Skip to comments.Pelosi: Tax rates must go up on rich
Posted on 11/18/2012 11:21:31 AM PST by Libloather
Pelosi: Tax rates must go up on rich
By SEUNG MIN KIM | 11/18/12 10:30 AM EST
The president made it very clear in his campaign that there is not enough -- there are not enough resources, Pelosi said in an interview aired Sunday on ABC's This Week.
Just to close loopholes is far too little money
If it's going to bring in revenue, the president has been very clear that the higher income people have to pay their fair share.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Yes, and I am so tired of hearing that “fair share” crap. It never ends with these people.
Does that tax increase include Pelosi?
And, when some disillusioned soul at CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central or the alphabet MSM finally wonders why, even when they took all the rich peoples’ incomes, it still isn’t enough even to cover the deficit what will they think? Take all their investments? How? Take their retirements? How do you single that out from the rest? Eggsackly, you don’t...be afraid, very afraid what they’ll end up doing to pay for that leech heifer you see in Walmart spending your money on ding dongs, beer, steaks, cheesedoodles and nachos...
There will be an accounting one day, I hope Old Nancy is still around to see it.
Go for it. Own it. Tax your stupid hollywood friends at 70%. Tax them all and see if it makes a dent. I couldn’t care less. I’ve been working 40 years, making the right choices. I just bought my retirement bunker and my husband and I set ourselves up with plenty of room for family if TSHTF. Going Galt at the end of 2013. Not subsidizing deadbeats any more. Don’t care what happens to any of them. I’m through catching that 6:30 a.m. train, commuting and stressing at work. For what? So obama can redistribute it to lazy deadbeats? As a baby boomer, I’m done.
Step #1 to fix the deficit...have the IRS seize all but $100,000 of the Pelosi *household’s* (husband *and* wife) net worth and *all* of that household’s gross income over $80K/yr...in perpetuity.Also,that household,in future can never have a net worth over $100K...anything in excess will be seized by the IRS.
Typically, if you were a rich guy and someone came up to legally take money from you...that means you don’t have as much to invest (in the stock market) or to spend (houses, cars, watches, art, etc). So you lessen your spending, and you lessen your investments, and you lessen your donations to charities. So the government ends up with less money in a year when they come around to collect again. And with charities having less, the needy will utterly dependent on the government resources. It’s a pretty logical assumption about where this goes next.
If you have a job. You must pay income tax. period. No getting more back than you paid in.
No W2 or 1099 from the year before? No vote.
The takers have taken over. At this point the only way I see to stop them from taking everything I have is to join them or cut back to the point where they get hardly a thing from me.
Since I won’t join um. Next year I am going to half my income. Means no vacations or newer cars.. But I don’t care. Eff the takers.
“...president has been very clear that the higher income people have to pay their fair share.
So, they should be getting a tax cut then.
Be careful of what you wish for , Nancy. A jury of your peers may one day conclude your "fair share" is down to the last dime.
when is the bottom of the income earners going to pay THEIR FAIR SHARE?!?!??!?!
It will go up on Jan. 2, for everyone.
the house and senate will exempt the political class, mafia bosses and the owners of the MSM of any new taxes they impose on the rest of Americans.
Says one of the richest Congress members. Somehow I doubt the increases will affect her bottom line.
But, of course, congress will be excluded, just like with all the other laws they’ve foisted upon us.
They'll follow their doctrine into oblivion, just like the Bakers Union did to Hostess. Atlas Shrugged provided a frighteningly accurate picture of our future.
She could support half the deficit just with the money she spends on botox.
You and your multi-multi-multi-multi millionaire husband FIRST, Nancy. We want to see YOUR tax returns as proof you paid YOUR FAIR SHARE as proof too!
Pelosi’s wealth should be confiscated. Why does SHE need tens of millions of dollars to live on when there are so many welfare babies, illegals wanting to go to law school and obamaphones to pay for.
The big mistake they made, the one the had to make, was allowing their constituency to be congregated together in a few small urban areas.
They are too dogmatic to stop what is coming; they’ll feed until they puke, or they gorge themselves, and their herd to apparent non-existence. It will then come to how long the government can sustain them in a SHTF situation. Based on Sandy, not very effing long. All we need to do is stay far away from them while they decimate themselves.
When you hear a liberal say “fair share”, first, get them to agree that everyone should pay their fair share. Then, ask them what percentage they think the “fair share” should be. If they obfuscate, push them for specifics.
Get a percentage for the lowest income earners and then get a percentage for the “1%”. I ask the question this way:
Ok, so you say fair share. What is their fair share? How much money do you want the federal government to be able to take from the People? 10%, 30% 50%? What is the maximum amount of money that the Federal government should be allowed to seize from their incomes?
Their answers are very revealing.
A 0.1 percenter lecturing the 1 percenters. OK....
Pelosi is dumb as a rock. Increasing taxes on the rich, and especially taxes on investment, does not increase government revenues.
Pelosi: “there are not enough resources”
It’s not resources, princess, it’s taxes. Why don’t you just come out and say it, you have an insatiable lust for more taxes on the productive class.
True. And has someone changed the definition of the word “fair”? Fair would be to treat all people equally, as in a national sales tax or flat tax.
This notion that a progressive tax code is somehow “fair” is based on the premise that the wealthy have attained said wealth by UNFAIR means.
That’s just it, Nancy, making rich people pay more than other people pay is not ‘their fair share’. There is nothing ‘fair’ about it, you twit.
Why do they let stupid people that lie on TV?
They can tax the rich 95 % and it will not make a slight dent in the deficit. In fact it won’t make any dent because once you give the Federal Government money they will find something to spend it on besides debt reduction. And reducing the debt is a losers game. You spend what you have and no more or you will ALWAYS HAVE DEBT.
How about giving members of congress the same health insurance as a business owner who pays for his own insurance? How about dropping the automatic inflation adjustment that they gave themselves and we don’t have?
Anybody that believes differently is in for a seriously hard time.
I've watched this unfold since growing up in Michigan and watching in amazement and disgust at how unions politicians, and crony capitalists formed an alliance to "get it while you can".
I've watched the economic bubbles get ever larger and more unstable.
I saw Katrina and Rita 1st hand - how in a heart beat the infrastructure and society collapses, and how helpless the urban masses are without someone else feeding and providing shelter for them.
Yep, we're one small shock away from the big SHTF event.
...to do so would be surrendering to Obama’s Marxist agenda of class warfare...
...we will know the RINOs from the conservatives if rate increases do pass the House.
No, Nancy. I want a wealth tax.
Let’s see 75% of your excessive wealth redistributed to the needy.
I want to see all the billionaires wealth taxed to give to the poor.
I want to see the millionaires in Hollywood taxed to support the needy.
Talk about giving up your unearned wealth, your rentier incomes and then we might get somewhere.
Pelosi and the other democrats in congress are the rentiers of Maxist fame.
Are her taxes going up?
“fair share” is nothing but communist agitprop meant to rile up the proletariat. What is fair about 50% of people not paying a DIME in federal tax? That is plainly immoral and is the real argument about fairness here.
It is disgusting that the president and minority leader/ex-Speaker continually resort to this.
Call her bluff. The Democrats know this won’t fix things. This is just more of their posturing.
“Look! Look Democrat voters! We are going to tax the rich and give it to you.”
Be my guest. Let’s see you do it.
Of course not. She's not rich, like the other millionaires, because you can't put a price tag on her "public service."
“the house and senate...”
“We’ll gonna need a longer wall.”
She is pushing for tax on millionaires but is pushing that closing the tax loop holes won’t bring in that much money. She is against closing the loop holes to protect she and her husband. Wonder what their tax rate is?
Good Nancy and I hope you are the first one that has to pay a big tax bill...... silly me you make the laws that protect all the leaders in Washington so not even you will get taxed big like you should. Just like with health care you all want to shove it down the Americans throats but you wont be covered under the same crappy health care you expect all of us to be under.
Nancy Pelosi is very, very , very, rich why do these rich democrats continue to attack the rich.
I guess she's crazy, but not stupid.
Regarding the rich paying taxes, consider that Thomas Jefferson had noted that, in his time, the rich uniquely paid the all the taxes that the feds needed to run the government.
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied (emphasis added). Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Also note that that most of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were wealthy, George Washington, the president of the Convention, actually one of the richest men in the country at that time. So when the rich delegates signed the Constitution they knew what they were getting themselves, their rich friends, and all other wealthy people in the country into.
However, and this is a big one, note that in the early days of the USA, Congress probably taxed and spended only for what it was authorized to do so under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. In fact, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, issues which Congress cannot justify under Section 8.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
As a side note to Gibbons, consider that Justice Marshall, I believe, had also clarified in Gibbons that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to make health-related laws.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphasis added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And since Justice Roberts referenced the Gibbons case in the Obamacare decision and decided for Obamacare regardless of Marshall's clarification that Congress has no constitutional authority to make health laws, we know that activist Roberts is probably working for Obama.
Getting back to Justice Marshall's clarification about Congress's limited power to lay taxes, a logical question for all taxpayers to ask concerning Section 8 is how much taxes should they be paying annually so that Congress can fulfill its Section 8 duties? Below is my rought estimate.
Given that the plurality of clauses in Secton 8 are defense related, and given that the Department of Defense (DoD) budget for 2011 was $600+ billion, I will generously round the DoD budget for '11 up to $1 trillion as a rought estimate, probably much lower, as to how much taxpayers should be paying Congress every year to run the federal government.
In other words, we shouldn't be hearing the multi-trillion dollar federal budgets that the corrupt media, including Fox News, are reporting while ignoring Congress Section 8-limited power to lay taxes in federal policy discussions.
And since this thread concerns millionaire Congressperson Nancy Pelosi, consider this. I'll bet that if she and her rich friends all the sudden got stuck with having to uniquely bear the burden of paying for the fedreal government to operate like the rich did in the early 19th century, that she'd become one of the loudest voices in getting Congress up to speed on Justice Marshall's clarificaton about Congress's Section 8-limited power to lay taxes.
This is all a smoke screen to distract people that the Democraps Tax & Spend policies have bankrupted this nation. You could take away all the money from everyone making over $250,000 and it would not pay the entire federal spending for the year.
2012 Federal Spending: $3.79 trillion.
2012 Incomes of those over $250,000: $1.3 trillion.
Obama and the Republican House still spend $2.5 trillion more than all those people make.
Are you delusional or something?
You know that she will be exempted from any tax increase on the rich.
I am still waiting for all those screaming rich Democrats and Libs to poney up on their own and pay more then they do- which they have screamed to high heaven, “I am willing to pay more”....Not one of those idiots has ponied up as of today. Remember Warren Buffett...Oh that is right, he is fighting the IRS saying what they want him to pay is not right..