A Quote by Pierre Poilievre

We believe in lowering taxes for everyone, and those tax reductions should be targeted at people with middle and modest incomes, and I don't say that rhetorically. — © Pierre Poilievre
We believe in lowering taxes for everyone, and those tax reductions should be targeted at people with middle and modest incomes, and I don't say that rhetorically.
I believe that there should be a very much heavier progressive tax on very large incomes, a tax which should increase in a very marked fashion for the gigantic incomes.
While the wealthiest families completely benefit from the tax cuts targeted towards the upper brackets, middle-income families were hit with the unwelcome surprise of higher taxes on tax day.
Barack Obama is talking about cutting taxes. On net, he is a tax cutter. But the difference between Obama and John McCain is that Obama is raising some taxes on families, for example, with incomes over $250,000. Now, that amounts to about 2 percent, the richest 2 percent of American households. And even with those tax changes, even with all of the tax changes Obama's talking about, taxes will be lower under Obama than they were under the Clinton years.
The Bush tax cuts should be extended permanently for families with annual incomes of less than $250,000 and should be phased out slowly for those making more than that. Raising taxes on anyone now, when the economic recovery is so fragile, would be a mistake.
Growing our economy means allowing individuals, and particularly those in the middle class, to be able to keep more of their money. It also means that people in the middle class and modest incomes to be able to pay for their retirement, to get a down payment for a home, to send a child to college.
You want to do tax reductions, you want to do permanent tax reduction, reductions in spending. You've got to go out and explain it to the people, get them on your side and have them become the levers that you need in congressional relations.
When we`re done simplifying the tax code, getting the lobbyist carve outs our of the tax code, lowering our rates and letting people have a simple system, most Americans will be able to fill out their taxes on a postcard.
Arthur Laffer's idea, that lowering taxes could increase revenues, was logically correct. If tax rates are high enough, then people will go to such lengths to avoid them that cutting taxes can increase revenues. What he was wrong about was in thinking that income tax rates were already so high in the 1970s that cutting them would raise revenues.
Though the Income Tax Act obliges even non-residents to pay tax on incomes earned in India, many foreign institutional investors avoided paying taxes citing the Double Taxation Treaty with Mauritius.
We will attract more people to Kentucky by lowering our income tax rate. In fact, lowering the income tax rate is the single most important thing we can do to create opportunity.
If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.
If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper-middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.
When you say the tax system benefits the rich, there are a lot of people who respond, "That can't be true, look at the rate of tax. The people who are rich pay a higher rate than you or I." Well, yeah, but if you don't have to pay taxes on a lot of your income, then your real tax rate is a lot lower. And if you're allowed to pay your taxes thirty years from now instead of today then you're a lot better off. People need to have a sophisticated understanding of how the system works to appreciate that the posted tax rate really has very little to do with the taxes people pay.
The Labour perspective is often very preoccupied with either the super-rich or those who don't have work - but doesn't have nearly enough to say to those who do have work, on incomes that may not mean they get benefits or tax credits, but are not well off people.
It is easier to start taxes than to stop them. A tax an inch long can easily become a yard long. That has been the history of the income tax. Would not the sales tax be likely to have a similar history [in the U.S.]? ... Canadian newspapers report that an increase in the sales tax threatens to drive the Mackenzie King administration out of office. Canada began with a sales tax of 2%.... Starting this month the tax is 6%. The burden, in other words, has already been increased 200% ... What the U.S. needs is not new taxes, is not more taxes, but fewer and lower taxes.
We must end the iniquitous multi-taxing of the same money. It is not right to tax people's incomes, then their savings on that income, to tax the movement of assets through capital gains tax, stamp duty and tax them again through inheritance tax if they have the audacity to die.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!