President-Obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class

[francoHFW]

will Obama be willing to compromise on
xl pipeline
immigration
ACA
just to name a few or are you dimwits proposing that Obama is the only branch of the federal govt that should have any say in governance?

Corporate America is seeing record profits, yet they are not including their employed wage earners in the financial end of their success. It's so obvious, it baffles one's mind how you came to such an outlandish conclusion.
You are talking about trickle down which hasn't worked. You say welfare hasn't worked, What does welfare have to do with working wage earners? They are earning their wages, they are not sitting on their ass looking for a hand out. Or is it that workers deserving to be rewarded for the contribution to a company's success now welfare?
View attachment 36010

What is it about supply and demand of economics do you not understand. A glut of workers will hold wages down, when labor is in demand wages go up. You don't like what a company pays, go elsewhere and see if your more valuable to another company, but don't expect a company to pay you more than your worth just because you show up.

It seems that you don't understand supply and demand. The demand factor means that the consumer needs money to supply the demand factor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why America’s Struggling Middle Class Has Businesses Scared
The decline of the U.S. middle class has corporate America and Wall Street scared. And nobody is more frightened than America’s biggest retailers.
Five years after the 2001 recession ended, real retail spending per person had climbed 7 percent above its prerecession level. More than five years after the end of the Great Recession—August 2014—retail spending per person had finally reached its prerecession level.
Former Walmart U.S. CEO Bill Simon, whose company had seen consumer traffic drop for six straight quarters and same-store sales drop for five quarters, explained in July 2014 that “we’ve reached a point where it’s not getting any better but it’s not getting any worse—at least for the middle (class) and down.” Kip Tindell, CEO of the Container Store, put retailers’ feelings best when he said, “consistent with so many of our fellow retailers, we are experiencing a retail ‘funk.’”
The culprit is obvious: low wage and income growth for the middle class. Median household income in 2013 stood 8 percentage points below its 2007 prerecession level. The simple fact of the matter is that when households do not have money, retailers do not have customers. The failure of incomes to keep up with the growing cost of college, child care, and other middle-class staples leaves even less money for retail spending. A previous analysis by the Center for American Progress shows that this so-called “middle-class squeeze”—stagnant incomes and the growing cost of middle-class security—leaves the median married couple with two kids with $5,500 less to spend annually on food, clothes, and other essentials that retailers sell.
Retailer Revelations Center for American Progress

Yep I saw a story on Kip Tindell this morning, he decided he was going to buck the successful retail model and his company is paying the price for his ignorance. But your article brings back my point about manufacturing. An economy that is 80% dependent on consumerism is unsustainable because manufacturing is where the high wage jobs are. A good welder will make 5 times the wage of a retail clerk.

So why do Pubs block a GOOD jobs/infrastructure act, training for 3 million GOOD tech jobs going begging, cheap college loans, etc etc etc etc. A-hole Pubs and silly dupes who can't see the forest for the bs trees.

**** you and your cheap college loans, I'm damned tried of subsidizing other peoples kids. You want cheaper college pressure colleges to lower their tuition, they go up 2-3 times the inflation rate.

That too. But loan costs are way too high. A scandal. Public college costs doubled just under W. You didn't mind when you and your kids were subsidized and our country wasn't a Reaganist wreck, angry white brainwashed functional A-HOLE/MORON.

 

[OKTexas]

Work, really? I've never seen an income cap for work, welfare and other government programs always have an income cap. You get a paycheck for work, no, this is welfare. just another name.

Here is a for sure with you tex. If Obama came out with a plan to cut the richest 1%s taxes to 5%, but the supporters of such a move had to suck the dick of a 1%er, you would be at the front of the line. Couldn't get there fast enough. Suck their dick and cut their taxes? You'd be in heaven wouldn't you.

The top half of earners pay 100% of income taxes but you want to send the bottom half who pay no income tax a check and not call it welfare. Welfare by any other name is still welfare. As for your snide remarks, **** off and die.

Pure Pubcrappe. Payroll taxes paid overwhelmingly by the nonrich are as much as fed income taxes now, and if you count ALL taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays 21%- and 95% of the wealth growth goes to the top 5%.

You're a brainwashed functional MORON.

I said income tax, do try to stay on point, idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

will Obama be willing to compromise on
xl pipeline
immigration
ACA
just to name a few or are you dimwits proposing that Obama is the only branch of the federal govt that should have any say in governance?

What is it about supply and demand of economics do you not understand. A glut of workers will hold wages down, when labor is in demand wages go up. You don't like what a company pays, go elsewhere and see if your more valuable to another company, but don't expect a company to pay you more than your worth just because you show up.

It seems that you don't understand supply and demand. The demand factor means that the consumer needs money to supply the demand factor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why America’s Struggling Middle Class Has Businesses Scared
The decline of the U.S. middle class has corporate America and Wall Street scared. And nobody is more frightened than America’s biggest retailers.
Five years after the 2001 recession ended, real retail spending per person had climbed 7 percent above its prerecession level. More than five years after the end of the Great Recession—August 2014—retail spending per person had finally reached its prerecession level.
Former Walmart U.S. CEO Bill Simon, whose company had seen consumer traffic drop for six straight quarters and same-store sales drop for five quarters, explained in July 2014 that “we’ve reached a point where it’s not getting any better but it’s not getting any worse—at least for the middle (class) and down.” Kip Tindell, CEO of the Container Store, put retailers’ feelings best when he said, “consistent with so many of our fellow retailers, we are experiencing a retail ‘funk.’”
The culprit is obvious: low wage and income growth for the middle class. Median household income in 2013 stood 8 percentage points below its 2007 prerecession level. The simple fact of the matter is that when households do not have money, retailers do not have customers. The failure of incomes to keep up with the growing cost of college, child care, and other middle-class staples leaves even less money for retail spending. A previous analysis by the Center for American Progress shows that this so-called “middle-class squeeze”—stagnant incomes and the growing cost of middle-class security—leaves the median married couple with two kids with $5,500 less to spend annually on food, clothes, and other essentials that retailers sell.
Retailer Revelations Center for American Progress

Yep I saw a story on Kip Tindell this morning, he decided he was going to buck the successful retail model and his company is paying the price for his ignorance. But your article brings back my point about manufacturing. An economy that is 80% dependent on consumerism is unsustainable because manufacturing is where the high wage jobs are. A good welder will make 5 times the wage of a retail clerk.

So why do Pubs block a GOOD jobs/infrastructure act, training for 3 million GOOD tech jobs going begging, cheap college loans, etc etc etc etc. A-hole Pubs and silly dupes who can't see the forest for the bs trees.

**** you and your cheap college loans, I'm damned tried of subsidizing other peoples kids. You want cheaper college pressure colleges to lower their tuition, they go up 2-3 times the inflation rate.

That too. But loan costs are way too high. A scandal. Public college costs doubled just under W. You didn't mind when you and your kids were subsidized and our country wasn't a Reaganist wreck, angry white brainwashed functional A-HOLE/MORON.

I don't have kids to be subsidized asshole, I made that decision more than 40 years ago when I foresaw the country turning into the progressive cesspool we have now. I figured it wouldn't fair to bring a child into the world you want. So **** off idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

Just who does Obama think he is.... Putin?

Does Putin help the middle class?

 

[Rozman]

Hush,hush....Obama's gonna make it all better.... lol

 

[francoHFW]

Work, really? I've never seen an income cap for work, welfare and other government programs always have an income cap. You get a paycheck for work, no, this is welfare. just another name.

Here is a for sure with you tex. If Obama came out with a plan to cut the richest 1%s taxes to 5%, but the supporters of such a move had to suck the dick of a 1%er, you would be at the front of the line. Couldn't get there fast enough. Suck their dick and cut their taxes? You'd be in heaven wouldn't you.

The top half of earners pay 100% of income taxes but you want to send the bottom half who pay no income tax a check and not call it welfare. Welfare by any other name is still welfare. As for your snide remarks, **** off and die.

Pure Pubcrappe. Payroll taxes paid overwhelmingly by the nonrich are as much as fed income taxes now, and if you count ALL taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays 21%- and 95% of the wealth growth goes to the top 5%.

You're a brainwashed functional MORON.

I said income tax, do try to stay on point, idiot.

Your point is disengenuous Pubcrappe, MORON, for the reasons I presented.

 

[OKTexas]

Work, really? I've never seen an income cap for work, welfare and other government programs always have an income cap. You get a paycheck for work, no, this is welfare. just another name.

Here is a for sure with you tex. If Obama came out with a plan to cut the richest 1%s taxes to 5%, but the supporters of such a move had to suck the dick of a 1%er, you would be at the front of the line. Couldn't get there fast enough. Suck their dick and cut their taxes? You'd be in heaven wouldn't you.

The top half of earners pay 100% of income taxes but you want to send the bottom half who pay no income tax a check and not call it welfare. Welfare by any other name is still welfare. As for your snide remarks, **** off and die.

Pure Pubcrappe. Payroll taxes paid overwhelmingly by the nonrich are as much as fed income taxes now, and if you count ALL taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays 21%- and 95% of the wealth growth goes to the top 5%.

You're a brainwashed functional MORON.

I said income tax, do try to stay on point, idiot.

Your point is disengenuous Pubcrappe, MORON, for the reasons I presented.

Bullshit, your the one being disingenuous (spelled correctly) by trying to divert the subject to payroll taxes. BTW the lower incomes should pay the lions share of payroll taxes because they get the most benefit from them.

 

[francoHFW]

Here is a for sure with you tex. If Obama came out with a plan to cut the richest 1%s taxes to 5%, but the supporters of such a move had to suck the dick of a 1%er, you would be at the front of the line. Couldn't get there fast enough. Suck their dick and cut their taxes? You'd be in heaven wouldn't you.

The top half of earners pay 100% of income taxes but you want to send the bottom half who pay no income tax a check and not call it welfare. Welfare by any other name is still welfare. As for your snide remarks, **** off and die.

Pure Pubcrappe. Payroll taxes paid overwhelmingly by the nonrich are as much as fed income taxes now, and if you count ALL taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays 21%- and 95% of the wealth growth goes to the top 5%.

You're a brainwashed functional MORON.

I said income tax, do try to stay on point, idiot.

Your point is disengenuous Pubcrappe, MORON, for the reasons I presented.

Bullshit, your the one being disingenuous (spelled correctly) by trying to divert the subject to payroll taxes. BTW the lower incomes should pay the lions share of payroll taxes because they get the most benefit from them.

What about the state and local taxes and fees that the nonrich pay much more of than the rich, and which go up when Fed taxes and aid goes down under Reaganism. What a scam...

So how did you like cheap college and loans when you were a kid, hypocrite hater dupe?

 

[Oldstyle]

You want the middle class to be revitalized, reduce taxes and regulations so companies can manufacture more in this country. As manufacturing goes so goes the middle class.

Corporate America is seeing record profits, yet they are not including their employed wage earners in the financial end of their success. It's so obvious, it baffles one's mind how you came to such an outlandish conclusion.
You are talking about trickle down which hasn't worked. You say welfare hasn't worked, What does welfare have to do with working wage earners? They are earning their wages, they are not sitting on their ass looking for a hand out. Or is it that workers deserving to be rewarded for the contribution to a company's success now welfare?
View attachment 36010

First of all, Kiwi...when you use the term "trickle down" you immediately send the message that you are totally ignorant about economics and business in general. There is no such thing...it's a term used by progressives to mock supply side economics. Profits trickle up...not down! Employed wage earners get paid their wage whether a profit is made or not...they don't make what is left over after companies take what they see fit.

 

[OKTexas]

The top half of earners pay 100% of income taxes but you want to send the bottom half who pay no income tax a check and not call it welfare. Welfare by any other name is still welfare. As for your snide remarks, **** off and die.

Pure Pubcrappe. Payroll taxes paid overwhelmingly by the nonrich are as much as fed income taxes now, and if you count ALL taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays 21%- and 95% of the wealth growth goes to the top 5%.

You're a brainwashed functional MORON.

I said income tax, do try to stay on point, idiot.

Your point is disengenuous Pubcrappe, MORON, for the reasons I presented.

Bullshit, your the one being disingenuous (spelled correctly) by trying to divert the subject to payroll taxes. BTW the lower incomes should pay the lions share of payroll taxes because they get the most benefit from them.

What about the state and local taxes and fees that the nonrich pay much more of than the rich, and which go up when Fed taxes and aid goes down under Reaganism. What a scam...

So how did you like cheap college and loans when you were a kid, hypocrite hater dupe?

Your first sentence makes no sense, the rich pay much more in state and local taxes and I got my education through the sweat of my brow, I got no help, but I paid extra taxes all my working life to subsidize others crumb snatchers.

 

[kiwiman127]

You want the middle class to be revitalized, reduce taxes and regulations so companies can manufacture more in this country. As manufacturing goes so goes the middle class.

Corporate America is seeing record profits, yet they are not including their employed wage earners in the financial end of their success. It's so obvious, it baffles one's mind how you came to such an outlandish conclusion.
You are talking about trickle down which hasn't worked. You say welfare hasn't worked, What does welfare have to do with working wage earners? They are earning their wages, they are not sitting on their ass looking for a hand out. Or is it that workers deserving to be rewarded for the contribution to a company's success now welfare?
View attachment 36010

First of all, Kiwi...when you use the term "trickle down" you immediately send the message that you are totally ignorant about economics and business in general. There is no such thing...it's a term used by progressives to mock supply side economics. Profits trickle up...not down! Employed wage earners get paid their wage whether a profit is made or not...they don't make what is left over after companies take what they see fit.

Actually Oldstyle, I use trickle down for a good reason.
It seems every solution for lifting the Middle Class up that is offered from the right, involves helping the groups that are financially superior to the Middle Class. That is because in theory, when those groups are helped and gain more wealth, then those groups will help the Middle Class (create more jobs/raise wages). Wouldn't that involve trickle down?
There was a time when businesses did reward their employees because the business had good earning. What was that?
Look at the graph below. We see in earlier years companies compensated their employees much more generously than they do now, That was trickle down. Note that this trend reversed itself. That is the trickle up you mentioned. One can certainly see when things changed.
"Employed wage earners get paid their wage whether a profit is made or not...they don't make what is left over after companies take what they see fit" If there are no profits, companies downsize or cut hours of their workforce, it's against the law not to pay their workers.
By the way, when I went to college where I got my degree in Business Administration and Marketing, I did take three quarters of econ. I was also a General Manager of a chain of men's clothing stores. When business was good, the employees were rewarded either by raises or by bonuses.. The saying "a happy employee is a good employee" is true in my book. When business was soft, we worked with fewer employees.
Anyway, take a look at the graph, it says a lot.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually, the nonrich pay about 12% of their income in state and local taxes, the richest about 6%. And fees hit the nonrich much harder, and you may have noticed they've gotten ridiculous under Reaganism the last 30 years too.

 

[rightwinger]

Love to see Teapublicans make a stand now on why they need to protect the rich and block a program that helps the middle class

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, the nonrich pay about 12% of their income in state and local taxes, the richest about 6%. And fees hit the nonrich much harder, and you may have noticed they've gotten ridiculous under Reaganism the last 30 years too.

A greater percentage does not equate to more, hater dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

It does in this case duh. And per capita is how you do this- unless you're just trying to cheat people...like your heroes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, the nonrich pay about 12% of their income in state and local taxes, the richest about 6%. And fees hit the nonrich much harder, and you may have noticed they've gotten ridiculous under Reaganism the last 30 years too.

the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and 50% of most state taxes. This means that many of our nation's most productive people see their investment capital wasted by liberal govt. This leads to slow growth!!

 

[francoHFW]

link, troll?

 

[Mr Natural]

Yeah, by sticking it to the wealthy and heirs to the wealthy.

Don't those poor people endure enough already as it is?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

link, troll?

dear look it up with Google. Its easy

the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and 50% of most state taxes. This means that many of our nation's most productive people see their investment capital wasted by liberal govt. This leads to slow growth!!

 

[Oldstyle]

You want the middle class to be revitalized, reduce taxes and regulations so companies can manufacture more in this country. As manufacturing goes so goes the middle class.

Corporate America is seeing record profits, yet they are not including their employed wage earners in the financial end of their success. It's so obvious, it baffles one's mind how you came to such an outlandish conclusion.
You are talking about trickle down which hasn't worked. You say welfare hasn't worked, What does welfare have to do with working wage earners? They are earning their wages, they are not sitting on their ass looking for a hand out. Or is it that workers deserving to be rewarded for the contribution to a company's success now welfare?
View attachment 36010

First of all, Kiwi...when you use the term "trickle down" you immediately send the message that you are totally ignorant about economics and business in general. There is no such thing...it's a term used by progressives to mock supply side economics. Profits trickle up...not down! Employed wage earners get paid their wage whether a profit is made or not...they don't make what is left over after companies take what they see fit.

Actually Oldstyle, I use trickle down for a good reason.
It seems every solution for lifting the Middle Class up that is offered from the right, involves helping the groups that are financially superior to the Middle Class. That is because in theory, when those groups are helped and gain more wealth, then those groups will help the Middle Class (create more jobs/raise wages). Wouldn't that involve trickle down?
There was a time when businesses did reward their employees because the business had good earning. What was that?
Look at the graph below. We see in earlier years companies compensated their employees much more generously than they do now, That was trickle down. Note that this trend reversed itself. That is the trickle up you mentioned. One can certainly see when things changed.
"Employed wage earners get paid their wage whether a profit is made or not...they don't make what is left over after companies take what they see fit" If there are no profits, companies downsize or cut hours of their workforce, it's against the law not to pay their workers.
By the way, when I went to college where I got my degree in Business Administration and Marketing, I did take three quarters of econ. I was also a General Manager of a chain of men's clothing stores. When business was good, the employees were rewarded either by raises or by bonuses.. The saying "a happy employee is a good employee" is true in my book. When business was soft, we worked with fewer employees.
Anyway, take a look at the graph, it says a lot.
View attachment 36020

I'm curious then, Kiwiman...when business was bad did you tell your employees that they had to give back part of the wages that they made so that the corporation could maintain their profits? I'm guessing that was a no?

If there were no profits your employees still got paid. It's why the whole "trickle down" thing is laughably inaccurate. Profits trickle up. If I start a business, I have to pay for the space I'm going to run the business out of...I have to hire and train my staff...I have to pay for advertising to let the public know that I exist...I have to buy the raw materials to make my product or perform my service. I have to get permits and licenses from various governmental entities before they'll let me open the doors. All this takes place before the first dollar comes back into the business. I'm risking large amounts of capital on the anticipation of making a profit. So where is it that your supposed "trickle down" takes place?