Here's What's in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 - page 4

by Joe V Admin

2,187 Unique Views | 41 Comments

In this new White House White Board, Brian Deese, the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, explains what the new agreement to extend tax cuts for the middle class means for the economy and how it met President... Read More


  1. 0
    I agree. The flat tax would be the way to go.
    Quote from msn10


    Years ago, I believe that was the case as well. People had pride and going on government assistance was an embarrassment to many. I too spent my bedside nursing days in an inner city hospital in the most dangerous city in the state. I saw everything, more than most people should. I saw victims of poverty and horrible crimes, and I had no problem helping them as much as I could.

    However, in today's world I believe we are seeing more takers than makers. I am not talking about hospital patients. No matter what brings them there, I will take care of them. Rather, I am talking about our society as a whole. Who do we want to be as a nation? What do we want to teach our children? We need to promote upward mobility, not dependence. There are too many people who do know how to work the system now, and yes, not all of them are poor. We cannot just keep raising taxes, extending unemployment indefinitely, and writing out stimulus checks. We need to cut spending and cut off the unscrupulous takers. We need to jail some bankers and allow small businesses to hire without a mountain of mandates. The rise in taxes is not affecting the multibillionaires in this country, their accountants will make sure of that. But when we start telling ourselves that those that make over $200,000 are 'rich' then we do not understand the system. IMHO we should have a 15% flat tax without deductions. It would fairer across the board.


  2. 1
    The union did Hostess in not the CEO. They were being unreasonable so the company went belly up.
    Quote from aknottedyarn
    I would like to see the top figure cut off for Social Security much higher. Just over $100,00 is not the same as even a few years ago. With CEOs making millions, and in some cases sucking the life out of a company and emptying the retirements of employees (think Twinkies) it does not make sense to give them a break. They have already taken from the people who will need SS in the future.

    I think $200,000 is more in line with today's pay of the upper end of workers.
    HM-8404 likes this.
  3. 1
    I certainly do not think $200,000 is "rich". It is richer than those earning $100,000 and they do not pay an equal percentage of that income in SS.

    I do think corporations can be very rich and still pay no taxes, in fact be given fantastic treatment by our government. I would not want a flat tax. We know that this would be an unfair burden on those who are poor. Many cannot make more. Not everyone is set up to be an educational whiz kid. We do not pay some jobs well even though we have high expectations for those positions. A grocery bagger does not make a great deal. Perhaps this is the highest level of position he/she is capable of getting. We expect our milk not to be placed with laundry detergent. We expect our eggs to not get broken. Perhaps it is not as difficult a job as balancing a budget for an oil company to know what to say to maximize government contributions while maximizing contributions to specific legislators. If you have ever gotten home with broken eggs you can appreciate the bagger a great deal more. If your taxes just went up and you realize these same oil companies are paying little or no tax, have lied continuously about fracking, and try to stop development of solar energy, well, you might be willing to look at alternatives other than increasing taxes to the poor while these others skate free.
    herring_RN likes this.
  4. 1
    Quote from 22gawhitacre
    The union did Hostess in not the CEO. They were being unreasonable so the company went belly up.
    Look again. The CEO's, the last 5-6 have sucked every last penny they could out of the retirement and blamed it on the union who gave and gave.Union Claims Hostess Executives Received Raises In Advance Of Bankruptcy (CORRECTION)
    Hostess CEO to receive $1.95M in pay following liquidation, Slate says | al.com
    tewdles likes this.
  5. 0
    I would not want a flat tax. We know that this would be an unfair burden on those who are poor. Many cannot make more. Not everyone is set up to be an educational whiz kid. We do not pay some jobs well even though we have high expectations for those positions. A grocery bagger does not make a great deal
    The flat tax that was proposed was for those making over $50,000 per year. Those under that salary would not pay any FIT.
  6. 0
    Quote from aknottedyarn
    Look again. The CEO's, the last 5-6 have sucked every last penny they could out of the retirement and blamed it on the union who gave and gave.Union Claims Hostess Executives Received Raises In Advance Of Bankruptcy (CORRECTION)
    Hostess CEO to receive $1.95M in pay following liquidation, Slate says | al.com
    It's irrelevant. The fact is the union caused it and that is the end of the story. They got greedy and now they have nothing and I have little sympathy for the workers. They deserve what they got. The company told them they were gonna liquidate if they did not accept the agreement.
  7. 1
    Quote from 22gawhitacre
    It's irrelevant. The fact is the union caused it and that is the end of the story. They got greedy and now they have nothing and I have little sympathy for the workers. They deserve what they got. The company told them they were gonna liquidate if they did not accept the agreement.
    Obviously you do not follow a story over time. If you did you would know more of the story. This story goes about over 30 years. Management had been abysmal and never got better or updated as tastes changed. Workers do not make management decisions. They had to follow the plans of the CEOs. Of course the CEOs changed more often than most people get their teeth cleaned. The management and the company would like you to believe it was the fault of the workers. There are somethings that cannot be tolerated. Continued theft of the retirement funds to fund CEOs golden parachutes while telling workers that could not afford anything to help workers had to have some effects.
    herring_RN likes this.
  8. 0
    Somewhere in that 30 years the economy wasn't as bad as it is now and those workers could have chosen to find different employment.
  9. 0
    they should have sought employment elsewhere then if they thought they were getting a raw deal for 30 years. The purpose of a business is not to provide jobs but to make a profit.
    Quote from aknottedyarn
    Obviously you do not follow a story over time. If you did you would know more of the story. This story goes about over 30 years. Management had been abysmal and never got better or updated as tastes changed. Workers do not make management decisions. They had to follow the plans of the CEOs. Of course the CEOs changed more often than most people get their teeth cleaned. The management and the company would like you to believe it was the fault of the workers. There are somethings that cannot be tolerated. Continued theft of the retirement funds to fund CEOs golden parachutes while telling workers that could not afford anything to help workers had to have some effects.
  10. 2
    Quote from 22gawhitacre
    they should have sought employment elsewhere then if they thought they were getting a raw deal for 30 years. The purpose of a business is not to provide jobs but to make a profit.
    The CEO didn't tell the workers their money was being diverted.

    Daily Kos: Hostess took workers' pension money to fund itself
    tewdles and aknottedyarn like this.


Top