He also seemed rattled by the middle
class taxes argument, which he's really going to need a decent answer to, because you can tell that the Tories plan to hammer away on it in the months to come.
Not exact matches
Pete is right that the powerful
argument against the 9 -9-9 plan is that it would be a big
tax increase for the middle middle -
class, those Americans who often didn't go to college and whose lives are becoming increasingly precarious and pathological.
Please don't think I'm going all Porcher on you: But the
argument that America has in some ways become too oligarchic is nontrivial (even THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is starting to notice a bit), and it's not that clear that smaller government or lower
taxes by themselves will grow jobs for our increasingly pathological middle / lower middle
class.
The economic
argument is debatable and opinions differ, but do you think the large numbers of struggling upstaters enjoy the high
taxes, ever increasing fees (example: the cost to have your vehicle inspected DOUBLED from 2010 to 2011 and is now one of the highest in the nation) and endless financial burdens they as lower and middle
class people endure while the rich bankers and CEOs downstate laugh at them?
Jon Cruddas, perhaps surprisingly, even made a case for middle -
class tax cuts as part of an
argument to reduce the economic burden on Middle England.
Over the past week I've heard the following
arguments - they want to lift the poor out of
tax, actually the main beneficiaries of this policy won't be the poor because they don't pay
tax, but will instead be the middle
class, anyway, on a point of principle we need to simplify the
tax system, and we need to cut public services by # 80 billion per year, or maybe we don't.
State senators in favor of this bill made a three - pronged
argument: property
taxes have become too burdensome for middle -
class... (read more)
State senators in favor of this bill made a three - pronged
argument: property
taxes have become too burdensome for middle -
class homeowners; the property
tax caps for municipalities outside the city have been — according to Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan — «a tremendous success,» as well as a job creator; and that the city had benefitted so much from uncapped property
tax collections that the mayor shouldn't be surprised about the governor's proposal to shift Medicaid cost to the city.
The majority Court opinion appeared to concede the challenger's
argument, but held that the individual mandate was as a matter of law a
tax on a
class of people (those who do not buy insurance), not a statutory requirement of affirmative behavior.
My understanding of why some say it doesn't is the
argument that a
tax cut is more effective if it benefits the poor / middle
class because the poor / middle
class will spend most of it on consumption (say groceries) rather than investment (say purchasing an extra rental property).