corporate welfare" and tell us which party made it law.

 

[BlackSand]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

Eliminate corporate welfare ... And encourage low wage earners to acquire more skills and improve their own well being.

.

 

[Redfish]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

Eliminate corporate welfare ... And encourage low wage earners to acquire more skills and improve their own well being.

.

what corporate welfare would you eliminate? be specific.

 

[BlackSand]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

Eliminate corporate welfare ... And encourage low wage earners to acquire more skills and improve their own well being.

.

what corporate welfare would you eliminate? be specific.

Tax breaks for corporations (wrought with abuse due to fact the official agencies are poor negotiators) in regards to establishing new facilities.

Equipment Subsidies for corporations to secure more resources and drive corporate initiatives.

Government funding and policy decisions that support corporate activity for political purposes.

Manufacturing subsidies to control market conditions that would be better controlled by the market with less abuse in regards to political corruption.

.

 

[TooTall]

What happened when Bush cut those corporate rates?

Did they respond with more jobs? No, they just kept the extra money

How about it Republicans? Where do we we make up for the lost $440 Billion in lost revenue? You can tell us
Take the money away from the poor

Once again you make assumptions (tell lies) that corporate tax cuts are ONLY intended to create jobs, that jobs weren't created under Bush, and that the economy after 9/11 existed in a vacuum. I know your plan isn't to learn the truth about any of this....only to reinforce the false narrative you Rats thrive on hoping your targets are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves.....most are.

Very few jobs were created under Bush. That's the point. He has one of the worst job creation reputation in American history despite his awful tax cuts.

Just about everyone that wanted a job had one when Bush was President.

 

[Redfish]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

Eliminate corporate welfare ... And encourage low wage earners to acquire more skills and improve their own well being.

.

what corporate welfare would you eliminate? be specific.

Tax breaks for corporations (wrought with abuse due to fact the official agencies are poor negotiators) in regards to establishing new facilities.

Equipment Subsidies for corporations to secure more resources and drive corporate initiatives.

Government funding and policy decisions that support corporate activity for political purposes.

Manufacturing subsidies to control market conditions that would be better controlled by the market with less abuse in regards to political corruption.

.

Ok, lets review

tax breaks for new facilities-----------are you speaking about depreciation deductions? energy development deductions? These were put in place by federal and local govts to encourage job growth, how is that bad?

Equipment subsidies-----------------what corporate equipment is subsidized? you do know what the word 'subsidy' means don't you?

political paybacks i.e. legal bribery---------we agree

manufacturing subsidies--------------like farm subsidies? paying farmers to let their land sit idle? if thats what you are talking about we agree.

 

[TooTall]

Let them find their own jobs. Why is it always someone else's place to do for the leeches what they should be doing for themselves? Plenty of people, including myself, didn't expect someonen else to find us a job. Why are those people any different?

Who said they wouldn't?

What I am saying is that we need to be sure there are 30 million unfilled jobs out there before we pull away the safety net

Go ahead and show me the numbers

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of431,200 having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

$15 an hour comes to $31,200 a year for a 40 hour week. I have read on USMB that the poverty level is $45,000 a year for a family of four. If that is accurate, they would still get food stamps and all the other freebies the government gives out.

 

[TooTall]

It's not a safety net when it's a lifestyle where they can get more doing nothing than they could earn working based on the skills they offer. What we need to do is cut the net and let you self-proclaimed, good intentioned, do nothing bleeding hearts prove you have compassion by taking in and personally supporting anyone you say doens't have enough.

They aren't my responsibility to support.

It is a safety net where you work full time at some menial job and still require government assistance to survive. And yet, Republicans first order of business is to pull away that safety net

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

And what do those retired on fixed incomes do when the price of a McD's is doubled?

 

[TooTall]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

Obama is as determined to show that the GOP cannot govern and will never pass a bill in the House allowing illegal aliens permanent legal status as the GOP is determined to show it can govern while simultaneously not doing comprehensive immigration reform. It's on to 2016. )-:

I heard somewhere that the word 'comprehensive' stands for all the bad stuff in a bill.