DBM, July 19 at 2:05 am,

On the Political Spectrum Tyranny Number Line from 0 through 10, with 0 being no tyranny,  the Democrats run between 1 and 7, while the Republican/GOP is always 8 to 10, therefore it doesn’t ever be a choice to choose Republicans, if one wants democracy.

Congressional Oversight Panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren will be picked because she is absolutely the best person that could be picked to fill the leadership position on the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, regardless of what Timothy Geithner says.

Talk about introducing another level of complexity, consider the following:

By ThomasG, July 19 at 9:56 am #

“I do not know if there is anything sincere in what the Democrats say, but the Democrats have realized that there is going to have to be a distinction in what they say that distinguishes them from the Republicans, and on Meet The Press, they were making that distinction.”
————————————————————————
The PR surge to gain votes in the next election is being promulgated that the Democrats have to make a distinction between them and the Republicans when, in reality, there really isn’t any.  Both are bought and paid for.

At this point, they are more like two factions of a mob family than they are of two political parties vying for control of the government.

All this cacophony about causal understanding falls apart when you take a hard look at the policies our government follows and that sock puppets that are used.

Cui Bono? 

Well, the Democrats might have a sprinkling of members who are sincerely in office to do good rather than do well, but I am afraid to single out anyone for fear that he or she’ll turn out to be just another Dennis Kucinich (Don’t throw me off the plane!) or Bernie Sanders (Hey, fellas, in the end I just want to be remembered well.) or “Leopold” (I’ve rejected his first name.) Feingold with his backing of the Food Safety Act 2007.

Now that’s something worth looking into.  The chinese poisoned our cats. Someone spread e-coli in the green onion patch in Mexico.  So what do we want to do?  Outlaw home gardens and organic farmers.  Remember, in the future, all the seeds must come from Monsanto.  Enough for causal understanding?

The NSA, CIA, DoD, Homeland Security built a gargantuan information program.  It’s not to keep us safe from terrorist (An idea I always thought to be a little mamby-pamby.) It’s to keep them safe from us.  In case the American rube ever does get wind of who’s been screwing him over.

I see that happening.  It was reported in the Boston Herald, the rag of all rags, that a jackass in California protested his inability to get a job because of his status as a convicted felon by opening fire on some policemen.  His mother (Why are these criminals always explained away by their mothers?) said my son the Jackass didn’t agree with the left agenda of the Obama administration.

This is an example of the confusion engendered by the buzzword “gridlock.”  It doesn’t capture the reality. 

There is no gridlock per se.  They are conniving to do this.  The option being that is really being presented is: vote Republican and commit hare kiri or vote Democratic and the corporatists and bankers will eat you alive, later.

Elizabeth Warren will not be picked as the new head as the Consumer Watchdog.  I’ve drawn a bead on Obama and he’s not about to risk being punished by the Fed and the Treasury.

If I am wrong, I’ll never write to Truthdig again.

I do not know if there is anything sincere in what the Democrats say, but the Democrats have realized that there is going to have to be a distinction in what they say that distinguishes them from the Republicans, and on Meet The Press, they were making that distinction.

MarthaA,

IMHO, the Dems only barely carry the “they’re not a bad as the other guys argument” at the moment.  It’s a close run thing despite recent Republican comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

No big deal JD.  A momentary lapse I’m sure.

I was primarily disappointed that my artfully constructed irrefutable argument was garbled by technology ... 

JDmysticDJ and DBM,

Did you see Meet The Press this morning, if not, you should try to catch a repeat, because it is the first time I have seen the Dems make any kind of real stand against the Republicans.  The Dems did a really good job and it is reassuring that the system is turning slowly around under the Obama Administration, but it takes time to turn the country away from the Republicans weapons of mass destruction.

DBM

By your level headed response to my paranoia induced, snide comment, you have unintentionally given my ego a well deserved smack down.

I suffered from a temporary lapse of reason, or a, hopefully, temporary insanity.

I think. The trouble with paranoia is that one can never be sure if an apology is appropriate; it’s enough to drive one nuts. Please forgive the neurosis, therapy may be necessary.

JDMystic,

I rarely comment on criticism with no relevance to the topic ... but I just can’t see your point.  You seem intelligent enough.  I can apologise for using the word “spurious” when perhaps “unintended” would have sufficed.  I write into Notepad rather than the little dialog box at the bottom of the page.  In this case I was interrupted and had to save the file.  When I copied and pasted in there were a whole lot of carriage returns which made the entry hard to read.

I’m not sure how you can “only conclude” that this was “intended to be ingratiating, and an ego-centric attempt at self aggrandizement”.  That’s quite a lot of negativity to read into something inconsequential.  I only bring it up because there is some chance that this was an attempt tongue-in-cheek humour which was lost on me.  Is it?

DBM

I’m plugging in to correct my ignorant spelling of “pastime.” Hopefully this error won’t besmirch my credibility beyond repair. It was a stupid mistake, but as far as I can tell, there is no connection between this error and the word spurious.

Anarcissie

As long as I’m here, I’ll comment that my limited intelligence is confused by vagaries. Fictive wealth…? Hard money…? Legal tender…? My common sense leads me to believe that “Confiscating” some of this “fictive” or real wealth, and applying this real or “fictive” wealth to job creation, infrastructure, and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels,  would expand markets, and lead us towards economic recovery. Reinforcing my common sense approach would be actual examples from history, some good and some bad, on this side of the Atlantic Ocean and on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, that show that Government spending, some good and some bad, did lift economies out of depression.

I’ll suggest that re-allocating our resources from bad (Destructive) spending, to good (Constructive) spending would be the most logical (Constructive) course of action to take. Unfortunately, our economy and resources are now dominated by those who profit from bad (Destructive) spending, and they are opposed to a re-allocation of resources, because that re-allocation would diminish their wealth, power, and dominance. Though the task of re-allocating “our resources” seems insurmountable, I’ll suggest that it could be accomplished by a step by step resolution of political issues. Re-allocating, “our resources” would necessitate “confiscating” or “re-claiming” “our resources” legally, via taxation, and it would be, I believe, an effective first step towards eliminating bad (Destructive) spending, and re-allocating to good (Constructive) spending.

Of course those who are currently spending badly (Destructively,) and their sycophants will claim that this first step I advocate would be bad (Destructive,) but I believe this first step would be good (Destructive) if it leads to a reduction of bad (Destructive) spending, and diminishes the power of those who are destructive.

Our absent comrade, TaoWalker would call this post, “CONstructive,” but it makes sense to me.

By Go Right Young Man, July 14 at 7:18 pm #

garth, - “It’s not really about taxes”

I was under the impression that the Sirota article, “Are Low Taxes Exacerbating the Recession”, was the underlying topic of discussion.

——————————————————————
Read all the above comments.  those above this one and keep in mind we are in two wars, maybe three.

That tax relief, or should I call it a winfall for the rich, is still being in effect.  Yet, no job increase in the future.  Where’s that agument get you.  Now the Ceos are saying the future is murky.  I thought they had balls.  Captains of industry to lead us though foggy times.  What a bunch of pussies.

How about considering the premise that if you gain exponentially from the fixed capitalist system you pay geometrically.  Fair enough?

Meanwhile what has become clear to me is that the scholarly books like “Street Corner Society” have been used by the military to further advance their ideas of camaraderie within in the ranks. 

The soldiers will die for one another, but the brass won’t. Their job is to show grim faces.  (Get me one of thos yobs).

I first read Streetcorner Society in a Freshman Socioliogy class taught by Mohammed El-Assal, a great instructor from Egypt.

Although, I grew up a thousand miles away, I knew first hand what the study was documenting.  I lived it.

In my Street Corner Society, there was Frank who joined the Marines, Larry who was drafted into the Army, Bob who was forced to join the Navy, Marvyn who went on to get a PH.d in English, Moose, his twin who went to jail because he continued to hang around with the “types’ and Me.  I am writing for you now.

We were close.  I was acccepted.  we were all accpted as is.  We argued and we fought amongst oursleves.  If someone attacked one of us, it was like attacking all of of us.

What dawned on me is that our Life and its dreams, sometimes dreams of success, sometimes spurred by dreams of youthful ignorance, have given fuel to our military-psychological-sociological complex and they have been turned on us so that an 18 year old boy as reported on PBS the other night can go to Afghanistan and get killed. 

What was he in search of?  Did you know his name?

Of course, it all doesn’t matter.  We’ve got tax code to argue.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#label/ProgressReport,The/129d6c9bb1ca8797

“Since President Obama’s election, Republicans in Congress have criticized the administration’s stimulative economic policies for increasing the deficit and “spending trillions of dollars we do not have.” But the GOP’s concern about the debt goes out the window when they’re advocating for extending the Bush tax cuts. Over the weekend, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said Congress should not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and suggested that tax cuts should never have to be paid for, a sentiment echoed by almost every prominent Republican. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) agreed, saying, “I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset.” Carly Fiorina, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in California, said this week that “you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves.” GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio (FL) released an economic platform of almost all unpaid-for tax cuts. Then, on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) went a step further, claiming that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.”“

“BUSH TAX CUTS DID ‘DIMINISH REVENUE’: As Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, put it, McConnell’s claim “is not some disagreement among economists over the effects of a future tax cut. Nor is this a philosophical debate between the left and the right.” “Instead,” Linden said, “what we have here is McConnell making a clearly false claim about recent history.” Before the tax cuts, income tax revenues were 10.2 percent of GDP. Three years later, income tax revenues were 6.9 percent of GDP. Even in total dollars, tax receipts were lower in 2002 and 2003 than they were in 2001. What’s more, the Bush tax cuts led to “the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period,” with monthly job growth the worst of any business cycle since 1945 and only contributed to the nation’s income inequality. Today, income inequality is the worst it has been since 1928, and according to the latest data, “the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.”“

“THE COSTS OF EXTENDING BUSH TAX CUTS: While Obama has proposed extending the Bush tax cuts “for all but the richest two percent of taxpayers,” Republicans have all insisted on “making permanent all the tax cuts enacted under President Bush,” including cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans. But as Fox News’ Chris Wallace pointed out to Kyl, extending tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year would add $678 billion over 10 years to the growing deficit. Debt-service costs alone would amount to “$1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period” and more than $330 billion in the 2019 fiscal year. As Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) told The Progress Report yesterday, “When reasonably intelligent people say something that is patently absurd and ridiculous, then you have to look to the hidden agenda, right? Judd Gregg, Sen. Kyl, these are not dumb people. They know what they’re saying is completely self-serving, but they’re looking at it strictly from the standpoint of personal gain and the gain of individuals directly connected to them and people who they regard as their base.”“

http://www.progress.org/

Republicans DO NOT Represent the populace in any way.  Who are the populace? The 70% Majority Common Population.

LJL—Individuals and small groups can certainly profit from changes in the tax code.  However, I don’t think the larger economy can be manipulated in the same way, for the reasons I gave.  I was mostly writing about the disposition of the incomes of the very rich.  They have to invest it, whether to avoid taxes or not, because they can’t consume it.

This is assuming hard money.  As I’ve noted elsewhere, much of the supposed riches of the very wealthy is fictive, generated by the radical expansion of credit of recent years.  I don’t know what happens when you tax something that isn’t really there.

DBM

Can carriage returns be spurious? I suppose they could be if they served some spurious purpose. Am I missing some subtlety in your comment, were your errant carriage returns in some way an intended commentary of some sort? Based on your posts, you strike me as being a person of some intelligence, so this comment is somewhat puzzling to me. Was the “spurious comment” intended to be ingratiating, or did it serve some other purpose? I don’t like to come to incorrect conclusions, but I can only conclude that this comment, based on current information, was intended to be ingratiating, and an ego-centric attempt at self aggrandizement.

Carry on with your gentlemen’s debate, but I must say, based on past experience, you’re wasting some intelligence on a futile endeavor.

Please forgive the intrusion; I’m sure you find this debate to be rewarding in some way. Far be it from me to intrude on someone’s self satisfying past time.

Apologies for the spurious carriage returns!

Yes, it is this point of interpretation which most separates our conception of reasonable solutions. 

You say: “First and foremost, as a rule, management answers to share holders before themselves. - That is if top managers are honest and staying within the laws. - Which, I find, most are and do.”

I would point to the numerous examples of executives working against the interests of their shareholders which, in large corporations, appear to be the norm.  I would start with the average wage awarded to

senior executives by CEO dominated executive remuneration committees on corporate boards.  It’s a cosy arrangement which has seen CEO remuneration rise from 40 times average wages to 400 times

average wages.  In the culture of the multi-national corporation boardroom, this is seen as reasonable and justified.  When shareholders have turned up at shareholder meetings wishing to question this state

of affairs they’ve been ignored, removed or even arrested. 

It is very easy in a large corporation to amass extremely large personal remuneration while steering the corporation into a ditch through excessive risk.  The remuneration is held but long term shareholder

value is lost.  Sound familiar?  Executive bonuses following the collapse of Wall St banks?  The wind-up of Enron?  The Lay family are not flipping burgers ... just their victims.

I have no problem with the profit motive.  It needs to be balanced against public good which is unmeasured in normal accounting (environmental harm - like fracking gas companies, exploitation of labour,

etc.) but it is indeed what drives the economy.  What I don’t accept is that “Shrinking government, thus making the job of accountability much simpler” would somehow reduce the influence of corporations on

the government.  A vastly reduced government is incapable of regulating a large complex corporate.  To wit, the MMS have simply accepted paperwork from the oil companies for years without verifying their

claims of safety and preparedness ... nice work.

The problem now is not the size of government.  It is the dominance of government by corporate money.  Corporations are able to insert their own people into key positions

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/obama-hires-fmr-wellpoint_b_646874.html) and essentially “self-regulate” behind the fig-leaf of government regulation.  Self-regulation has been shown to be an

abysmal failure whether overtly (removal of banking regulations) or covertly (placing lobbyists and cronies in key regulatory positions). 

The thing that needs to be shrunk is corporate influence.  Citizen’s United was a big step in the wrong direction down a path which is going ever deeper towards incredibly rich executives and financiers

standing astride a wrecked feudal economy. 

You call yourself “free” presumably because you don’t live in a centrally controlled economy ... or so you think!  I would suggest that the centre is not in the direction you are looking (the government). It is in

the boardrooms of large multi-national corporations.  You think you’re free because no-one stops you voting against your own self-interest by promoting reductions in government power and commensurate

increases in corporate power.

So to bring this full circle back to the discussion of taxes.  Lower taxes = smaller government = less ability to regulate.  Therefore it would seem logical that IF the economy grows in times of low taxation the benefits of that growth will be far more narrowly held than in times of higher taxation irregardless of the redistributive capacity of taxation.  That would seem to be a fairly accurate model of the last 30 years during which growth has been strong but has been disproportionately for the benefit of very few.

Yes.  We agree on the goals but disagree on how to achieve them. 

Did I see you write that we should enforce laws and regulations on corporations and, simultaneously, reduce the influence corporations have in and on government?  If so then we are not so far apart in thinking.  Shrinking government, thus making the job of accountability much simpler, would be a solid step in mitigating the influence.

We do disagree on how corporations make decisions.  First and foremost, as a rule, management answers to share holders before themselves. - That is if top managers are honest and staying within the laws. - Which, I find, most are and do. 

The underlying problem with finding fault with shareholders for expecting the “evil profit incentive” comes from fully being aware that those share holders are largely made up of Union Pensions investments, Teachers Associations, Millions of Retirees, the AARP, and numerous Trading Companies and Brokerage Firms who themselves invest for thousand of individual and institutional investors.

If, however, top management of natural gas companies poison ground water across many states, via fracking methods, then people need to be prosecuted using existing and justifiable Clean Water laws.  But, wait, it’s not that simple.  The federal government grants the permits to natural gas companies for their fracking endeavors.  The general public itself is screaming for energy independents.

Some believe we should have no “private” natural gas companies. For the “common good” of all.  Take the profit motive out of the equation.  The “State” will serve us our natural gas.

I say that’s a ludicrous idea.  First of all we will NEVER take the profit motive out of human beings. If the profit motive is not in private hands in the private sector it will be in private hands in the public sector.  It also places almost unchecked control within a single central place with even fewer chances of prosecutions and civil liabilities.  It will corrupt government to the fullest. 

Talk of empowering and emboldening the “monied elites”.  We must separate corporations from government.  Not marry them.

Let me rephrase one sentence that might be a red rag:  “...make the economy operate for the benefit of all participants.”  should read “... let the economy operate for the benefit of all participants.”

Clearly free markets work especially well ... it’s just that markets dominated by crony capitalists are not really “free” at all.  They’re just “unregulated”!!

As always, much truth in what you say Go Right ... BUT ...

... this is an excellent example of where the statistics are not the issue.  We don’t disagree on much about crony capitalism.  However, we fundamentally disagree about the root cause because I don’t see the world as either “people” or “government”.  I see it as “people”, “government” and “large corporations”.  I’m happy to lump in small and medium business with “people” but I think there is a fundamental difference when it comes to “large corporations”.  It seems that up to a certain size, businesses operate for the benefit of their owners which, mostly, is tightly aligned with other stakeholders (customers, suppliers, employees, etc.).  Large corporations, however, seem to operate for the benefit of a small class of priviledged employees (the executive) who stiff all others involved whenever possible.

So, you see crony capitalism and blame it on government “social engineering”.  The logical response is to reduce government influence, taxation and regulation to a minimum.

I see crony capitalism and blame it on the leaders of large corporations who have amassed near total power over government to make it work to their advantage.  My logical response is to reform government influence so as to reduce the power of this elite group and make the economy operate for the benefit of all participants.  Returning regulation and removing the private sector activity which can only be delivered as a monopoly (or is delivered in times of crisis like Healthcare).

Both are logical reactions to exactly the same situation based on a completely different interpretation of reality.  Hence my use of statistics and other known facts is relevant, of course, but I consider ideas and interpretation to be equally if not more important to a discussion on topics of public policy.

DBM, July 14 at 9:25 pm

I do not believe there is “Banking Theft”.  I know there is crony capitalism which permeates across almost countless facets of the free market system. The government choosing winners and losers causes instability and cronyism e.g. banking, housing, auto sales and windows.  Believing in Banking Theft, I believe, misses the point.  Just as placing blame at the feet of AIG misses the point.

Government “social engineering” attempts to force human beings into not being human.  It’s a disaster in its inception. - No one with AIG broke the law.  Government devised a dangerous law.

-

JDMystic is sharp with on-the-fly research.  My sourced data on this subject is impeachable, however.  It is tangible.  It is verifiable.  It is unfiltered apart from the Treasury itself.  And it clearly drives Progressives to distraction and anger.  True Progressive thinkers cannot conceive of the reasons why raising tax rates causes a fall in revenue. But it is true every time it’s attempted.

As for my part in my dialog with JD: I am prone, at times, to being playfully snide when all I receive is relentless anger.

- There are solid reasons why you and I converse easily while disagreeing on much.  We favor our personal honor and allow others theirs.  We both willingly and easily disarm.  We easily admit mistakes knowing there is no personal harm to ourselves.  We are slow to raw anger.

-

Back toward the topic.

I am aware of your feelings on statistics and such, however, and I mean this lightly, I do not truly believe that you believe in what you say in regards to stats and such. 

You have chosen countless statistics and equivalents in order to form your own opinions.  If you do not believe in statistics, polls, and their equivalents you would never have an opinion.  You would not function in work, with family, or choose your friends.

In other words:  Your personal use of statistics, polling data, and all their equivalents has led you to firmly believe in socialized health-care.

LOL….but when I share twenty statistics or a dozen polls in which you derive no pleasure from you explain to me how you do not believe in such things.  

-

Raising marginal tax rates causes a human response.  People will make decisions rooted in avoiding the tax.  Those decisions are less productive in the overall market.  Lowering rates also has an effect.  Human nature tells us that people will spend and invest differently.  In a more productive, out in the open, manner.

Lowering rates produces money for people and families. Raising tax rates is a shortsighted attempt to raise money for the establishment.  Precisely what most humans do not want.  It’s a failure in its inception.

Go Right,

Summers et. al. would be a good start.  Given the history if catastrophic failure that is so in all our faces (and the unemployment lines and inherent in the foreclosure signs) it is incredible that Summers and his disciples still hold positions of influence.  The reason that is so, however, is that they speak to the powerful what they wish to hear.  If senior advisors were to say that the ever increasing imbalances wrought by deregulation and the inordinate power of the corporate executive class was unsustainable they would be replaced with advisors with more agreeable ideas.

So, yes, based on the passage of derivatives legislation in the Clinton era, the Congressmen and Senators who voted for it and the President who signed it all deserved to be voted out.  The advisors who came up with the scheme should all have been sidelined.  But, like “trickle-down economics” it is a useful fig-leaf for the bank-theft that Garth alluded to below and so it has remained long after being proven false.

As for JDMystic and yourself ... I think either of you could be looking past the childish jibes at the others ideas.  I have said many times that statistics can easily be selected and interpreted to support opposite views.  The argument that either of your views is completely self-evident from the only valid stats is a pointless dead-end.  I’d suggest that you worry less about “inarguable numbers” and look at the ideas and points you are both making more critically.  There are some good thoughts there.

DBM, - “Who are the thieves at AIG, for example?’ - ‘Anyone who sold, approved or managed people who sold CDO’s (insurance policies) to parties which did not own that which was being insured.  They sold billions of dollars of CDO “bets” to people who had no direct interest in the subject of the CDOs ... just to make profit.  It would be a good wake-up call if all those people were to spend time in jail with the drug dealers and murderers they are akin to.”

-

Would not then the real parties responsible be Lawrence Summers for writing derivatives legislation, the U.S. Congress for passing said legislation and President Clinton for signing such legislation which made lawful the U.S. derivatives market?

I don’t care for the derivatives market.  It’s very nature leads to instability.

garth, - “It’s not really about taxes”

-

I was under the impression that the Sirota article, “Are Low Taxes Exacerbating the Recession”, was the underlying topic of discussion.

You’re right.  The joke escapes me. 

-

To all I say; allow the “wealthy” their accoutrements and trappings.  I’ll make my own decisions. Build my own dreams having very little to do with money and nothing to do with monetary wealth. 

-

Now that the topic is most decidedly not about taxes (smile) I will take the time to add; I’m one of the lucky few on earth.  I am a free man in this world.  I may go where my heart and will takes me.  Loose my freedom and nothing else matters.

JD,

Incredible.  In a post last evening you wrote that I had changed the subject away from tax rates, which there was an ebb away from, but now you ham-handedly attempt to claim the subject was always about distribution? - After you pointed out the change of subject last evening you immediately went into a long history of marginal tax rates.

Yeah….LOL….  I’m done with you on this thread. 

I’ll stick to a discourse with DBM.  As much as we can disagree he values his honor.

Try to follow this argument.

By Thom Hartmann aka ThomasG in response to my use of Dr. Black’s thesis put forward in his book, “the Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One”.
 
Thom replies,

“With regard to dialog on this thread, arguing false complexity (Wow, false complexity.  He’s saying the Tax Code is not complex, I guess.) does not foster understanding; it is better to have a clear understanding of the foundation and the cornerstone, and build causal understanding on the strength and definition of a strong foundation and cornerstone.”
(What?  A causal understanding on the strength and definition of a strong foundation and cornerstone.)

(Now, please keep in mind that what went before was a mind-numbing list of statistics and rebuttals about the US tax code.)

Thom continues,

“The purpose of intentionally framing false complexity (False complexity?  What a series of twisted sentences.) is to establish and maintain power and control over and benefit from others; and those who participate in and get lost in frames of false complexity (You lost me there, Bozo.) do nothing to further the ends of their own causal understanding (When is understanding causal?) that will relieve the oppression and tyranny of power and control exerted upon them for benefit by others.”

(Now, I want to remind you that Thom was an SDSer in the 60s and a lot of them especially the ones who were considered bright and malleable were kept on as useful idiots, so to speak.)

In his next post, Thom, the mental midget from Michigan and the comedic genius who first said that pidgeons were from Xenu, said,

“Rather than arguing over who pays the higher taxes, we should be arguing over who gets the revenue stream from capital.

He goes on,

“Social capital and socialized capitalism (What?) will furnish a revenue stream for social benefit of the nation as a whole, whereas private capital and privatized capitalism provides a revenue stream for private benefit and the greater greed.”

“If there has to be an argument, why not argue the merits of the greater good, social capital and socialized capitalism, as opposed to the greater greed, private capital and privatized capitalism?”

Is it all clear to you now.?  Social capital and socialized capitalism? 

Does it sound like his Back Street versus Main Street and Wall Street mumble-jumble?

And finally, ThomasG, July 14 at 2:46 pm says, 

“garth, July 14 at 2:02 pm,

Blah. “

Our exceptionalism. Only in America.

Anarcissie, you are both right and wrong.  Wrong because the economic decline beginning in the 70’s followed by a decade the tax cuts initiated by Kennedy.  If you think that the government cannot direct economic growth effectively, quiz the folks in the South and Border States who economically benefited from the Kennedy Johnson tax codes that specifically directed investments to those regions.  And as far as thinking that the tax code which directed investments was the pure, useless invention of politicians and civil servants, you should have told this to my uncle who at one time was part of the oil industry lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and got generous depletion allowances for domestic oil production.  You should try telling union workers who got generous tax sheltered salaries and benefits how useless the tax code was.  But now after tax cutting and GOP tax code tinkering, no one except Speculators and job exporters are benefiting.

Rather than arguing over who pays the higher taxes, we should be arguing over who gets the revenue stream from capital.

Social capital and socialized capitalism will furnish a revenue stream for social benefit of the nation as a whole, whereas private capital and privatized capitalism provides a revenue stream for private benefit and the greater greed.

If there has to be an argument, why not argue the merits of the greater good, social capital and socialized capitalism, as opposed to the greater greed, private capital and privatized capitalism?

garth, July 14 at 2:02 pm,

Blah.

Go Right Young Man

More denial on your part, exactly as I expected. Having a fact based discussion with you is useless because you only want to look at your irrelevant data. You continually state your data regarding income, and taxes, while I’m giving you data about distribution of WEALTH. It may interest you to know that the data I gave you was from 2007. The distribution of WEALTH has become even more lopsided because of the housing bubble and the recession. My data has been posted to you, if you need further information about the distribution of WEALTH you only need to research the findings of the Survey of Consumer Finances sponsored by the Federal Reserve, or the United Nations University’s, World Institute for Development Economic Research,.

Regarding your typical smugness in relation to your incorrect statistical analysis, you say:

“In 2000 the top 5% of income earners were paid 35% of all wages while paying out 56% of all revenue to the Treasury.  In 2005 those numbers went from 36% of all wages and 60% of all revenue to the Treasury.  Their tax liabilities went up.  Not down.  Understand?”

What is it you don’t understand about data? I posted you the data that refuted this claim. I’ll try again to pound this data into your closed mind.

“…the IRS concludes, “Because of this law [JGTRRA], even with [an] increase in taxable income, the lower tax rates resulted in a 6.1-percent decrease in total income tax [relative to the previous year].”

Apparently you reserve to yourself a superior ability to interpret data than the Bush Administration’s own PhD’s from the Council of Economic Advisors, and the I.R.S. as well.

Let me put it in plain English, using the authority of the Bush Administrations Council of Economic Advisors and the I.R.S… Decreasing tax revenues, does NOT increase tax revenues.

Let’s just for a moment take a trip into reality. Take an honest look around at the world. Are you oblivious to the damage the failed economic policies you endorse have wrought?

BOING!!!!!!! That’s the sound of reality bouncing off your closed mind.

Try researching the Gina ratios for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION issued by the United Nations.

Also consider the cap on Social Security taxes. Your analysis of tax payments is inadequate, as well as being erroneous, according to the actual experts in the field of economics.

If you choose not to include Social Security into your analysis, you’re still wrong, and that refusal validates the reality that Social Security is NOT an “entitlement” subsidized by Government, but a simple trust fund financed by investment.

You are bound and determined to defend the indefensible, and arguing with you is, as always, an exercise in futility. I’ll catch you on the flip side. I’ll be around the next time you make your spurious claims, and attempt to defend policies that wreak havoc on the world.

LJL, July 14 at 1:20 pm:

‘... The basic policy question as posed by Sirota is how to stimulate the economy using the tax code.  No matter how much money the one or ten per cent of the population have and how much tax they pay, the essential truth is that they control the lion’s share of the economy because they control private industry.  Sirota’s point, which I think is valid, emphasized that taxes in the past and again in the future can be used to direct this money into productive avenues for both the nation and the rich.  The real issue is, what is good for America, personal greed or the public good.  The fruits of Republican anti-tax policies are seen today in abandoned neighborhoods, idle factories and full unemployment lines. ...’

Yes, but you had that in the ‘70s, too.

I don’t think the argument that higher taxes produce economic growth makes a lot of sense.  If capitalists get a lot of money, they have to spend it on capital investments regardless of the tax rates they pay.  There is nothing else they can do with it—that kind of money cannot be spent on consumer goods.  However, there is the additional problem that that kind of money is not like poor people’s money in that it is largely mythical because it is disconnected from labor and the goods and services that labor produces.

When it comes to capital investment, I have not seen much evidence that governments are any better at it than private capitalists.  I don’t see any reason why they would be.  It is true a government can direct investment into projects which have no immediate monetary payout, but this very freedom, this absence of discipline, often results in grotesquely misconceived developments and wasted money, to say nothing of corruption.

More fundamentally, I think the notion of growth has to be interrogated.  We have this curiously schizophrenic view of the world in which we at once urgently desire growth and bemoan its results, like the catastrophes in the Gulf of Mexico and Middle East.  No matter how much growth we have, if the fruits of production are distributed in a highly unequal or irrational way, we will still have poverty and the ignorance, superstition, crime, war, famine, disease and dirt which poverty in the modern world entails.  It seems that it is poverty which needs to be improved, not growth.

There are other reasons to soak the rich, such as limiting their political power, but that’s a different subject.

“By ThomasG, July 14 at 1:04 pm #

With regard to dialog on this thread, arguing false complexity does not foster understanding; it is better to have a clear understanding of the foundation and the cornerstone, and build causal understanding on the strength and definition of a strong foundation and cornerstone.

The purpose of intentionally framing false complexity is to establish and maintain power and control over and benefit from others; and those who participate in and get lost in frames of false complexity do nothing to further the ends of their own causal understanding that will relieve the oppression and tyranny of power and control exerted upon them for benefit by others. “

Once again, Moses of the Airwaves has come to lead the way.

He calls it complexity.  Just what do you mean, oh seer?

It’s great poop from the Foundations to continue the persiflage about marginal tax rates and who’s paying what, when in fact, you as the ordinary American citizen, ungirded by some heretofore unreported wealth, is being saddled by the debt and by one of the most origianl sins, highwqy robbery.

Causal, schmausal.  I don’t know their names but I know what did this to us.

If you stand to gain or stay afloat with your head above water, I understand.  But that does not mitigate your being as just another asshole.

The discussion over Sirota’s article has descended into a childish fight over “what’s mine and what’s yours”.  The original article was about policy, not over whose toys belong to whom.  The basic policy question as posed by Sirota is how to stimulate the economy using the tax code.  No matter how much money the one or ten per cent of the population have and how much tax they pay, the essential truth is that they control the lion’s share of the economy because they control private industry.  Sirota’s point, which I think is valid, emphasized that taxes in the past and again in the future can be used to direct this money into productive avenues for both the nation and the rich.  The real issue is, what is good for America, personal greed or the public good.  The fruits of Republican anti-tax policies are seen today in abandoned neighborhoods, idle factories and full unemployment lines.  On the other hand, the fruits of the high tax policies were demonstrated in the 1950’s and 60’s with rising prosperity and growing capital formation.  The real question, simply put, is what do we want, prosperity for all Americans or wealth for the rich alone leaving the trickle down for the rest?

With regard to dialog on this thread, arguing false complexity does not foster understanding; it is better to have a clear understanding of the foundation and the cornerstone, and build causal understanding on the strength and definition of a strong foundation and cornerstone.

The purpose of intentionally framing false complexity is to establish and maintain power and control over and benefit from others; and those who participate in and get lost in frames of false complexity do nothing to further the ends of their own causal understanding that will relieve the oppression and tyranny of power and control exerted upon them for benefit by others.

Ronald Reagan echoed the claim of Capitalist’s when he said, “I paid for this microphone!” 

And no one yet has come up with an answer to the deep and abiding belief by financiers the world over that this is, after all, their money.

To them, we are just along for the ride.

“According to the U.S. Treasury, not CNN, not MSNBC, not the RNC, not the Heritage Foundation and not someone looking to sell a book the top 50% of wage earners paid 92.98% of the total income tax paid to the U.S. Treasury in 1980. In 1999, after marginal rate reductions, the top 50% of wage earners paid 96.00% of all taxes.

Marginal tax rates went down.  Tax liabilities, in actual terms, went up.  Understand?

The most dramatic illustration is one I have already shared.  In 1980 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 19% of the federal income taxes. In 1998 the top 1% paid 35% of federal income taxes.  Tax rates fell from 70% to 39.6% in that period. - So the percentage of taxes the top 1% paid almost doubled between 1980 to 1998, from 19% to 35%!

All of the above are real numbers you can verify yourself.  But, for goodness sake, stop reading from the media or someone’s book.  Look to the Treasury Department.  You’ll find no better, non-partisan, source for real tax and revenue data. “
———————————————————————-

It’s not really about taxes.  What happened in 2008 and in 1929 were gigantic heists, as in The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.  You can read how it’s done in Dr. Black’s book of the same title.

Now most bank robberies are alike.  A yegg walks in to the bank with a mask on and asks for the cash.  That’s in Common Peoples Time (CPT) usually ruled by desperation.  But in Banker’s Time (BT), they take years to scheme and maneuver until the time is right to drop the boom. 

1929, 1987, 2008 were no different.  The financial people are protected by their shear wealth.  As seen in 2008, the Keystone Cops come out in hot pursuit, waving threats of the use of new laws, and a banker or a banker’s friend says, “He went thataway!”

You can argue about marginal tax rates, and I’ll bet that Warren Buffet would side with JDMysticDJ on the stats, but I think the real problem is a sort of brain cancer exhibited by, by, by… I can’t say it, and the rest of the controlling interests of America.

They put the money in their pockets and piss in yours, all the while telling you that it’s raining.

If we are to believe that WWII and only WWII got us out of the Great Depression, let me leave you with a quote by H. G. Wells, “There will be three world wars, and Germany will lose the first two.”

JD, - “The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. However, in the intervening years Congress subsequently increased the top marginal tax rate to 35% (the top marginal tax rate as of 2007).

It is statistical data that completely refuted your contention and answered your bold challenge definitively. You dismissed it as if it didn’t exist.

-

YES!  I did dismiss all of the above.  Everything above tells us nothing on this subject.  Where is the relationship between rates and actual taxes paid to the Treasury?  You write as if these numbers are the definitive answer to the subject and is now closed.

You have to show us the correlation between rates and paid taxes.  Not simply what marginal rates have historically been.  Understand?

-

I have more information for you to chew on and research for yourself.  More for you to debunk if you wish.

According to the U.S. Treasury, not CNN, not MSNBC, not the RNC, not the Heritage Foundation and not someone looking to sell a book the top 50% of wage earners paid 92.98% of the total income tax paid to the U.S. Treasury in 1980. In 1999, after marginal rate reductions, the top 50% of wage earners paid 96.00% of all taxes.

Marginal tax rates went down.  Tax liabilities, in actual terms, went up.  Understand?

The most dramatic illustration is one I have already shared.  In 1980 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 19% of the federal income taxes. In 1998 the top 1% paid 35% of federal income taxes.  Tax rates fell from 70% to 39.6% in that period. - So the percentage of taxes the top 1% paid almost doubled between 1980 to 1998, from 19% to 35%!

All of the above are real numbers you can verify yourself.  But, for goodness sake, stop reading from the media or someone’s book.  Look to the Treasury Department.  You’ll find no better, non-partisan, source for real tax and revenue data.

JD, this discussion should be a great deal easier. 

Repeatedly showing me others “opinions” is not enough.  Show me the data, please.  Just as I have done concerning the period after the much reviled “Bush tax cuts”.  According to the U.S. Treasury the top 1%, 5% and 10%, actually and realistically, paid more taxes. Not less.

Show me the data, please.  No more opinions.

According to the U.S. Treasury: In 2000 the top 1% of income earners were paid 21% of all wages.  The same 1% paid 37% of all revenue going to the Treasury.  In 2005, after the rate reduction, the same 1% were paid the same 21% of all wages but paid 39% of all revenue to the Treasury.  Their tax liabilities went up.  Not down.  Understand?

In 2000 the top 5% of income earners were paid 35% of all wages while paying out 56% of all revenue to the Treasury.  In 2005 those numbers went from 36% of all wages and 60% of all revenue to the Treasury.  Their tax liabilities went up.  Not down.  Understand?

In 1980, the top 1% of taxpayers (which was roughly one million individuals and families) paid 19% of the federal income taxes. In 1998 the top 1% paid 35% of federal income taxes.  Understand?

So the percentage of taxes the top 1% paid almost doubled between 1980 to 1998, from 19% to 35%! That’s with tax rate reductions on “the rich,” from a top marginal rate of 70% in 1980 to 39.6%. 

Understand these numbers and what they show us?  Lowering marginal tax rates raises revenue.  In very real terms.  Raising marginal tax rates, in very real terms, lowers revenue going into the Treasury.

-

You keep writing much but you’re not giving us the data.  Sharing the number of people who agree with you, without sharing the corresponding data, will not change minds.  Not mine anyhow.

Show me the data, please.  Clearly and plainly.  As I have done.  If you do this I will, I assure you, change my thinking on the matter.  Just please stop telling me how so many people agree with you.  You did the same thing with 5% holding 95% of all wealth.  You believed a common misconception and erroneously harangued me on how wrong I have been.

You have the power to change my thinking, JD.  Show me real and actual Treasury Dept. data.  Show me how my numbers are wrong.  Show me how my source is incorrect. Show me, simply and plainly, how raising tax rates raises revenue. Or, conversely, state very plainly how mislead you have been for many years.

Go Right Young Man  

Do you remember this?

“In spite of the counter intuitive nature of your claim, the data, the reality, and the authoritative evidence that puts the lie to your claim, you and others, who value your ideology more than you value the truth, continue to make this false claim.”

As you will remember, your claim, stated with absolute authority, was that tax cuts increase revenues.

When I posted the following,

Tax Cuts Don’t Boost Revenues
By Justin Fox Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007

“If there’s one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it’s that slashing taxes brings the government more money. “You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase,” President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, “does produce more revenue for the Federal Government.” Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that “tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues.” His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn’t agree more. “I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues,” he intones in a new TV ad.

If there’s one thing that economists agree on, it’s that these claims are false. We’re not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves—and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.”

You accused Time Magazine and CNN of being biased, and refused to acknowledge this authoritative evidence from the Main Stream Media. When Journalist Fox published this article citing Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush’s council of Economic Advisors and, “…Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration…”, if the article was false, don’t you suppose there would have been an uproar from Mankiw and the rest? Mr. Fox even references the book written by Mankiw which includes the information. However, that was not good enough for you. You dismissed this evidence out of hand and commenced obfuscating by changing the subject. I’ve noticed that this is a typical response from people from the right when confronted by truths that contradict their ideological dogma. I also provided the following,

“The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. However, in the intervening years Congress subsequently increased the top marginal tax rate to 35% (the top marginal tax rate as of 2007).

It is statistical data that completely refuted your contention and answered your bold challenge definitively. You dismissed it as if it didn’t exist.

Do you understand why I said the following?

In spite of the counter intuitive nature of your claim, the data, the reality, and the authoritative evidence that puts the lie to your claim, you and others, who value your ideology more than you value the truth, continue to make this false claim.

Hopefully, you will no longer make this claim, here or in any other forum or situation, but I have no confidence that you will cease doing so, nor do I have any confidence that you will give any credence to the information provided.

Go Right Young Man (Cont.)

Regarding the information about the 5% controlling 95%, I’ll admit to accepting the most commonly accepted data on the subject without verifying it. You’ll note that I did not offhandedly cite Michael Moore’s even more flamboyant claim. My first source, that claimed the 5%, 95% ratio, claimed the Federal Reserve as a source. After going to the Federal Reserve Survey, I then posted the correct data.

You then passed over the data as if it was not significant. I think that the fact that the bottom 60% only owns 4% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% only owns 1% of the wealth is significant. According to the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances the top 10% only owns 71% of the wealth. Isn’t that wonderful, it’s a great victory for egalitarianism, equity, and economic justice. The fact that there has been an upward redistribution of wealth since the Reagan tax cuts were enacted is well documented. To paraphrase T.Boone Pickens; “Yes there has been class warfare, and we won,” (We, meaning the richest Americans.)

Do lesser millionaires treat their employees fairly? It would be hard to tell without checking their books on a business by business basis, but it’s clear that employers profit from the labor of their employees, if they didn’t they’d go out of business, or have no profit. Personally, I like Andrew Carnegies suggestion of limiting profit to $50,000 per annum; I think it holds up nicely even today, and I also believe that a business run according to that stipulation would be, not only fair, but more productive and beneficial to the greater society. I believe that individuals, who by their genius, make a significant contribution to society should be revered and celebrated, but not lavishly rewarded with wealth; I believe that doing so would corrupt that contribution. Are our celebrities overpaid? Based on the frequent scandals, exposes’, blatant amorality and hedonism, I’d say yes, I think they are… I digress.

The issue is, would higher tax rates for the richest Americans be beneficial to our economy, and more specifically, alleviate the economic hardship suffered by the poor, unemployed, and the middle class? As far as I’m concerned the jury is in, and the verdict is obvious. The richest Americans are guilty as charged.

In spite of the near perfect storm of evidence that proves the error of yours, and others, failed economic theories, you continue to argue for them. It’s hard to fathom. You say it’s an issue of fairness. By what conceivable code of morals, or ethical system, do you make this claim? The poor, and working people, are entitled to a fair economic system. The rich are not entitled to obscenely excessive wealth. The richest Americans being obscenely rich does not, and can not, promote a healthy economy.

Somehow, I feel that this little exchange trivializes far more important issues regarding current global realities. There is far more at stake in this issue than simple economic justice for Americans.

Who are the thieves at AIG, for example? 

Anyone who sold, approved or managed people who sold CDO’s (insurance policies) to parties which did not own that which was being insured.  They sold billions of dollars of CDO “bets” to people who had no direct interest in the subject of the CDOs ... just to make profit.  It would be a good wake-up call if all those people were to spend time in jail with the drug dealers and murderers they are akin to.

I must say, I struggle with this idea of “Not criminals, per se”.  It seems that the rich and powerful (especially those wielding corporate money, not their own) have an undue influence on legislation so that many of their actions are “not criminal, per se” but ought to be.  Collecting commissions on deals which will inevitably go bad eventually because they have no foundation in reality (see CDO’s / derivatives). 
It’s a sure-thing game when an individual can collect fees and commissions for a number of years knowing that when a collapse occurs they can quietly pocket their “earnings” while their clients and the rest of the economy suffers.  It ought to be illegal. 

To complain then and receive massive taxpayer assistance on the premise that it is needed to provide funds for loans ... then using it instead for acquisitions and bonus payments.  It ought to be illegal.

To market financial products that are known to be defective so as to collect fees on the one hand and on the counter-bet.  It ought to be illegal.

To lock up corporate boards as CEO clubs which vote each other ludicrous remuneration packages and “retirement benefits”.  It ought to be illegal.

To have shareholders arrested if they disagree to vociferously with executive employees at a company meeting.  It ought to be illegal.

To cut corners in the pursuit of profits resulting in employee deaths and environmental catastrophe.  I ought to be illegal ... and criminal ... go to jail criminal.

But none of this seems to be illegal after decades of corporate influence on legislation.  The fact that it is difficult to answer the question “Who are the thieves or criminals in that scenario?” is an indictment of the current state of the law relating to white-collar crime and the priorities of law enforcement.

However, I grant you, this is no reason to confiscate 90% of all rich people’s wealth (although I don’t agree that that is a fair reading of any comments in this thread).

DBM,

I did not feel attacked.  I felt singled-out as particularly homiletic (smile).

I do not believe Bernard Madoff was the only one.  I think he was an exceptional thief.  I wholeheartedly agree with you in regards to going after white collar crimes as a priority.  The SEC (government agency) dropped the ball on Madoff.  Not his competitors.  Wall Street actually displayed it’s concerns for several years.  Apathy enabled Madoff.  Not criminals, per se.  That’s my opinion from what I understand.

-

Can you be more specific on the thugs and thieves?  AIG, for example?  Who are the thieves or criminals in that scenario? Who broke the law?  Who was not deserving of their own personal success?  Which of the employees was less inclined to help their neighbor or travel to Haiti?  Who cheated the masses in their tax fraud?

The common charge from most here has been in regards to “those people”.  Those who unjustly control the masses and commit massive crimes against their neighbors.  Those stepping on the necks of the Middle Class and the Poor.  Those Chris Hedges goes on about.  The “Star Chamber”.

Who are “they” that we hear and read about almost daily?  It’s time to get specific when pointing to, accusing, condemning or confiscating the wealth of 5%, 10% or 20% of the population. 

-

As an rhetorical aside:  Could you claim now that you or anyone else know better the purposes for Oprah Winfrey’s tremendous personal wealth?  Does the “establishment” know what’s best for Ms. Winfrey’s personal monetary philanthropy?  I think she does a terrific job with her fortunes.  Or, for that matter, would you be able to claim that the Cathrine T. and John D. MacArthur Foundation is less effective than the “establishment” in aiding others?  These are not small or idle questions.

Go Right,

No - your posts are not more ad hominem ... I was defending you not accusing you.

Regarding small business, I’m sorry if I’ve missed your “best opinions” but you did say “The vast majority of Millionaires are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.  -Working people who make choices!”  That sounded like a definition of small business to me.

Regarding Treasury Department data, you know my opinion on statistics!  Useful but easily misleading.  You talk about ignoring a brief lag to allow for cause and effect of tax reductions ... apply that to the extended high tax era from the 1950’s to the 1970’s which was the greatest most extended period of economic growth for the U.S. (and certainly the most widely distributed).  Obviously other factors are also relevant and the point I as trying to make is that broader policy options need to be looked at to address what I perceive to be a dramatically increasing imbalance.

You want specifics about the Thugs & Thieves among the wealthiest Americans?  Get yourself the list of UBS tax cheats.  Include all the corporate criminals involved in Enron, Tyco, AIG, BP, Chevron, Exxon.  You think Madoff was the only criminal on Wall St?  Find all the exploitative executives of medium size companies like the Republic Windows and Doors management who were stealing company assets as they tried to make their workforce redundant.  In short, persue white-collar crime with something like the verve and focus that seems to be reserved for whistle-blowers, demonstrators and anyone with a crack-pipe.

DBM,

My posts are any more ad hominem than others?  Enough to be singled out?.....LOL Fascinating that you see it that way.  I invite you to look again.

If you think I am talking only about small business’ you have missed my best opinions and hard Treasury Department data.

I invite you too to be specific on who the thugs and thieves are amongst the wealthiest Americans.  I maintain that the majority are not what is described on this, almost entirely progressive, Web space.  I maintain that what we are witnessing is an virulent strain of class envy and simple-minded bigotry.

-

Thugs and thieves amongst the wealthiest Americans.  Be specific.

JDmysticDJ, - “Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010). - Distribution of financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007

-

Thank you JD.  So you now see why many people will honestly disagree with the claim that 5% of the population holds 95% of the wealth (It’s not Treasury Dept. supported fact). I think it’s instructive to have cleared that up, however, huge numbers of people will continue making the same claim.  Great that you too can question the claim or the claimant.

Yes, the top 5, 10 and 20% of the population holds a great deal of wealth (I say let them have it. I don’t want it).  Now I ask you to identify the thugs and thieves.  Is Fred Smith, Steve Jobs, the Katharine Graham or Oliver Chace families amongst the thugs?  Is Warren Buffett and Jeffrey Zucker amongst them?  Or Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey?  Was Jonnny Carson and now Jay Leno in this group as well?  Please be specific now on identifying those demons stepping on the necks of everyone else and/or stealing from others.

I have some very specific ideas on some thugs and thieves in each of the standard income categories.

-

Perhaps you could help me in another way as well?  I have never seen a sociology study which indicates a higher level of violence and/or thievery and thuggery (Federal government aside) amongst the wealthiest 20% of Americans.  I assume from all you have written that you have.  May I be privy to that?

A very useful point JDMystic, about the difference between wealth and income. 

In the midst of all the ad hominem stuff, we should note a useful point Go Right has made as well which is that there are wealthy people who have made their money in small businesses.  They are not and should not be the target of “class envy” or punitive wealth redistribution.  However, there is most certainly a class of executive managers of other people’s wealth who have rigged corporate arrangements so that they and those investing other people wealth hugely benefit at the expense of their shareholders, their customers, their employees and the people who have to live environment they leave behind. 

I think everyone knows the types I mean.  I would be fascinated to see real data as to the amount that the growth in these people’s wealth has skewed statistics at the expense of the entreprenuers and successful small business owners Go Right feels are being unfairly targeted.

The interesting point then, is what reforms would put an end to the madness before the economy is strangled by extraction of wealth to Cayman Island bank accounts.  Income Taxes are only one thing.  A few “go to jail” convictions would help immensely (problematic as the theft has been made largely legal).  Perhaps some whistleblower protection rather than prosecution (that somehow still seems to be illegal).  Certainly any incentives to invest rather than to consume should be considered.

Anyway ... just broadening the discussion I hope.

Go Right Young Man

The Wealth Distribution

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Table 1: Distribution of financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007
   
 
        Financial Wealth

Top 1 percent   Next 19 percent   Bottom 80 percent

1983   42.9%      48.4%        8.7%
1989   46.9%      46.5%        6.6%
1992   45.6%      46.7%        7.7%
1995   47.2%      45.9%        7.0%
1998   47.3%      43.6%        9.1%
2001   39.7%      51.5%        8.7%
2004   42.2%      50.3%        7.5%
2007   42.7%      50.3%        7.0%

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.
Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt.

“There is very little data about wealth in America.  There is one source, the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board,  that does provide data from 1983.

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3%  of the nation’s net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.”

The distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income, especially when focussing on the bottom 60% of all households.  The bottom 60% of households possess only 4% of the nation’s wealth while it earns 26.8% of all income.

garth, - “Your go right ahead with your lack of ideas. ”

-

Thank you.  I will.  I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s always good to get different points of view.  How it aids us in lending a much richer understanding of others about the globe.

Is it troublesome to you that the “in-crowd” at our Tiny-Tots school is not so accepting or inclusive?  The displays of unbridled emotion and insults is incessant here, yes?

You’re right about one thing, garth.  I don’t fully get the joke.  Honestly, did you too believe “Discussion Group” meant, well,  discussion?

GRYM,

Should we address you as Mr. Glib?

You are beginning to sound like the jerk in jr. high school I knew who tagged along with the in-crowd and pretended to get the in-jokes but really never did. 

Your flailing response reminds me of Anthony Marino who challenged the 8th Gym teacher by yelling out that ignorance was bliss.  Later, I saw Anthony picking his nose and eating it.  Made me gag.

Your go right ahead with your lack of ideas.  It too will make people gag sooner or later.

I’ll bet on that.

garth, July 13 at 4:09 pm

Aside from being highly agitated you write much but convey next to nothing in your last post.  Your point, however, was clear. 

I fully appreciate how you do not care for the solid and verifiable positions I share on this thread regarding wealth and taxes.  It’s inconvenient for you.

Again, I apologize if I somehow injured you.

GRYM,

“I apologize if I somehow injured you both.”

You show poor choice of sentiment, like the person who laughs at a funeral, you assign your injury where none was taken.  You are a strange breed, yet to be figured out by the left-wing think tanks elites. 

Like all right-wing arguments yours is disjointed and lacking in any real research value. 

Your factual arguments are meant to be used like guerrilla warfare on TV and on radio, they will then become like the war cry of the German Blitzkreig.  Shocking at first, like Bush and general Frank’s Shock & Awe, but then, as always there is an answer.

Logic and common sense prevails over non-sequiters and just plain foolishness. 

The answer just might be to shut you up for your own good.  Ask the Germans if they’d like to take on the Russians again?

The Japanese have seen our lowest, but has the world seen China’s and Russia’s?

As a right-wing

Thomas and garth,

You’re both spot on correct.  President Reagan was quoting Agnew.

I apologize if I somehow injured you both.

GoRightYoungMan doesn’t even know that it was Spiro T. Agnew that coined the phrase, “Nattering Nabobs of Negativity”, he says Reagan did.

As “Nattering Nabobs of Negativity” goes for GoRightYoungMan, so goes the rest of his dialogue.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew

Spiro T. Agnew’s use of the phrase, “hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history” defined the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican Movement that was yet to come by his use of the phrase, “hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history” without awareness that he was writing the postscript for the Republican Party and their role in the deindustrialization, financialization, and mercantilization of the U.S. Economy, together with Borrow and Spend Governance that bankrupted the United States as a nation and resulted in the September 18, 2008 Collapse of the U.S. Economy.

Go Right yada yada,

I very rarely read most of what you write, but attribution of the quote, ‘“Nattering nabobs of negativity.”  What a wonderful use of an Ronald Reagan quote.’ shows that you have very little command of recent history. 

Back to you GRYM: Spiro Agnew, Vice Pesident of Richard “the M” Nixon said that.  He was and still is the only Vice Presdent in the modern era (I added that to be safe.) convicted of a felony.

In other Right wing Bull Shit Venues,

A caller to C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning said taht Obama has increased the size of the Feederal Government by 45 per cent.

The statement went un-questioned. 

As a contractor to the Federal Government in years past, I find this claim to be ludicrous.  Theat the Governmet is now one and a half times its size under the failed doorman George W. Bush is impossible.

Yet, On C-SPAN, the malicious little ones among us from Florida, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, say factual things, or so they’d have you believe, on the air without any rebuttal, and they are given free reign. 

I listen only because Amy comes on at 8 O’clock and together with a cup of coffee the drone of mindless callers and the lack of response from shiftless half-baked, well-preserved moderators helps me wake up slowly. 
(BTW, Those bastards and bastardia have lasted quite a while.  Can cable users request a complete change of milquetoast personnel?)

Coffee and the drone of C-SPAn is one of the keys to avoiding a heart attack in the morning.

The ones whose statements fit between specific parameters are given a minute, 60 seconds, maybe. The callers who have something to say are sporadic.  It’s like a mild sedative. 

Wait’ll nobody listens and only the impaired call.

LJL, - “Nattering nabobs of reactionary negativity like “Go Right Young Man” and “Adam Smith” have no knowledge whatsoever of the American Tax code.”

-

First.  “Nattering nabobs of negativity.”  What a wonderful use of an Ronald Reagan quote.

You may well be correct.  But then I’m not the individual arguing a return to the 90% tax bracket which nobody actually paid.  Correct?

-

If you dig deeper you’ll find that the Congress during the Reagan years lowered the top marginal tax rate drastically but, simultaneously, closed dozens of tax loopholes.

*The real mean average tax liabilities for the top 10%, after the rate was lowered and loopholes closed, moved from 7% to 14%.

Yes, you read that correctly.  The wealthiest actually paid twice the amount of taxes they had previously been paying. - You can thank a democrat controlled Congress, with which I agreed with, for passing those tax laws pushed by a republican president.

*1986 Treasury Dept. data.

To the extent that the very rich do not spend their gorged incomes after taxes and that there are no revenues left over for investment in social needs, including education, infrastructure, technology investment, etc, it is a no-brainer, unless your head is crammed with cliches and stereotypes like sterile Republicans.

“Nattering nabobs” of reactionary negativity like “Go Right Young Man” and “Adam Smith” have no knowledge whatsoever of the American Tax code.  Because somehow in their collective ignorance they are convinced that the U.S. has a flat tax.  We, however, have a progressive tax system, as others have futilely tried to explain to these purblind right wingers.  Not only would high wage earners be taxed at the highest rate only on the portion of their income over an astronomically high amount, but they are also given the opportunity to shelter a great deal of their income from any tax whatsoever.  During the days of the 90% marginal rate absolutely no one ever paid anywhere near 90% of their total income in taxes. 

During the heyday of the high marginal rates jobs stayed in America, a single income per family was most often sufficient, personal wealth grew and capital formation thrived while the rich remained comfortably rich.  All of this began to slip once Kennedy began foolishly lowering the marginal rates.  But after Reagan and the Bushes got through with our tax code we got the mess we’re suffering through today.

If small minded individuals like Martha could set aside her horrific bigotry she would observe the real world.

Example:  In the real word the wealthy are made up of the registered Democrat hub manager for yellow-Roadway (200,000+) who began working for Roadway in college and stayed, worked hard (12hr. days for six years), and excelled in his goals.

While he may or may not be a millionaire today, confiscating 90% of his income is criminal and would destroy home, boat and car sales.  It would destroy the incomes of landscapers and electricians, stamp dealers and butchers.  It would rob monies that could be put away for college for his 2.3 children.

Please, I beg all, let us deal with the real world.  Not phantoms we create in our heads.

DBM, July 13 at 10:58 am

How’s the knee healing?

-

I Believe LJL and others have been advocating a real and actual 90% income confiscation.  Not a scenario in which the actual (paid) taxes amount to zero.  I responded.

-

This data, directly from the Treasury Dept., clearly illustrates, without the CNN reinterpretation, how, after tax rates were reduced, the actually monies going to the Treasury grew in very real terms.

Richest 1%  Income   Taxes

1990       14%    25%
2000       21%    37%
2005       21%    39%

Richest 5%

1990       25%    44%
2000       35%    56%
2005       36%    60%

Source: Treasury Dept. October 2007

Fully realized (paid) tax liabilities amongst the top 5% of income earners rose from 56% to 60% after the rate reductions.  More monies went to the Treasury.  Not less.

-

There is one point I have stressed here more than all others.  Who are the “wealthy” in the U.S.?

If it’s media information people on TruthDig enjoy most I could suggest a lengthy study reported by the New York Times entitled “The Millionaire Next Door”

There are widespread myths that, for the sake of this thread, should be shattered.  Class envy, as practiced on this Web space, is an ugly, truly unrealistic, phenomena.

The vast majority of Millionaires are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.  -Working people who make choices! - Making demons of these working people is quite sickening.  It is unhealthy and unproductive in very real terms.

I maintain that we should daily deal in reality.  Not myths of goblins and demons.  Straw phantoms, as you may put it.

That should read “AND try to articulate more clearly” ... not very clear at all ... sigh!

Hi Go Right,

Yes - I’ve been very busy for quite a few months and have rarely read comments to articles.  I’m glad you are still plugging away on TD ... your perspective makes people think are try to articulate more clearly.

However, it’s probably not a critical point in this discussion but you did go from quoting LJL suggesting “a 90% marginal rate on their idle wealth” to saying “You, quite literally, advocate confiscating 90% of what these human beings have built” and then in a later post say “There is simply no justifiable rationalization for taking 90% of another family’s work and dedication”. 

My simple point is that a 90% marginal tax rate on annual income has absolutely no similarity or relevance to the false straw-man you criticise of “confiscating 90%” or “taking 90%” of someone’s wealth.  You are disagreeing with something no-one suggested even by your own quote.  A MARGINAL tax rate of 90% did exist when the U.S. Government wisely chose to pay the costs of World War II (rather than to borrow form the Chinese and tell Americans to “go shopping”).  That meant that a very wealthy family with say $10M wealth and annual income of $600k would be paying 90% tax on their income over a certain amount.  To make things simple let’s say the tax rate brackets are:

  * $0-$50k - 0%
  * $50k-200k - 50%
  * $200+ - 90%

Then on $600k income our wealthy family would pay $0 + $75k + $360k = $435k leaving them with only $10,165,000.  If someone were to confiscate or take 90% of “what they’ve built” they’d be left with a measly $1M.  I’m sure this is rocket science to no-one who’s reading this but it is good to argue the points that are actually made rather than more easily refuted ones that are not.

DBM,

Good to see you.  It’s been a while.

I wrote that Americans give more of their personal time and money in aid to others than 95% of other nations.

-

Your write: “You talk about them (the wealthy) being asked to pay “90% tax” like they did in the past ...”

Actually I didn’t write that.  I wrote in regards to what we should not to today.

JDmysticDJ,

Your last few posts brings to high relief the differences in our respective approaches and knowledge base.  I study Treasury Dept. data and trends (real data sans opinions) in an attempt to stay informed. You take your cues from CNN (media messages supported with opinions).

One of these approaches deals with real data and trends.  The other with regurgitated ideological messages (BTW: the CNN numbers are slightly incorrect. CNN also used 2003 data. The year tax cuts went into effect. 2005-07 numbers, on the other hand, reflect the effects after cuts were fully implemented).

If I draw your blood two minutes after taking an aspirin the data would not reflect the aspirin you ingested.  Draw your blood after an hour and the data would reflect the reality of what you ingested.

Note:  I could have used Fox News stories and data in the way you rely on CNN.  But then your head would have exploded.

I saved your life

-

You falsely claim: “Fact from the Federal Reserve: 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.”

That did not come from the U.S. Treasury.  You pulled that out of your butt. - Honesty is required when discussing these matters, JD.

JDmysticDJ, July 12 at 5:41 pm,

Thank you for setting GRYM the Conservative Republican Right-Winger straight on how the wealthy and the Conservative DLC Congress have colluded and cooperated with Reaganomics, the Clintonians, and Bushanomics to get rid of all taxes on the wealthy.  The wealthy save all their money and instead of making the wealthy pay taxes, the government just borrows the money and doesn’t cut down on spending, just keeps warring and borrowing and spending without taxing the wealthy until the National Debt is so high that it will keep the American Populace in the poor house for generations upon generations upon generations to come, unless President Obama, who has just as many rights as Bush II had that Bush II used to destroy the economy for the populace, if he will quit cooperating and colluding and decide to use all those rights to help the nation as a whole, instead of continuing to cooperate with the wealthy and the Conservative DLC in Congress in the continued fleecing of the American populace.

You know what you have laid out here, all the Congressmen are aware of, and still fleece the populace anyway, because the Conservative/Moderate Congresspersons figure that it is OK to fleece the populace, since they will never know the difference.  You have made it clear that that old ploy is not going to work and I thank you.

I agree with DBM you should be a column thread writer for Truthdig Forum.

JDmysticDJ,

You call your update long and poorly organised ... I reckon it is a better read than the article that prompted this thread!

Get yourself a Truthdig column!

Adam Smith, you’ve probably never filed an income tax form more complicated than a simplified 1040.  Otherwise you would know a little something about the US Tax Code which makes it possible to avoid the marginal rates by channeling taxable income into beneficial types of investments.  Therefore the higher the marginal rates are the more attractive these tax shelters become.  So, for example, when capital investments in America are sheltered while foreign write-offs are disallowed by a 90% marginal rate, intelligent business folk choose to invest profits in America.

I would like the U.S. to take the cap off social security taxes ($106K)and have those Americans making less than $70K exempt from paying them.

While they’re at it create some sort of tax for churches, foundations, lobbys and other so called non-profits.

Go Right Young Man
 
You claim.

“Anecdotal evidence and progressive studies are interesting, however, IRS data clearly illustrate that lower individual income taxes raises revenue to the treasury.”

In spite of the counter intuitive nature of your claim, the data, the reality, and the authoritative evidence that puts the lie to your claim, you and others, who value your ideology more than you value the truth, continue to make this false claim.

Here’s some non-anecdotal evidence for you.

This from Time magazine and CNN.

Tax Cuts Don’t Boost Revenues
By Justin Fox Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007

If there’s one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it’s that slashing taxes brings the government more money. “You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase,” President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, “does produce more revenue for the Federal Government.” Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that “tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues.” His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn’t agree more. “I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues,” he intones in a new TV ad.
If there’s one thing that economists agree on, it’s that these claims are false. We’re not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves—and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Drop in Deficit in 2005 Does Not Mean Tax Cuts Are Spurring Economic and Revenue Growth; New IRS Data Confirm Tax Cuts Lose Revenue

“Recently published Internal Revenue Service data provide additional evidence that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.  The IRS data are for tax year 2003, the year in which the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act took effect.  That legislation enacted tax breaks for capital gains and dividends, as well as reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax cuts.  Based on a detailed analysis of individual tax returns for 2003, the IRS concludes, “Because of this law [JGTRRA], even with [an] increase in taxable income, the lower tax rates resulted in a 6.1-percent decrease in total income tax [relative to the previous year].”

Note:

“…the IRS concludes, “Because of this law [JGTRRA], even with [an] increase in taxable income, the lower tax rates resulted in a 6.1-percent decrease in total income tax [relative to the previous year].”

Yes the rich got richer (Larger piece of the pie,) but their getting richer decreased revenues, and did not increase revenues.

You state:

“It’s also worth noting that the lowest 40% of income earners, as a result of the “Bush Tax Cuts”, actually paid 0% income taxes.”

“Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found…”

It’s also worth noting that the lowest 40% of income earners earn a 12.8% share of total income. Would you further decrease their income by increasing their taxes? These people work hard to earn their relatively meager incomes.

You State:

“Fact: The top 5% of income earners pay roughly 54% of all taxes going to the Treasury.”

Fact from the Federal Reserve: 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.

Go Right Young Man (Cont.)

Idle wealth? You are familiar with the concept of disposable income aren’t you. Most people have no disposable income. The richest have a great deal of disposable income, which they use to further increase their share of the national wealth, which further centralizes the wealth in the hands of the richest Americans. By all metrics the wealth has become more and more centralized in the hands of the richest Americans over the last 30 years, beginning with the Reagan reduction of top income tax rates.

Your invitation:

“I invite all those who advocate the idea of a 90% income confiscation to give us a working example of it.  A single model from all of human history.”

“The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. However, in the intervening years Congress subsequently increased the top marginal tax rate to 35% (the top marginal tax rate as of 2007).

These numbers clearly show that reduced top marginal tax rates preceded depression and recession. Those are the numbers. This is the “model” you asked for,  it is most definitely from human history.

Please get this part right. Your example of the Rudy family is anecdotal. I have another anecdotal story for you. Have you ever heard of Leona Helmsley? Let me remind you. She was a billionaire hotel operator and real estate investor who infamously said, “We don’t pay taxes, only little people pay taxes.” She was known for being: a heartless employer, who treated her employees poorly, fired her employees for little cause and without remorse. She was by most standards an arrogant, ugly, mean spirited witch.

You are living in a dream world, remember: “Greed is good,” There was no economic collapse, we are not in a serious and painful recession caused by right wing (Conservative?) economic policies, There are no corrupt Wall Street executives, everything would be fine if it weren’t for these greedy and selfish working people, Lord protect us from the “great unwashed” the “little people,” “lazy liberals, criminals and communists” “Lord forgive them for they know not what they do,” “Little people are the root of all evil,” Quick! Somebody get me the eye of a needle, I need to get away from here! If you want to get into the kingdom of God, sell everything you have, (And give the money to me.)

It interests me that when certain Capitalists see the error of their ways, embrace liberal causes, and devote a percentage of their accumulated wealth to liberal causes, people such as your self, use those acts of liberalism as being, “Anecdotal,” examples of superior Capitalist virtue.

Bill Gates is at the top of the Capitalist pecking order; the epitome of Capitalist manliness. He seems to be something of an anomaly. He is most definitely not typical. He and his family have made a noble effort to put some of his wealth to good use. We frequently hear stories in the media of Capitalists who devote some of their accumulated wealth to advancing liberal causes, but the stories are of course, atypical of Capitalists. The best that can be said of the majority of Capitalists is that they are horribly misguided, and self serving chauvinists.

Go Right Young Man (Cont.)

Perhaps the best example of Capitalist philanthropy would be Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie spent 100’s of millions of dollars on liberal causes: Along with contributing to the construction of over a thousand libraries and cultural centers, he also formed the anti-Imperialist League, spent additional millions to promote world peace; he even tried to purchase the Philippine Islands from the U.S., in order to promote Philippine independence, and avoid war.

Carnegie’s liberal pursuits were indeed laudable, but the history of his accumulation of wealth is less laudable. A quick study shows that he was in the “Robber Barren Class.” Apparently he was highly skilled at networking, and an active participant in “Old boy crony-ism.” His first accumulation of Capital came from insider information, and was financed by mortgaging his mother’s home. Historians attribute the “Johnstown Flood,” which killed two thousand, to environmental destruction perpetrated by Carnegie Steel. The “Homestead Strike” (Not a strike, a lockout) is another one of the nasty historical events that occurred in our nation’s history; Carnegie Steel was the perpetrator of the atrocities that occurred during the “Homestead Strike.” Briefly, Carnegie Steel’s employees wanted a bigger share of Carnegie Steel’s Exxon like profits, and attempted to organize a union, which resulted in them being “locked-out.” Carnegie Steel brought in 300 Pinkerton mercenaries and machine guns. Carnegie Steel’s hired army opened fire on assembled demonstrators, killing and wounding 100’s.

Carnegie said,

“I propose to take an income no greater than $50,000 per annum! Beyond this I need ever earn, make no effort to increase my fortune, but spend the surplus each year for benevolent purposes!”

However, according to Wikipedia, he put the millions derived from the sale of Carnegie Steel in a safety deposit box. Wikipedia states that he gave 350 million to charitable causes over the course of his life. According to my view, Capitalist philanthropists practice a “Neo-Robinhoodism {sic}.” They rob from the poor, and then selectively give back to the poor, and to the not so poor. My opinion is that his philanthropy did not compensate for the exploitation and subjugation of the working class, that he practiced over the course of his life.

As for me, I’m going to be as wealthy as Bill Gates. All I’ll need to do is scrounge up 1 million dollars every day for the next 160 years or so. 365 million every year, for 160 years, I’ll have it made!... Oh wait!... I didn’t include a calculation for taxes… screw it!

Well, this post has been: lengthy, poorly organized, full of anecdotes, and, I will argue, supported opinion. I’m not particularly proud of it, however, it has also included factual evidence to dispute your falsehoods, and answer your unsupported, foolish assertions, and uninformed challenges. You appear to be an authority worshiping sycophant, who like many, believes that support of elite authoritarians, qualifies one as being a member of that elitist group, or alternately, in your case, simply a naïve “sucker,” as Anarcissie has said.

If this post seems “mean spirited,” I can only say, there is a difference between chopping one’s head off, and trying to pound some sense into that head (Strictly metaphorical.)

It’s interesting that Adam Smith is a “shoot from the hip” kind of guy.  By this I mean he’s an unregistered commenter. A sort of double anonymity.  Cowardice times two.

That’s the point.  Force the corporations to leave the country.  Then, have them pay a confiscatory tax to re-enter or to do business here.  Make it illegal for aliens of another sort to live here without papers.

Is that the kind of rebuttal you are searching for?

The C-SPAN callers and the ones who appear on it are deathly afraid of Socialism.  The word itself stops the brodcast airwaves dead.

Ask David Cay Johnston about his trip to the socially democtratic scandanavian countries, Sweden, Norway and Finland.  Bus drivers own two homes.  One in the city and one in the country. 

And the differences continue painfully.

But, all in all, we are free.  Ain’t we? 

And the free market says so.

The long brain dead Adam Smith would be surprised to learn that American Companies only started exporting American jobs only when tax rates were lowered.  During the time of high rates American business expanded because the 90% marginal rate encouraged business to spend money and expand jobs in America rather than waste their money overseas.  Once tax penalties were lowered on exporting American wealth, the companies started firing American workers and moving jobs out of the country. 

The criminal minded Adam Smith thinks that greed and selfishness are the greatest virtues.  But these are the virtues for mafia traitors and his childish opinion of the economy guarantees only the rise of corporate criminality and the ruin of America.

I liked this quote from Sirota’s piece: “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere,” she pointed out. “And guess what? It’s growing like crazy. The rich are getting richer, but they are pulling people out of poverty.”

I read an article in the Ideas section of last Sunday’s Boston Globe that claimed the information itself doesn’t do much to change people’s minds.  As a matter of fact, it seems to do just the opposite.  It hardens beliefs.

Now, that study clarifies for me how so many of my former co-workers who are intelligent and highly educated could hold so fast to the policies and beliefs put forth on media outlets like FOX.

I propose a formation of new movement one of Humanitarian Evangelists.  Get to the nub of the matter—sexual appeal.  And evangelism has sex appeal. 

The co-workers mentioned above, almost to a man, complained of a disgreement with their wives.  The women could see, perhaps more clearly, what the problem was and is.  Testosterone and status consciousness gone wild.  In short, American males have to pass through puberty wholesomely and start to see thing as they really are.

The Humanitarian Evangelist movement would do that. 

After seeing Amy Goodman in Haiti this morning, it became clear to me that the only thing that the wealth of the world is good for is that they have money. 

Evangelize them into getting out of world planning (History no longer seems to happen, it seems to be foisted upon us.) and staying home.  Let them put their holdings into a bank account in Switzerland or in the Caymen Islands, but urge them to donate and by all means get out of the political arena.

The people, Democracy, will find the answers on its own.

Go Right,

I hear your argument that rich people are not all evil thieves.  Granted ... True.

But I’m not sure on some of your facts.  You say:

“Fact:  The people of the Unites States give more of their own money and time, per capita, than 97% of other nations.
Fact:  It’s not those with no money who are sharing their wealth.”

It’s not quite that simple.  On the first point, the U.S. gives more money in absolute terms but not per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
http://www.articleszoom.org/society/charity/comparison-of-countries-charitable-giving-living-standards-tax-rates-health-care-development/#axzz0tTc0hbuG

It’s a complex point really as there is a lot of “aid” which is closely tied to economic concessions which harm the recipient country and benefit the investor class of the donor country.  There is no doubt that Americans are generous people but there shouldn’t be a sense that American generosity far outstrips that of other well-to-do countries.

As to the second point, despite very valuable and high profile philanthropy such as Bill & Melinda Gates, the rich for the most part do NOT give as much as others as a percentage of income.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/638_charity_contributions_average_dollar_amount_and.html

Neither do the very rich pay as much tax.  You talk about them being asked to pay “90% tax” like they did in the past ... they never did.  They paid 0% on the first few dollars they earned and 90% on the last few dollars.  That figure is now much lower of course.  While you say it is “not those with no money who are sharing their wealth”.  I’d say it is not those of modest means who were exposed as tax cheats in the UBS scams which led to the jailing of the whistleblower (but no bankers or tax cheats) nor do those with modest means hide their earnings in the Caymans in any other ways.  The not rich do not launder their money through art investment, gambling or hedge funds to avoid taxes either.  And when the not rich fail financially, they don’t get completely bailed out and “made whole” ... they just get a limited amount of welfare unless this is cut off by the Senate.

Most pertinent to this article it is interesting to note (see the http://www.articleszoom link above) that U.S. taxes are the 22nd highest in the world.  The most taxed countries?  Belgium, Hungary, Germany, France.  These countries rank on the Quality of living index 8th(Belgium), 20th (Hungary), 4th(Germany) and 1st(France).  The U.S. is 7th.  Taxes don’t seem to be the killer.

Finally, the whole issue of tax rates seems pointless to me.  The value of government expenditure that is not simply enforced saving (such as when a government holds superannuation contributions in trust) is the important measure.  If this figure is high and taxes are low, the taxes are simply being deferred to future taxpayers through borrowing.

Call this a “soft argument”.  I don’t disagree with your points entirely.  I do wonder as to your sources of fact sometimes.

Are Low Taxes Exacerbating the Recession?

Oh, you betcha!

The only way to make stuff stick with these banksters is to tax them at the pump.
Any one of these corpos can sidestep regulations. They will fear the tax man,
though.

A hefty tax on every transaction, in the door and out the door.

And it has to be retroactive to 2008, at the least. If corpos can “defer” their taxes
until it’s convenient for them, they can have them undeferred. Qu’ils ne mangent
de l’brioche.

Maybe we should have elected Hillary!

For the poor, it truly is the worse that things have been since the Great Depression, for many of the same reasons today as in the 1930s. And as it was then, America treats the poor with contempt, considering them something “less than” regular people. Those policies that were put into place by the Roosevelt administration to help the poor and rebuild the country were all reversed since the 1980s, returning us to the same conditions that caused the Great Depression.  We’re merely on a cycle of repeating history.

If there is any chance of moving the country forward, those “dread” New Deal policies will have to be updated and reimplemented. On one hand, thousands of US jobs have been exported per year for a number of years, so there aren’t nearly enough jobs for those who desperately need them.  On the other hand, our infrastructure has been neglected for decades, and we are seeing bridges, buildings, etc., collapsing, taking lives. It’s not hard to figure out how to solve both problems. That’s just one example, of course. Because of years of neglect, a tremendous amount of work must be done to rebuild the US, and it will take millions of workers.

So—shouldn’t we get started?

Wasn’t Eliot Spitzer, the Governor who liked who*es?

ThomasG, - “You failed to answer my July 10 11:06 pm post.”

-

I saw no question or solicitation in your post.  You addressed me in order to share your own thoughts, yes?

Voting politically doesn’t do any good unless you know your economic constituency and vote in the best interest of your constituency and let the Lord handle all the rest.  The American Populace have no constituency on the Republican Right, whatsoever.

If it were true that if you lowered taxes on the rich, that they’d create more jobs, then why don’t we have more jobs? 

Bush lowered taxes on the wealthiest, and they’ve been living exceptionally high off the hog for the past 8 or 9 years and still no jobs, from them anyway.

Increase in Demand as in Supply and Demand, creates jobs, not the good will of rich strangers.

They shipped millions of jobs to Mexico, China and anywhere else where they can get cheap, cheap labor.  And the job shift will continue until everyone wises up, and maybe then when the US is bordering on third world status, the sweat shop jobs will return.

In the meantime, they want to raise the age of Social Security elegibility to 70 and probably cut service to Medicare, destroy unions, and spend more money on killing hardware to appease the zealots.

Back at the ranch, though they sound like Ralph Kramden yelling at Alice on the Honeymooners, “We gotta cut out all this high living.”

My 80-year old neighbor just had a stroke and he’s in rehab.  He doesn’t need that nor does deserve it.  He’s not worked in years.  And in America the theme is always:  What have you done for me lately.

Should he be out on the street with the street urchins and the bottle collecors? 

But he votes, and his wife, his son and his daugher-in-law vote as well.  And there’s the rub.

Go Right Young Man, July 11 at 12:24 am,

You failed to answer my July 10 11:06 pm post.

False framing of high and low taxes and cooperating with false framing of high and low taxes to obfuscate the fact that those who receive greater benefit are obligated to provide greater benefit in the form of taxes for the greater benefit they receive is the issue, and whether or not it is acceptable to use high hidden taxes that inflates the National Debt to evade paying a “fair share” of taxes for the greater benefit received from the U.S. Economy.

Siloam48, you’ve not read a newspaper in the last 9 years, have you?  Well, to catch you up, Bush lowered taxes twice and Obama has already lowered them once on both individuals and businesses.  America right now has the lowest taxes it has had in almost three generations.  The current terrible recession happened in this low tax, low regulation environment which leads people to think that low taxes and absent regulations have contributed to the recession.  To imply, as you have, that high taxes caused the current recession is simply wrong because rarely in modern times have American taxes been lower except at the beginning of the Great Depression.

For millennia Earth was the center of the universe. To some people, as far as i know, the Earth is still the center of an unchangig universe.
Some people may even think that actually Earth is changing, but in direction they think: more peaceful, richer. [btw, that’s why US wages wars; that being the only way to peace]

And then, it seems to me, most americans think that US is center of the Earth;its peripheries populated with insignificant people, but with some resources that when used by US wld maintain or even augment the wealth of the Center Street and perhaps peripheries. As u can see, the Dear Uncle is really a benevolent man!

In accordance to this ‘vision’, americans are not taught much ab afrika, asia, tashkent. And why wld they learn anything ab insignificant peoples who, btw, don’t know how to live american ways.

So, an overwhelming number of americans have in mind and talk ab Center of the Earth’s economy, security; right to self defense, or a better life, etc.

Such thinking does appear ideal; alas, while thinking cld be just ab perfect, applying that to the stubborn mule, we call nature, brings on also calamities.

And since 99.99% of americans have been taught to think that way and any other thinking deemed unamerican, americans better expect more kicking from that old stubborn mule. tnx

Well, let’s give it a try (lower taxes)!!  WE have already raised taxes & that didn’t work.  Oh, I know, how about cutting back on state/federal budgets & firing lots of bureaucrats & see if that will help the economy.

Taxes mean nothing. Austerity means nothing. Stimulus means nothing. The sooner we start to address the underlying issues, the sooner we can start growing the economy again. These issues are:

1) Reserve status of the US dollar.

2) Monetary inflation.

3) The massive amounts of fraud being perpetrated by the banking Plutocracy.

Keynesian economics, in all of its flavors, is nothing more than a collection of parlor tricks and gimmicks. The only way that wealth can be created is through savings, and investment in production. We are a nation driven by debt and consumption. In 1971, we were a net creditor in the world. Today, we are a net debtor. We consume and borrow, while the rest of the world produces.  How did this happen? Below are a collection of articles which attempt to go below the surface and address the underlying causes of our current economic status.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/global-financial-crisis-dummies-why-abandonment-gold-standard-responsible-worlds-sovereign-d

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/financial-con-decade-explained-so-simply-even-congressman-will-get-it

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-original-dollar-crisis-and-how-it-led-todays-crisis-part-1

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/975-triffins-dilemma-reserve-currencies-and-gold

The current debates over taxes, and austerity/stimulus are meant to cloud the economic realities. The fact of the matter is, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been playing games with the economy, at the behest of the banking cartel at the expense of the poor and middle class.

The trickle down theory does not work.  The rich are not spending their extensive excess funds to keep the unemployed working; therefore, it makes good sense to tax the rich and get those excess funds working in the market.  This is one action that does not increase the deficit.  Although the evidence for a tax increase on the rich is clear, the money controlled congress will use it only after every other wrong headed policy has been tried.  The only way to effect change is to throw all existing congressmen out.  Congress is a team.  If the team continuously fails the players must be replaced.  A clear message must be sent and cherry picking will not work.  Get tough on congress.

I would not advocate a return to the 90% bracketing. However, the “trickle up profits”, trickle up outsourcing of jobs and the trickle up of productivity of those with jobs, seems to put the onus of responsibility on the wealthy. They control better than 90% of the nation’s assets. Carnegie said, “Wealth is responsibility.”

The tax breaks for the wealthy under Bush helped the GDP a whopping 0.2 percent. They either invested it in the market and it evaporated or sent it to a hedge instrument overseas.

This country was formed with the underlying idea of a meritocracy. Futhermore,we learn through adversity. Teddy Roosevelt’s philosophy of abandoning his patrician roots inspired the country. Right now the preponderance of adversity is on the middle class.

The rich get tax breaks and inheritances. The flower of the middle class get a M15 in 120 degree temperatures, a back pack and the comforting thought of a death benefit.

Obviously, we live in a plutocracy.

There is simply no justifiable rationalization for taking 90% of another family’s work and dedication.  No State or individual should EVER be allowed such power.

I would urge everyone to truly study Census and Treasury records on those who are “the richest” and “wealthiest”. - Including the billionaires in America.  End this ceaseless demonizing of the majority of any group. 

The majority of the wealthiest people excelled at something.  Steve Jobs and Bill and Malinda Gates are good examples.  Those three people alone, and gladly, give $BILLIONS in aid to others.  Those three people alone have saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of lives all over the world.  They are not the exception.  What did YOU do today?

And, yes, both Jobs and Gates filed tax returns.  They help make up those who pay nearly 15% of all monies to the United States Treasury.  It is a Whopping sum in total!

-

90% Income Tax?

So that I better understand what some here are advocating; it seems to go something like this.  The “establishment” should hold the power to “tax” 90% of a working person’s earnings for “the good” of the establishment.  Confiscate all but $.10 on the dollar of Bill Cosby’s income in order to purchase more jet fighters from the establishment?  The dichotomy in the argument screams dangerously lunatic. 

There is no clearer lesson in history.  There’s not a single example of success born from the idea.  Taking 90% of income is a disaster every time it’s attempted.

-

I invite all those who advocate the idea of a 90% income confiscation to give us a working example of it.  A single model from all of human history.

One thing nobody seems to have mentioned is that there is a major difference between America now and America of 1951-‘63.

Back then, America was booming. Unemployment was low, and we had all the manufacturing jobs anyone could want. The dollar was the king of the world.

This is not the case now. A large chunk of our manufacturing is now overseas or in Mexico. Our financial market is barely alive. Government jobs and Wal-Mart make up the bulk of our economy.

How can you simply raise taxes, when so many workers are unemployed?  Ignoring the objective reality of this situation is a bad way to make your case. Until we can get everyone back to work, talk of spending money we don’t have is pointless.

Corporations are required to pay a lot of taxes. The problem is the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying them. We don’t need new legislation, just enforce the old. Stop giving corporations tax breaks. Stop trying to make up for their shortages by taxing the little people.

I still believe that decreasing our spending, especially military, is a more effective way to control our fiscal woes. We don’t need higher taxes, we need politicians that will stop spending what we don’t have.

Mr “Go Right Young Man” I have no idea who you are except a silly right-winger.  I have built a company, my father built companies and my Grandfather brought capital from Europe and helped build America.  Since my family and I have been real business people we know that we did not do it all on our own.  We did not subdue the Indians, conquer the wilderness or build the vital infrastructure of America which made success possible. My father never complained about the 90% plus marginal tax rate because he never had to pay it because he used his profits to invest in America.  On the other hand, I remember some of his workers, who were in no danger whatsoever of paying a higher tax rate, complained about the high taxes. 

Neither did my father complain about the unions, because he knew that the workers were colleagues in his business.  But this is a wholly different mindset than yours.  But you have to realize that the only people who can say that they got their money all on their own are burglars and gamblers.

Go Right Young Man, July 10 at 9:46 pm,

Confiscating other people’s money is what the National Debt is all about.

The National Debt represents “high hidden taxes” represented by Right-Wingers as “low taxes”.  In the name of “low taxes” the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans have created a $13,201,083,267,297.66 National Debt that is indicated in the following link: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The argument is a false argument with regard to “low taxes and “high taxes” because the National Debt was created in the name of “low taxes” as HIDDEN TAXES.

The argument with regard to taxes is whether or not the American Aristocracy can be forced by the balance of the American Population, the American Populace and the Middle Class, a 90% majority population of the United States, to “pay their fair share of taxes” and not continue to get away with tax evasion that is compensated for by the National Debt to finance their “borrow and spend policies and practices” in the name of “low taxes”.

The reality is that, as a result of Nixon and from the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II to the present time of Glenn Beck, the American Aristocracy have NOT paid their “fair share” of taxes and the argument is whether or not the American Aristocracy are going to be made to pay their “fair share” of taxes, instead of offsetting their tax burden onto everyone else in the American Populace and the Middle Class as “borrowed money of the National Debt”; it is time that this practice be ended and that the American Aristocracy be forced to pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else.

I don’t think the number of billionaires and millionaires, or their origins, are going to make a lot of difference if a substantial part of the population keep getting poorer in real material terms until some kind of breaking point is reached.  The reason for the redistributionist Welfare state is precisely to avoid such a situation and thereby secure the position of its ruling class.  Dog eat dog and devil take the hindmost led to the kind of unstable societies we have observed in Latin America and the Middle East.  In an earlier era, it led to fascism and Communism in Europe; it was to avoid that kind of outcome that social democracy (the Welfare state) was invented.

LJL, - ” An the only way to get them to loosen their purse strings is to impose a 90% marginal rate on their idle wealth.”

-

Idle wealth, LJL?

Your theory lives in people who have never built something from nothing.  Have never spent a lifetime of 14 hour days at work on a dream.  Have never lost everything and built it back again.  There is a context missing from your theory;  confiscating other people’s money because you believe there are better uses for it.  What is missing are the human beings.

All I ask is that we deal with the reality of who these “rich” people are.  First and foremost it is an *verifiable fact that the vast majority of “Millionaires” in the United States are electricians, contractors, butchers, doctors, salesman and every other small to medium size business operator.  These people make up over 90% of all the “wealthy”.  These people are YOUR butcher.  Your accountant.  Your dry-cleaner.

According to U.S. census and Treasury data the majority of Billionaires in the U.S. began by meager means.  Yes, Billionaires. - Oprah Winfrey, Larry Ellison, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, for example. They are the majority.  Not the exceptions.

-

Let me give you a single example from multiples of hundreds-of-thousands of similar examples reaching from one coast to another.

Exactly 90 years ago a man traveled from Greece and opened a Hotdog stand in small shopping district in Ohio.  Soon he made enough money to bring his Brother to work with him.—Time goes by and, slowly, they are able to bring more and more of their family to be with them.  The brothers, by this time there are now four living in Ohio, rented a store-front on the same corner as the old Hotdog stand - Rudy’s Hotdogs.

Today the family operate five stores in the same town.  The type of place where the staff knows your name.

The Brothers, along with their now dozens of Grandchildren, all live modestly. NO bling!  Good people who treat all employees like family.  The family itself, as a whole, is worth several $$Million dollars.  They take time out once a year, in turn, to visit family in Greece.

-

I beg all of you to get this part right.

The Rudy family are not the exception.  They are the rule.  The majority.  You, quite literally, advocate confiscating 90% of what these human beings have built, with their own hands and dedication, because you appear to passionately believe that “others” do not deserve their success. You appear to believe that you know what’s best for them and their homes and the businesses they build.

Allow me to repeat myself.  You appear to be unaware that more than 90% of those Demons you ruminate on are human beings who take risks, work hard, treat their neighbors kindly and PAY THEIR TAXES!  There is simply no justifiable rationalization for taking 90% of another’s hard work.  No State or individual should EVER be allowed such power.

Fact:  The people of the Unites States give more of their own money and time, per ca pita, than 97% of other nations.
Fact:  It’s not those with no money who are sharing their wealth.

*Census.
U.S. Treasury
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Sirota is absolutely correct in arguing for high marginal tax rates.  I would, however, reverse his reasons for raising taxes.  The most important factor is the tax code which would allow taxpayers avoid paying if they channel their money into activities such as paying American salaries and benefits.  Only second is the fact that higher taxes raise more money directly.  But by erroneously arguing that the primary benefit of higher taxes is revenue enhancement, Sirota allows right wingers like “Go Right Young Man” to cloud the issue with false parities concerning tax collections among income groups. 

The reason higher marginal rates worked in the past and can again work to drive American prosperity, is that they permit a democratic society to channel capital for the benefit of the nation.  Wealth is, after all, created by society (workers, consumers, management) as a whole.  It is not the sole product of lone-wolf, anti-social money men.  Moreover, higher taxes do not confiscate nor stifle capital, rather it has been the American experience that high rates encourage and invigorate capitalism by forcing horded money out into the market place and on to the shop floor where it can work and multiply. 

Apropos to today’s high unemployment problem, the real solution would be high marginal corporate tax rates that would scare the record breaking cash reserves out of the hands of incompetent and failed businessmen and into the market place where it could pay workers’ salaries.  Private companies made the unemployment crisis by withholding jobs from American workers and only Private companies can solve the problem by using their trillions of dollars of hoarded wealth to re-create the 8 million jobs they destroyed.  An the only way to get them to loosen their purse strings is to impose a 90% marginal rate on their idle wealth.

Thanks for an excellent article.  I am not sure it is true but the theory would seem to be at least as reasonable as trickle down economics.  At any rate it is an interesting counterpoint to the Tea Party dribble out there.  And outside of William Buckley I am not sure I have met a Republican who finds actual facts and logic as compelling as policies enriching the elite irregardless.  So you might as well fight fire with fire.

Only when Democrats stop cringing from corporate elite threats, disfavor, and attacks and start defending the interests of the people can Democrats stop worrying about upcoming elections.

Policies for the world, nation and the people get short shrift because Democrats are continually running scared or because too many of them are tools of the rich.

Yeah that’s it; under taxation is the cause of recession and high unemployment! What’s next… victims of violent crime are the cause for violent crime because they are unable to properly defend themselves.

As long as the government is giving away multiple billions in foreign aid to rogue states, petty dictatorships, and spending more on defense than any other nation on earth Americans are anything but under taxed.

If high taxation is the way out of our economic woes why not have 100% taxation and let the government provide us all with our daily bread and needs. After all… does there exists a group of wiser intellects than those who occupy seats of power in the three branches of our federal government?