• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pelosi on retirement income

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Read the last paragraph even if you skip the rest ~ this woman is a nut case!

Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening. Take special note of the last paragraph. Is she really this whacked out?

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401Ks, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever gets to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower income tax payers off the rolls and increase government income substantially." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied: "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."
 
her plan makes sence. take the money that AMERICANS who worked hard all thier life have EARNED. and then GIVE it to NON AMERICANS so they can live a comfortable life here with us.


why is no politician standing up to say no more free health care, if you can not speak English, go back to Mexico for your doctor.


we need a man who is an isolationist to run this nation. lock the damned country up, punch holes all over Alaska, and run our nation self sufficiently.

bust all these damned unions so we can build cheap stuff here, and tell China to stick it in thier ass.

and put the dollar back on the gold standard.
 
The LEFTWINGMOVEONORGDEMOCRATS will get back when Pekosi tells her sheeple what to say.
Flush.gif
 
Liberty Belle said:
Read the last paragraph even if you skip the rest ~ this woman is a nut case!

Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening. Take special note of the last paragraph. Is she really this whacked out?

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401Ks, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever gets to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower income tax payers off the rolls and increase government income substantially." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied: "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."

I will be glad to take this, Liberty Bell. Sorry I didn't read it before now, as most of the arguments over here happen to be a my team your team argument instead of merits of the arguments. I will have to say that mentality is fun, but it is below the discussion I generally like to participate in. I take exception sometimes, notably with mrj, because you have to argue with her in that way---she is so tribal.


Liberty Bell from the article: Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

No where did Pelosi suggest that retirements funds, and 401ks would not be taxable. In fact, she even suggested in your above quote:



LB from the article:We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower income tax payers off the rolls and increase government income substantially."

As you know, if you have ever done your own tax return and have a 401k or a retirement plan, these items are not currently taxable.

If for instance, you have 401Ks and Roth IRAs, you will know that these items are not taxed AT ALL. They grow tax free. There are limits to the amount of contributions that you can put in the not taxable part of these plans, and for almost all people, these plans include tax sheltered income that is below the "rich" definition.

I might also comment that "rich" people getting millions of dollars off of their investments per year have a lower tax rate than those only making, say a taxable amount of earned income of perhaps $100,000.

The reason is that earned income has to pay income taxes and the millions some of the wall streeters are making has been included in the capital gains tax rate, not the income tax rate. Thus, these "rich" people are paying a lower percentage of these large amounts than even the lower earned income people. It is a REGRESSIVE tax.

When you add on the Social Security tax, which is taxed on earnings below about $97,000.00, the disparity between what the super wealthy are paying on investment income as a percent compared to earned income is much larger. There is an additional amount of about 16 percent in SS taxes that is paid by earned income of amounts lower than the 97K.

As you know, stock market gains do not pay SS taxes because it isn't "earned" income, it is capital gains income (there are a few IRS definitions that come into play here but are almost always bypassed by the rich).

The U.S. deficit is defined as it is, namely that SS surplus is included as a positive. In other words, the "deficit" is actually much larger than is actually touted. The reason, of course, is that those putting money into the SS system give a loan to the operations of the government as a whole which is not included when calculating the "deficit". The money is spent by the government anyway, for the total operations of the government.

So you have "poorer" people paying higher taxes as a percent than "richer" people, and on top of that, giving the government a loan that doesn't have to be counted against the deficit. It would be nice if these "rich" people were required to give the same "loan" to the government as SS payers do. SS payers only get the T-rate, which is the lowest interest you can get---but ostensibly, the safest. The market sets the risk adjusted rate for T notes and bills.

Your point on retirement and 401K funds being taxed is just wrong.

If retirement and 401K funds were unlimited as to contributions, which they are not, those earnings from Wall Street would be socked into them. These plans were made tax free to encourage the little guy to invest, thus the limitations, and not to provide a tax loophole for big money.

The one last thing I would like to mention is that the dollars earned on the stock market do not get taxed in another very important way that most of us get taxed. Most of the assets of the non "rich" that are earned on the stock market do not have any kind of property tax. Most of the "poorer" people have their assets tied up in property, whether it be farms, houses, cars, etc. All of these forms of wealth have to pay some form of property tax (my county is an exception for auto as we don't have a wheel tax, just a flat $21.00 fee). Assets earned or held for investment in the stock market do not have a property tax. Taxes can be delayed until the stocks are sold. You still have to pay your property tax on cars, homes, ranches, while you still own it.

One other point might need to be brought up concerning financial instruments. They are fluid. The can be taken out of this country in a blink of the eye and invested overseas. The benefits of those investments, when taken overseas, does not go to the United States.

I have yet to see someone take their real property (real estate) to another country.

The very rich Pelosi was talking about are taking a free ride off of your dime and you don't even see it.
 
Sandhusker said:
ff is right, she can't be a product of sex with sheep - sheep are smarter than that.



What do you get when you cross a Texas Longhorn with an Arkansas Razorback?...............................................



















Nothing. Some things even a hog won't do.
 
Tex wrote:

If for instance, you have 401Ks and Roth IRAs, you will know that these items are not taxed AT ALL. They grow tax free. There are limits to the amount of contributions that you can put in the not taxable part of these plans, and for almost all people, these plans include tax sheltered income that is below the "rich" definition.

These may not be taxed currently, but they sure as hell are taxed when you taken the money out of one of these accounts. Indeed, if you take the money out before you are 59 1/2 (or have an approved periodic withdrawal plan) you will not only pay income tax but a pretty severe penalth.

And, make no mistake, the IRS has a pretty effective computer system of tracking all contributions and withdrawals.

The only real IRA account that you don't have to pay tax upon withdrawal is a ROTH IRA, but the money going into to them is taxes, subsequent growth is not.
 
Cowpuncher said:
Tex wrote:

If for instance, you have 401Ks and Roth IRAs, you will know that these items are not taxed AT ALL. They grow tax free. There are limits to the amount of contributions that you can put in the not taxable part of these plans, and for almost all people, these plans include tax sheltered income that is below the "rich" definition.

These may not be taxed currently, but they sure as hell are taxed when you taken the money out of one of these accounts. Indeed, if you take the money out before you are 59 1/2 (or have an approved periodic withdrawal plan) you will not only pay income tax but a pretty severe penalth.

And, make no mistake, the IRS has a pretty effective computer system of tracking all contributions and withdrawals.

The only real IRA account that you don't have to pay tax upon withdrawal is a ROTH IRA, but the money going into to them is taxes, subsequent growth is not.

Hey, I am not a taxer here, I am just stating what is out there.

Cowpuncher, your points are well made. These accounts were set up for retirement income and are so set up with penalties if you don't follow the rules.

Cowpuncher, when you sold your ranch (I believe it was you) what percent did you have to pay in taxes on the gain of the sale? Did it go under capital gains?

By the way, Ben Bernanke wrote a paper about seignorage which is what the government makes out of thin air by printing money. In his paper, he says the amount due to seignorage is equal to the inflation rate. That means that the government consumes the real inflation rate by printing money. I have to still think about it, but there might be something on oil since it is denominated in dollars. Maybe I will give Ron Paul a call.:lol: :lol:

Your sale should have been indexed, just as everything else is (SS, pensions, etc) to account for this "paper" increase. I don't have any problem at all with adjusting for the govt's hidden tax.
 
The tax on the millions of dollars made by the big guys in the hedge funds was 15%.

Most people pay that in SS tax alone. Then there is income tax.
 

Latest posts

Top