Kamala Harris: We Need to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class and Force Workers Into Unions

  
Via:  make-america-great-again  •  3 months ago  •  29 comments

Kamala Harris: We Need to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class and Force Workers Into Unions
As for the cheap attack about 'tax giveaways to corporations,' remember that reducing the US corporate tax rate was so badly needed that even President Obama supported it, albeit at a different level. The new law brought the corporate rate in alignment with the approximate OECD average, down from one of the very highest in the industrialized world. This new level of competitiveness has helped fuel a strong economy, featuring historically-low unemployment. The first quarter GDP's growth...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Appearing at a forum hosted by a left-wing political organization and a Democrat-aligned labor union, California Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris insisted that the 2017 tax reform law must be repealed in its entirety.  Just in case there was any ambiguity on this point, she repeated her position for a second time.  Via the Washington Post's Dave Weigel:

Harris wasn't alone in espousing this view, Politico reports: “Nearly every Democratic candidate has vowed to roll back Trump's 2017 tax reform legislation, which they say unfairly benefits corporations and top earners.”  Democrats have relentlessly attacked the tax reform law as a giveaway to the rich and corporations, pretending that it screws over middle-income and working class Americans.  They've repeated this mantra so often, with minimal fact-based pushback from the media, that they've managed to convince most Americans that they did not receive a tax cut in 2018.  The data shows that more than 80 percent of the country did, in fact, receive a tax cut, including more than 90 percent of the middle class.  Democratic propaganda may have been effective, but it's also come with a political downside: Because their politicians and their base seem to have internalized a sweeping falsehood as reality, they're vulnerable to potent attacks over ideas like Harris' repeal push.  

Reversing the GOP-passed law would result in a significant tax increase for nearly every middle class family in America.  If many voters are confused or ambivalent on the impact tax reform had on their personal finances --- thanks to the aforementioned deliberate disinformation campaign (read this shotand chaser as an example) -- their minds will focus rather quickly if and when Democrats try to take away the tax cuts they've received, and from which they've benefited.  We've learned over and over again that it's hard to rescind benefits or policy advantages once they've been implemented.  And raising taxes on virtually all middle-income families and earners is politically toxic -- yet that's precisely what Harris is proposing.  Of course, massive tax increases on working Americans is an inevitable consequence of her wildly fantastical agenda.  Republicans should try to get as many Democratic 2020 hopefuls on the record in favor of this idea as possible.  They're walking into a trap set by their own bogus talking points.  

As for the cheap attack about 'tax giveaways to corporations,' remember that reducing the US corporate tax rate was so badly needed that even President Obama supported it, albeit at a different level.  The new law brought the corporate rate in alignment with the approximate OECD average, down from one of the very highest in the industrialized world.  This new level of competitiveness has helped fuel a strong economy, featuring historically-low unemployment.  The first quarter GDP's growth rate of 3.2 percentsurprised experts, who'd expected a slower expansion.  Correlation and causation are not synonymous, but it's hard to argue there's no causal effect here:

It's unclear how sustainable the current positive trajectory is, but pro-growth tax reform has unquestionably fostered, well, growth since its passage.  Democrats like Harris would not only roll back middle class benefits by raising their taxes, they're gunning to undo the policy progress that has led to robust employment and GDP growth.  I'll leave you with Harris explaining how she'd like to turn back the clock by banning 'right to work' laws, which grant workers the freedom to be hired without union membership as a precondition for employment.  Thanks to these pro-worker laws and pro-liberty court decisions, many workers have voted with their feet, choosing their own self-interest over the partisan interests of union bosses.  This has harmed unions, of course, so Democrats want to go backwards and remove safeguards against the coercion of their Big Labor political allies.  They're the anti-choice party, except when it comes to third-trimester abortion radicalism:

This iframe is not allowed

Guy Benson's Latest Book, End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun). is available on Amazon




Recommended from Townhall



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    3 months ago

.....And while union leaders are still working out just exactly what failed to resonate in 2016, left-leaning candidates running in 2020 have already begun making moves to ensure they don’t suffer Clinton’s fate. Both Sens. Kamala Harris(D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (D-I) are courting unions (and their big, big donation dollars) by promising to put a stop to one of unions’ biggest hurdles to securing new membership: right to work laws.

The push to pass right to work laws — generally defined as state and federal laws protecting a person from compulsory union membership or the paying of union dues as a condition of employment — has been growing in traditional union-friendly midwestern states for the last several years. In fact, many suspect the union households in those same midwestern states were the no-shows for Hillary Clinton.

The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) website carries an explainer on why right to work laws may have become more palatable in recent years for states that have been heavily unionized in the past.

Federal labor laws have, since the 1930s, permitted and encouraged the growth of compulsory unionism arrangements between union officials and employers, forcing millions of employees to pay dues to unions as a condition of employment. Workers subject to these forced unionism schemes have been denied their freedom of choice as to joining and financially supporting a labor union.The power to compel employees to financially support a labor union is still granted to union officials by federal law in 27 states. In these states that have not yet passed a Right to Work law, this power has led to abuses of workers’ human rights and civil liberties.

With this is mind, Patrick Semmens, Vice President of NRTW Legal Defense Foundation, sees something besides workers’ best interest in Harris’ and Sanders’ promise to ban right to work laws.

“The comments by Kamala Harris and other Democrat 2020 hopefuls in opposition to Right to Work laws are not about the rank-and-file workers who are free to voluntarily join and pay dues to a union in Right to Work states, but about expanding union boss power,” Semmens told TownHall. “Harris and others know that Big Labor spends billions on politics and lobbying, including large amounts collected from workers who would be fired for not paying union dues. These candidates think that the Big Labor's backing will push them to the top of the crowded presidential field, and they are willing to promise to force millions of American workers to pay union dues or else be fired in order to secure that union boss support.” 

They apparently need the backing of Big Labor so badly that Harris, not content to simply ban laws that restrict unions, is even talking about “increas[ing] penalties on corporations that stand in the way of organized labor.” 

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Committee, echoes Semmens and sees cynicism, not activism, at work in Harris’ plans.

“Despite what politicians like Kamala Harris claim, banning Right to Work laws would harm workers,” Mix says. “Right to Work protections are a major step toward safeguarding the right of workers to associate freely with whom they choose. Opponents of Right to Work clearly do not have the best interests of workers at heart. Politicians who advocate for banning Right to Work predictably do so to advance the forced-union dues policies supported by their Big Labor allies. Unions spent more than $2 billion pushing their political agenda during the last election cycle.”..... https://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahlee/2019/04/29/paying-union-dues-kamala-harris-and-bernie-sanders-want-to-ban-right-to-work-laws-n2545577

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    3 months ago
banning Right to Work laws

kamala has been drinking the cool-aid again. 

the federal govt can not ban right to work laws in the states.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1    3 months ago

But it doesn't stop candidates from politicizing fear and cherry-picking data to try to con people into voting for them.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1    3 months ago

Actually it could and almost did.  During the first two years of Obama’s first term they tried create a national law that would have reversed the 1947 labor law that allowed for states to be right to work but they couldn’t get to 60 votes in the senate.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.2    3 months ago
1947 labor law that allowed for states to be right to work

even if they repeal  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

that does not automagically make "states" right to work laws "unconstitutional.

it might be an epic court battle but I feel, even without that federal law. right to work can stand on its own at scotus. 

 

cheers :)

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.3    3 months ago

I hope you are right and I believe you are but we were only a vote or two from testing that before Obamacare took all the oxygen out of their legislative room.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.1    2 months ago

Democrats have become very good at all of that.  It’s the only way they can win.  

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2  squiggy  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    3 months ago

I watched a big-mouthed Mr. Union retire last year and he gave up his 80-mile-commute rat for a new Kia. As economic profit tends to be zero, BJ Clinton reminds us, "It's the economy stupid." - and no union has ever produced a job.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  squiggy @1.2    3 months ago

I drive an old and high miles but very nice Kia and like it a lot.  

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2.2  squiggy  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.1    2 months ago

They recently went beyond any American standard, claiming liability for a complicated chain of events that resulted in fire. I like 'em but have pushed Hyundais beyond 200k with little effort - easy to work on. I just can't take bigtoughunion types buying them.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  squiggy @1.2.2    2 months ago

I had a 91 Hyundai Excel new for 10 years with no issues at all.  Had a loaded 97 Sonata in 01 for a year and loved it. It got totaled in a rear end collision but kept me from getting hurt. In Dec. 16 I got my 04 Kia Sorrento EX.  It’s a great ride, loaded, like near new inside and out and now well maintained.  It will hit 200,000 miles next week.  The American made KIA and Hyundai’s are non union.  I really like the new Niro.  I also like their new Genesis brand to go up against Lexus, BMW, Accura, Infinity, etc.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.4  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.3    2 months ago

I remember you posting about that Kia and I think you paid about $2000 over the market value for it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.4    2 months ago

I don’t. The fair market value for it at a dealer now is $3300-$5200 with a typical listing of $4740.  That’s now 2.5 years later and with 34,000 more miles on it.  All those numbers were about $1,000 higher then.  I paid $4,995 for it.  They had been asking $5995 for it.  It had perfect paint, no dings, new oversized tires, every option in the book like leather, spoiler, premium sound, power moonroof, protective floor and cargo covers, cargo net, etc. except towing package plus touch screen cd/dvd player, backup camera, blue tooothmp3 capability. You think you could have bought it in 2016 in California for $2,995?

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.6  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.5    2 months ago

Okay, I thought you said you paid $6000 for it. With the low mileage and the upgrades it sounds like you got a good deal. Thumbs up.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.6    2 months ago

I just went through it replacing all the fluids, spark plugs, coil, synthetic oil, heater core, AC coolant, flushed radiator, replaced thermostat, water pump, timing belt, and all four disk brake pads. I plan on getting another 200,000 miles on it either by me or my son.  

 
 
 
luther28
2  luther28    3 months ago

As for the cheap attack about 'tax giveaways to corporations,' remember that reducing the US corporate tax rate was so badly needed that even President Obama supported it, albeit at a different level. The new law brought the corporate rate in alignment with the approximate OECD average, down from one of the very highest in the industrialized world. This new level of competitiveness has helped fuel a strong economy, featuring historically-low unemployment. The first quarter GDP's growth...

I agree in total that the corporate tax rate needed to be addressed ( not sure that the level was correct, but..), but to send the bulk of the cut to the wealthy and crumbs to the middle?

The tax reform passed in December 2017 included tax cuts for corporations as well as individuals -- but while the benefits for business were permanent, the individual taxpayer cuts will expire by 2027. If Congress does nothing to extend them, the top 1% will at that point receive roughly 83% of the tax cut benefits, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
The same study said that for the 2018 tax year, the top 1% would receive 20.5% of the benefits from the tax cuts.
Read More
Why the 10-year timeline? That's thanks to Senate rules that allow tax cuts to pass with fewer than 60 votes if they won't increase the deficit in 10 years -- a necessity for Republicans to get the tax reform through.
But it's possible that a future Congress and President would vote to extend Trump's tax cuts -- even if Democrats are in charge. A vast majority of the last major round of tax cuts passed by President George W. Bush were made permanent under President Barack Obama
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  luther28 @2    3 months ago

Exactly as to making them permanent when the time to do so is at hand.  And we did need to change the corporate tax structure.  The amount of money from business done totally abroad that American companies brought back to America increased more than 20 fold compared to before the change.  Anyone can do the math and figure out that 21% of 20 is much more than 35% of one.    

 
 
 
luther28
2.1.1  luther28  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1    3 months ago
Exactly as to making them permanent when the time to do so is at hand.

No it is about time the upper castes paid their fair share.

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  luther28 @2.1.1    3 months ago
paid their fair share.

And that would be what? They already pay the lions share of taxes now. 

 
 
 
luther28
2.1.3  luther28  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.2    3 months ago

About 50% ought to hit the spot, time to begin paying down the debt. That coupled with the notion that Congress may actually take a look at the budget and reduce expenditures might get us down to ten trillion.

If I'm going to dream ( neither is likely to take place), I might as well go big.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  luther28 @2.1.1    3 months ago

No it’s not.  As a middle class investor for long term life goals, kids education, health care, and retirement as well as general taxable savings outside a rainy day fund, my present and future well being is tied up in and dependent upon the economic well being of corporate America and Wall Street.  So no, I’m not interested in cutting off my nose to spite my face.  Corporate America overall and the top 1-10% already do pay their fair share and I completely get it that tax law designed to punish them for their success will deflate the overall market and punish me/us middle class investors for our modest success as well.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  luther28 @2.1.3    3 months ago

50% just for federal income tax?  Then there’s cap gains and dividends, social security and Medicare taxes, and then all the various state and local taxes of all types.  Seems pretty oppressive to me.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  luther28 @2.1.3    3 months ago

Spending cuts outside of defense, space exploration, and border security / ICE at the federal level would great!  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.5    3 months ago
50% just for federal income tax?

I guess not many have heard about or understand the laffer curve.

cheers :)

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.7    3 months ago

To some having a high tax rate on the rich for social justice warrior purposes is more important than the actual amount of revenues raised by the taxes levied as a matter of “fairness”.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago
Raise Taxes On The Middle Class

not many will vote to raise their own taxes... LOL

And Force Workers Into Unions

that, is never going to happen.

cheers :)

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3    3 months ago

Many though are more than willing to raise taxes on other people if they think they can exempt themselves.  As for forced joining of unions, the minority of states do just that. In California unless you work for the federal government if you try to work at a place that is already unionized, joining that union will be a precondition of your employment there.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    3 months ago
As for forced joining of unions, the minority of states do just that

states have that power.

the federal government does not.

 raise taxes on other people if they think they can exempt themselves

campaigning to raise taxes on the middle class is a guaranteed loss in the general election.

cheers :)

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.1.1    2 months ago

True and I live in one that does.  Fortunately my workplace is not unionized.  We still have to guard against the federal government taking on powers beyond its constitutional scope on this and other issues particularly when progressives have any power in Congress or the courts.  The supremes have lately been limiting it on most issues but only by 5-4 and they did impose gay marriage and abortion on all 50 states. As to taxes, you are right.  If they do raise them on the middle class they will put it in a way that the greedy corporations and evil rich will have to pay more and use class envy to try to divert middle class attention away from our increased taxes.        

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

lib50
tomwcraig
devangelical
ArkansasHermit-too


48 visitors