Middle class tax breaks?

[The Rabbi]

In the mean time, it looks like all kinds of lawsuits are being leveled against firms that engage in it.

Yeah, lots of stupid lawsuits out there, so what?

I'm trying to figure out why an average guy like you would suck the dicks of the Wall Street scum. Still have aspirations?

You poor girl. Don't cry.

Let me see if I understand the right wing thought process here. 1) There's a lot of money in being a thieving bastard. 2) We don't want to lose high paying jobs in this country. Therefore, we'd better bend over backwards to retain the thieving bastards.

There's a lot of money in being a lobbyist too. Shall we bend over backwards to keep them as well?

See, the basic issue here is you dont understand the function of the financial industry in this country. To you, they're all "thieving bastards" who sit around and think of ways to screw people. That is 180degrees from the truth. And while there are some thieves and unethical people please show me the business that is free of such folks.
If you actually understand what people on Wall St do you wouldnt have that attitude. Of course if you understood that you'd probably be a Republican.

Granted, I don't have an extremely high opinion of Wall Street types but this discussion started with high frequency trading which is the raison d'être for the transaction tax. Would you care to try and defend that?

Defend high frequency trading? Why does it need defending? Is there something illegal about it?

 

[kiwiman127]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

excuse me...do the math.....it is proposed as a revenue neutral tax credit...so if they are giving every household of $1.00 income to $200,000 income a $2,000 tax credit....we are talking about a shitload of money from those fees. They will not be negligible.

Do you have any idea of the frequency and magnitude of the high frequency trading on Wall Street? That's also a shitload of money. I've been waiting to see something like this for a long time.

And who do you think they are trading for?
Pensions, IRA's, Stock portfolios.....

The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well.

And that 2,000 will be offset for most of them.

It is another entitlement for the lower class....and I have no issue with that.....but don't call it a tax break for the middle class.

=============================================
The study broadly examines how American households are faring in relation to retirement savings targets recommended by some financial services firms. It uses the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all U.S. households age 25 to 64, not just those with retirement account assets. This is important because some 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets.
The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households
The findings confirm that the American Dream of retiring comfortably after a lifetime of work will be impossible for many. Based on 401(k)–type account and IRA balances alone, some 92 percent of working households do not meet conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income. Even when counting their entire net worth, 65 percent still fall short.
National Institute on Retirement - The Retirement Savings Crisis Is It Worse Than We Think
So, the concept that the middle class is a player on Wall Street isn't quite reality.
I think it's safe to say that long term flat wages has much to do with this.
Did someone mention class warfare?

 

[The Rabbi]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

excuse me...do the math.....it is proposed as a revenue neutral tax credit...so if they are giving every household of $1.00 income to $200,000 income a $2,000 tax credit....we are talking about a shitload of money from those fees. They will not be negligible.

Do you have any idea of the frequency and magnitude of the high frequency trading on Wall Street? That's also a shitload of money. I've been waiting to see something like this for a long time.

And who do you think they are trading for?
Pensions, IRA's, Stock portfolios.....

The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well.

And that 2,000 will be offset for most of them.

It is another entitlement for the lower class....and I have no issue with that.....but don't call it a tax break for the middle class.

=============================================
The study broadly examines how American households are faring in relation to retirement savings targets recommended by some financial services firms. It uses the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all U.S. households age 25 to 64, not just those with retirement account assets. This is important because some 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets.
The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households
The findings confirm that the American Dream of retiring comfortably after a lifetime of work will be impossible for many. Based on 401(k)–type account and IRA balances alone, some 92 percent of working households do not meet conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income. Even when counting their entire net worth, 65 percent still fall short.
National Institute on Retirement - The Retirement Savings Crisis Is It Worse Than We Think
So, the concept that the middle class is a player on Wall Street is quite reality.
I think it's safe to say that long term flat wages has much to do with this.
Did someone mention class warfare?View attachment 35947

You are such a numbskull.
I want you to explain how your post and the graphs is in any way responsive to what Jarhead wrote. Go ahead. Make my day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds like a good idea. We want a larger middle class, right?

Yes, eliminating good paying jobs is a great way to expand the middle class. LOL!

Honestly, how is giving a tax break to hard working middle class people = a destroyer of jobs?

It isn't like the rich 1% makes many jobs in this country.

Putting a 0.1% transaction tax on financial services will kill jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

excuse me...do the math.....it is proposed as a revenue neutral tax credit...so if they are giving every household of $1.00 income to $200,000 income a $2,000 tax credit....we are talking about a shitload of money from those fees. They will not be negligible.

Do you have any idea of the frequency and magnitude of the high frequency trading on Wall Street? That's also a shitload of money. I've been waiting to see something like this for a long time.

And who do you think they are trading for?
Pensions, IRA's, Stock portfolios.....

The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well.

And that 2,000 will be offset for most of them.

It is another entitlement for the lower class....and I have no issue with that.....but don't call it a tax break for the middle class.

=============================================
The study broadly examines how American households are faring in relation to retirement savings targets recommended by some financial services firms. It uses the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all U.S. households age 25 to 64, not just those with retirement account assets. This is important because some 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets.
The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households
The findings confirm that the American Dream of retiring comfortably after a lifetime of work will be impossible for many. Based on 401(k)–type account and IRA balances alone, some 92 percent of working households do not meet conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income. Even when counting their entire net worth, 65 percent still fall short.
National Institute on Retirement - The Retirement Savings Crisis Is It Worse Than We Think
So, the concept that the middle class is a player on Wall Street is quite reality.
I think it's safe to say that long term flat wages has much to do with this.
Did someone mention class warfare?View attachment 35947

the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households

It is harder to save when the Federal government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for Social Security.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok. I pay 35% Income tax, a Family member With 50% more Income than me only pay 20% Income tax due to deductions. It all makes one hell of a mess that requires a huge bureaucracy to administer and here you get to the root of the problem. We will never see a flat tax or elimination of income tax in favor of just a consumption tax because the special interest of the huge unions that depend on chaos in order to have jobs are dependent on the tax code to be as complex as possible just as Lawyers vote democrat because they depend on the Law to be as complex as possible.

Ok. I pay 35% Income tax

What's your gross income?

 

[suplex3000]

Ok. I pay 35% Income tax

What's your gross income?

Sorry, I can't tell you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok. I pay 35% Income tax

What's your gross income?

Sorry, I can't tell you

I find your claim difficult to believe.
Why can't you tell me?

 

[kiwiman127]

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

excuse me...do the math.....it is proposed as a revenue neutral tax credit...so if they are giving every household of $1.00 income to $200,000 income a $2,000 tax credit....we are talking about a shitload of money from those fees. They will not be negligible.

Do you have any idea of the frequency and magnitude of the high frequency trading on Wall Street? That's also a shitload of money. I've been waiting to see something like this for a long time.

And who do you think they are trading for?
Pensions, IRA's, Stock portfolios.....

The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well.

And that 2,000 will be offset for most of them.

It is another entitlement for the lower class....and I have no issue with that.....but don't call it a tax break for the middle class.

=============================================
The study broadly examines how American households are faring in relation to retirement savings targets recommended by some financial services firms. It uses the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all U.S. households age 25 to 64, not just those with retirement account assets. This is important because some 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets.
The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households
The findings confirm that the American Dream of retiring comfortably after a lifetime of work will be impossible for many. Based on 401(k)–type account and IRA balances alone, some 92 percent of working households do not meet conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income. Even when counting their entire net worth, 65 percent still fall short.
National Institute on Retirement - The Retirement Savings Crisis Is It Worse Than We Think
So, the concept that the middle class is a player on Wall Street is quite reality.
I think it's safe to say that long term flat wages has much to do with this.
Did someone mention class warfare?View attachment 35947

You are such a numbskull.
I want you to explain how your post and the graphs is in any way responsive to what Jarhead wrote. Go ahead. Make my day.

Can't read again?
You do that often. It wasn't that long ago that you used a link that you thought would destroy my argument (re: Scott Walker) but your link solidified my point instead! I'm sorry, I never thanked you.
Now to your question, Clint.
Jarhead stated "The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well."
In the link which I quoted and I guess you either didn't read or you didn't understand, it was stated that "45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets." Thus, I simply pointed out that using general inclusive terminology was misleading.
My preface to the graph was directed not at Jarhead but to those posters who love to cry about "class warfare". It doesn't surprise me one bit that you didn't catch that one, that would be an example of true Rabbi-ism.

 

[suplex3000]

Ok. I pay 35% Income tax

What's your gross income?

Sorry, I can't tell you

I find your claim difficult to believe.
Why can't you tell me?

Company Confidential

 

[hipeter924]

'Influential Democrats are pushing a new plan to give middle-class Americans a big tax break, but only by imposing a new tax on Wall Street traders and other top earners -- drawing a rebuke from majority Republicans who say the proposal would hurt the economy.

"Our economy is still struggling to create jobs -- and the last thing we need is a new trillion-dollar tax hike added to the current broken tax code," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., unveiled the tax plan on Monday at the Center for American Progress.

His plan would give a tax credit of roughly $2,000 per year to middle-class families, reportedly defined as couples making under $200,000. According to The Washington Post, the windfall would add up to roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

However, to pay for the plan, Van Hollen wants to charge a fee on financial transactions, and curtail tax breaks for other top earners, effectively transferring wealth from Wall Street and beyond to everyone else. '
Dems pitch controversial plan to tax Wall Street to pay for new middle-class credit Fox News

If it was for the middle class they would define it as Couples above the poverty line to 200,000 a year but what I see is another give away to the non tax paying crowd. They may be selling it as middle class support but if it was true "middle class" support the cost would be half what they are stating!!

Van Hollen is a possible Democratic nomination contender, so he is probably just pitching to the Democratic base. Though whether he actually would push it, if he wins the nomination, is other thing altogether.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm trying to figure out why an average guy like you would suck the dicks of the Wall Street scum. Still have aspirations?

You poor girl. Don't cry.

Let me see if I understand the right wing thought process here. 1) There's a lot of money in being a thieving bastard. 2) We don't want to lose high paying jobs in this country. Therefore, we'd better bend over backwards to retain the thieving bastards.

There's a lot of money in being a lobbyist too. Shall we bend over backwards to keep them as well?

See, the basic issue here is you dont understand the function of the financial industry in this country. To you, they're all "thieving bastards" who sit around and think of ways to screw people. That is 180degrees from the truth. And while there are some thieves and unethical people please show me the business that is free of such folks.
If you actually understand what people on Wall St do you wouldnt have that attitude. Of course if you understood that you'd probably be a Republican.

Granted, I don't have an extremely high opinion of Wall Street types but this discussion started with high frequency trading which is the raison d'être for the transaction tax. Would you care to try and defend that?

Defend high frequency trading? Why does it need defending? Is there something illegal about it?

It's illegal in most countries and should be illegal here. That it isn't is one of the reasons I think Wall Street guys are scum.

 

[JoeNormal]

Sounds like a good idea. We want a larger middle class, right?

Yes, eliminating good paying jobs is a great way to expand the middle class. LOL!

Honestly, how is giving a tax break to hard working middle class people = a destroyer of jobs?

It isn't like the rich 1% makes many jobs in this country.

Putting a 0.1% transaction tax on financial services will kill jobs.

Where did that number come from? The proposal I saw was something like 0.00004 %

 

[The Rabbi]

excuse me...do the math.....it is proposed as a revenue neutral tax credit...so if they are giving every household of $1.00 income to $200,000 income a $2,000 tax credit....we are talking about a shitload of money from those fees. They will not be negligible.

Do you have any idea of the frequency and magnitude of the high frequency trading on Wall Street? That's also a shitload of money. I've been waiting to see something like this for a long time.

And who do you think they are trading for?
Pensions, IRA's, Stock portfolios.....

The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well.

And that 2,000 will be offset for most of them.

It is another entitlement for the lower class....and I have no issue with that.....but don't call it a tax break for the middle class.

=============================================
The study broadly examines how American households are faring in relation to retirement savings targets recommended by some financial services firms. It uses the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to analyze retirement plan participation, savings, and overall assets of all U.S. households age 25 to 64, not just those with retirement account assets. This is important because some 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets.
The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households
The findings confirm that the American Dream of retiring comfortably after a lifetime of work will be impossible for many. Based on 401(k)–type account and IRA balances alone, some 92 percent of working households do not meet conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income. Even when counting their entire net worth, 65 percent still fall short.
National Institute on Retirement - The Retirement Savings Crisis Is It Worse Than We Think
So, the concept that the middle class is a player on Wall Street is quite reality.
I think it's safe to say that long term flat wages has much to do with this.
Did someone mention class warfare?View attachment 35947

You are such a numbskull.
I want you to explain how your post and the graphs is in any way responsive to what Jarhead wrote. Go ahead. Make my day.

Can't read again?
You do that often. It wasn't that long ago that you used a link that you thought would destroy my argument (re: Scott Walker) but your link solidified my point instead! I'm sorry, I never thanked you.
Now to your question, Clint.
Jarhead stated "The middle class will be paying for it...so will the upper class.....but the middle class will be paying for it as well."
In the link which I quoted and I guess you either didn't read or you didn't understand, it was stated that "45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets." Thus, I simply pointed out that using general inclusive terminology was misleading.
My preface to the graph was directed not at Jarhead but to those posters who love to cry about "class warfare". It doesn't surprise me one bit that you didn't catch that one, that would be an example of true Rabbi-ism.

OK so the answer here is "No, I cannot explain how what I posted was in any way responsive to Jarhead's point."
Thanks for clearing that up. Another point of evidence you are a numbskull.

 

[The Rabbi]

You poor girl. Don't cry.

Let me see if I understand the right wing thought process here. 1) There's a lot of money in being a thieving bastard. 2) We don't want to lose high paying jobs in this country. Therefore, we'd better bend over backwards to retain the thieving bastards.

There's a lot of money in being a lobbyist too. Shall we bend over backwards to keep them as well?

See, the basic issue here is you dont understand the function of the financial industry in this country. To you, they're all "thieving bastards" who sit around and think of ways to screw people. That is 180degrees from the truth. And while there are some thieves and unethical people please show me the business that is free of such folks.
If you actually understand what people on Wall St do you wouldnt have that attitude. Of course if you understood that you'd probably be a Republican.

Granted, I don't have an extremely high opinion of Wall Street types but this discussion started with high frequency trading which is the raison d'être for the transaction tax. Would you care to try and defend that?

Defend high frequency trading? Why does it need defending? Is there something illegal about it?

It's illegal in most countries and should be illegal here. That it isn't is one of the reasons I think Wall Street guys are scum.

So there is no reason to defend it. Lots of things are illegal in other countries.Like denouncing Islam. SO what?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Last time the middle class got a tax break, it came from President Obama and the Rs fought against it. Anything good for the common man is against Repub "family values".

Instead, they want tax breaks for the most needy among us - the 1%.

I don't see anyone asking for tax breaks

Not increasing taxes is NOT a tax break

 

[The Rabbi]

Last time the middle class got a tax break, it came from President Obama and the Rs fought against it. Anything good for the common man is against Repub "family values".

Instead, they want tax breaks for the most needy among us - the 1%.

I don't see anyone asking for tax breaks

Not increasing taxes is NOT a tax break

If you believe the government is entitled to your money then allowing you to keep some is considered a tax break.
Of course 47% of workers pay no income tax, so a tax break is meaningless to them.

 

[zeke]

Of course 47% of workers pay no income tax, so a tax break is meaningless to them

And of course rabbit, you being in that 47% are speaking from personal experience. Right? You pay no income tax. How could a rabbit earn enough money to pay income tax? They can't and you don't.
Fucking moocher bunny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok. I pay 35% Income tax

What's your gross income?

Sorry, I can't tell you

I find your claim difficult to believe.
Why can't you tell me?

Company Confidential

I don't know your company. So spill it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Last time the middle class got a tax break, it came from President Obama and the Rs fought against it. Anything good for the common man is against Repub "family values".

Instead, they want tax breaks for the most needy among us - the 1%.

I don't see anyone asking for tax breaks

Not increasing taxes is NOT a tax break

If you believe the government is entitled to your money then allowing you to keep some is considered a tax break.
Of course 47% of workers pay no income tax, so a tax break is meaningless to them.

From the same minds that try to tell us that a smaller than planned increase in spending is a cut