oddsox—Here is a sketch of an anarcho-communist praxis: http://www.1freeworld.org/anaprax1.htm

For those not ready to go that far, I’ve advocated that working people transfer their business to cooperatives.  For example, they can put their money in credit unions, they can get medical insurance and care through cooperative HMOs, they can own housing cooperatively, they can own their workplaces cooperatively instead of subjecting themselves to traditional capitalist corporations.  None of that is objectively out of reach, although much of it would take some work, along with a sort of cultural growing-up.

I’m not interested in taxing the rich; I would prefer to make them as irrelevant to others as they already are to me.

Putting the Laff in Lafayette:

In the afore-mentioned book, “Aftershock,” author Robert Reich refers to the story of a poor Russian peaseant who is upset that his neighbor recently could afford to buy a cow. 
He prays to God for help.
God appears and asks the peasant, “What shall I do to help you?”
The peasant replies, “Kill the cow.”

Thanks for including the Gini Curve.
Your description of it is revealing:
“The higher the Gini Coefficient the more Income Unfairness.” 
Mais non! The curve measures income disparity or inequality.
If you earn (or have) more than I do, that’s not necessarily unfair.

Anarcissie, you write: “I had already written a lot about my ideas for moving beyond traditional capitalism around here and was boring everybody.  Do you really want me to play it da capo?”
Maybe you could share a synopsis?
But first, take a look at Robert Reich’s newest book, Aftershock.  A quick & easy read, yet strong. I don’t agree with all his solutions, but he presents them well & without class envy. 
The rich can be taxed, and are.  Much debate over how much. 
—————
Mike789, when you quote Andrew Carnegie below, you’re referring to philanthropy or the broader 19th century concept of “noblesse obige,”  defined as “the moral obligation of those of high birth, powerful social position, etc., to act with honor, kindliness, generosity, etc.”
The practice is alive and well today, of course.
Modern day examples include Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg and dozens of well-known Hollywood celebs.  But also legions of others who are publically unknown or who prefer to remain anonymous.
America is, by far, the most generous nation in the history of the world. 
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/11/america-the-generous
You’ll enjoy this site, too.
http://boldergiving.org/site/ 
The distinguishing feature of modern philanthropy is that it is voluntary—not by virtue of tax law.

Oddsox ~ “The top 10% of filers ($145k/yr and up) carry 70% of the burden.  They earn 50% of all income (and account for 40% of consumer spending).  That’s progressive.”

No argument here on progressive taxation. I have little sympathy for the wining heard from the wealthy on taxes. It just seems they make their own bed in continually moving away from a living wage, in propagandizing their products, in mischaracterizing the present circumstances while ignoring consequences. The economic parad1gm here is extending credit to a dumbed-down consumer base. Shortfalls naturally arise and revenues should gravitate to where the money resides. Economic leadership (Manufacturing Consent)has led us out and away from centralized cities which is going to haunt us in the near future lest we establish a viable energy policy that’s not just sloganism. We have been painted into this economic corner not by the middle class, but by the wealthy elite. Once again, Carnegie comes to mind, “Wealth is responsibility.” If they cannot lead with integrity, then they should be compelled to compensate for the crapola left in their wakes.

Lafayette ~ “guns or butter” Europeans and other nations are getting a ride here on the back of our support for the MIC, bigtime. Reckon that’s not exactly the peoples choice and we are led to believe we cannot unburden ourselves. I’d demand tribute. LOL

Citing Lafayette ~ “TARP was absolutely necessary to unfreeze the Credit Mechanism. Banks were not lending to banks, which is indispensable for the Credit Mechanism to function.”

Not so sure I’m entirely committed to this assumption. It was what the investment banks prefered.
history demonstrates that in similar financial debacles the private sector saved the day. What was deliberately avoided was a restructuring of debt.

http://mercatus.org/publication/speed-bankruptcy-tarp-alternative

Anarcissie cuts the mustard ~  “It doesn’t make much sense for us to allow our economy (and just about everything else) to be ruled by a class of people who have little or nothing in common with us.” This goes right to the Goldman canard. Just fry up another gold leaf garnished burger. Disgusting.

What is necessary for the 21st Century is to reestablish “value”. Money chasing money is going nowhere. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 6 trillion (I belive that is just the U.S. not worldwide) in paper tied to derivatives still looms out there off balance sheets and no one wants to back off hoping to be made whole like Goldman.

Lafayette—You may have missed the point of what I wrote for Oddsox.  Agreed, it was pretty compact, but no one around here is going to go through a long screed.  In the case of Europe, for historical reasons the ways in which the rich screw value out of the poor is somewhat different than in the U.S., and in a way is somewhat less developed.  That is due to the high costs which late 19th-century screwings occasioned: fascist and Communist revolutions and dictatorships, leading to two major and several minor but very destructive wars, millions of people killed, a devastated subcontinent.  The vise is being tightened more slowly there for good reason.

GUNS OR BUTTER

Anar: Trying to tax the rich seems to be a waste of time, just as you perhaps inadvertently implied.

Can’t let that comment go by without a rebuttal. Take a look at the Gini Curve, here.

Note that the American Gini-coefficient is at about 47 (the highest of any developed country). Whereas that of Europe is anywhere around 31. (The higher the Gini Coefficient the more Income Unfairness.)

What is it about Europe that differs from the US in terms of Income Distribution? Taxation levels, that’s what - and the purposes to which tax revenues are put to work. (Meaning, for instance, the finest Health Care Public Option that exists.)

Next question: What do Europeans know about Public Services (and, accordingly, taxation levels) that seems to have escaped Americans? This: They go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

This Gini is no magician. (The measurement technique is named after an Italian statistician.) It reports rather crudely the fairness of an economic system. One is wise, however, not to avoid its apparent truths. Namely that without government intervention, there is little Social Progress.

For which, and as only one example, yet again, take Health Care. Compared to France, in recent years, the US has gone back one year in life expectancy.

MY POINT: Guns or butter?

Guns or Butter is the trade-off posited in Economics 101. If we can’t have all of one or all of the other, what is the trade-off between both? All economies are faced with the same riddle in terms of economic policy making options. Choices must be made and leaving that selection to the vagaries of a Free Market is chancy at best and disastrous at worst (given the SubPrime Mess as an example).

An example of the Guns or Butter Trade-off: Given the fact that the US has, compared to France, slipped back one year in Life Expectancy, the option for more Public Services (namely a Health Care Public Option) would seem evident.

But not to all Americans - it seems they want less taxes in order to increase Disposable Income, which enhances their immediate life-style.

Thusly they are placing an onus on the present ... and to hell with the future.

We’ve made the choice. Now let’s accept the consequences, come what may …

Oddsox—Actually, what matters is not what taxes a person nominally pays, but what portion of the aggregate social product he or she takes.  When people have a lot of power they simply offload their costs onto the less powerful, usually exacting compensation as profits or managerial salaries.  If these are taxed, other ways are found.  When the taxes of the rich were nominally 90% or whatever they were they still managed to get richer.  Trying to tax the rich seems to be a waste of time, just as you perhaps inadvertently implied.  I don’t think there’s a tipping point, though.  If they notice the goods and services are a little thin, they can always just turn the screws a notch more.

I thought I had already written a lot about my ideas for moving beyond traditional capitalism around here and was boring everybody.  Do you really want me to play it da capo?

Lafayette, mon ami: 
As you wrote, TARP was absolutely necessary for the reasons you mentioned.  And the banks knew it well in advance.  So, no, I can’t prove extortion, but it sure smells like it.

Perp walks and CEO jail time?  They may serve justice, but they’re not the answer. 
And they won’t stop the Too-Big-To-Fails from (forgive me) extorting us again. 
Break up the big banks now so we don’t get a repeat.  Viva Santayana!

BTW, I see Sirota as more like Keith Olbermann with a keyboard.  Not in the same league as Robert Scheer.  But I get your point and agree.  The right doesn’t have to be so vicious either.  No need for it except to pump ratings.

Anarcissie— not sure what you mean by “moving beyond traditional capitalism,” but would like to read what you have in mind.

As for progressively taxing the rich, two points:

1) Most taxes are already progressive, and the rich live with them where they are.  Income taxes, most famously.  The top 10% of filers ($145k/yr and up) carry 70% of the burden.  They earn 50% of all income (and account for 40% of consumer spending).  That’s progressive. 
Any static-% tax with low-end exclusions is also progressive.  Exempting the first $5M of an estate, then taxing the rest at 35% makes the current estate tax progressive. 
Most state sales taxes exclude groceries, rents and utilities, and since the poor spend a higher % on these items, again, progressive.
One could even argue that gasoline taxes are progressive in that wealthier people drive more miles in bigger cars that use more gas.  But that’s passive-progressive, a weaker argument.  And the uber-rich fly.
(What tax isn’t progressive?  The payroll tax. The first dollar is taxed to both employee and employer, but the 106,801st dollar isn’t.  That’s a regressive tax (on labor), we should dump & fund social security with a progressive National Sales Tax (on consumption)—an argument for another time.) 
So the rich do pay taxes.  As they should. 
Or perhaps “as they should” is a bone of contention, but you catch my meaning as I anticipate your rebuttal.

2)  The rich are not unionized.  They’re not going to leave all at once for the same tax haven— Most live where they do for a reason.  Reasons change, but like everybody else, the rich become accustomed to their surroundings and will tend to stay unless pushed too far.
There is a tipping point & CA is at that point now for a lot of high-earners and business owners. 
Believe me, I see it every day.

BTW, I’m ok with a 10% increase in the top federal income tax rate to 39.6%, but then make it, along with the other Bush tax cuts & new estate tax,  permanent.  A good trade for the wealthy, a higher rate in exchange for stability.  And they’ll go for it.

A RESCUE

OS: Lafayette, It’s not often you are seated to my right, but Sirota’s correct on TARP—a “bailout in the purest sense of the term.” My take: a loan obtained by means of extortion.

There are bailouts and there are bailouts. Let’s not get too loose with the words. It will be hard to prove extortion.  Otoh, it will be easier to charge them with a prove gross negligence, fraud and insider trading.

TARP was absolutely necessary to unfreeze the Credit Mechanism. Banks were not lending to banks, which is indispensable for the Credit Mechanism to function. The economy was tanking daily, credit is so necessary to support consumption. TARP was therefore indispensable. Otherwise, we’d have had a real Great Depression with unemployment rates as high as 20/25%. TARP saved us from that happening.

That’s perhaps a bailout of the banks, but its intent was to rescue the economy from an impending disaster. And most economists will support that argument, I submit.

Yes, there was fraud and negligence in each sector that participated in the SubPrime Mess. From realty agents to mortgagees to credit agents to investment bankers to credit rating agencies, etc., etc., etc.

We are still waiting for some well-derverd perp walks and convictions. Just because its the Replicants who conceived and initiated the measure, I don’t see why journalists employ words to misrepresent what was happening.

It was a “rescue” that allowed the banks to continue financing the credit that, unfortunately, Americans need in order to consume. We have had a negative savings rate in recent years. Americans do not save to consume, as their forebears did. They now use credit for consumption.

The calamity has amply demonstrated the absolute need for tighter regulation of the Finance Sector, which is what the lobbyists are presently trying to undo (by repealing parts of the Dodd-Frank Act).

That is where Sirota should be paying attention.

MY POINT

It is distasteful to see the hate-journalism aimed at everything that is either closely or remotely Republican. It is mudding the waters by descending into polemics and speciousness. Journalism is not about hate, unless one works for Fox News. It is about displaying the facts and making persuasive arguments to promote a point-of-view. It is also powerfully objective.

Sirota, Hedges, Sheer, etc. are playing EXACTLY the same game as the Rabid Right - whilst they should be distinguishing themselves with balanced journalism.

oddsox—I was interested in your theory that the rich could not be taxed because they would simply move away from taxation—not only out of the state, but out of the country, presumably.  No one is going to be able to tax them progressively, or even flatly, if they can do that.

To me, this is one more argument that people need to start thinking about moving beyond traditional capitalism.  It doesn’t make much sense for us to allow our economy (and just about everything else) to be ruled by a class of people who have little or nothing in common with us.

Lafayette, It’s not often you are seated to my right, but Sirota’s correct on TARP—a “bailout in the purest sense of the term.” 
My take: a loan obtained by means of extortion.
Also, Paul Ryan’s common sense is not unfortunate.  We need more of it. 
But good stuff from you—thanks for sharing Capitol Voice and Reclaim Democracy.
I plan to get involved—on selected issues, of course.
————-
billybookworm, my error.  You referred to the Tahoe Daily Tribune piece, not the Business Tax column.
Yes, the Tribune article was an op-ed.  It’s author a right-winger?  Don’t think so, depends upon definitions and perspective.  But how about David Brooks of the NYTimes?  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Is he a right-winger, too? 
Both Ribaudo and Brooks cover a lot of the same ground.  The distinctions between private and public sectors are relevant to the Wisconsin discussion.
—————
Anarcissie, haven’t forgotten you.  Of course the rich can (and should) be taxed. And progressively, too—paying more than the poor. 
But high taxes (cumulative majority rate(50%+))are counter-productive. 
Push too hard and the rich run away—they have the means of mobility.  That’s happening in CA now.

Politics is not a spectator sport. And, if it is, then we, the people, are not the winners apparently.

Two web-organizations that come to mind, for those interested in acquainting themselves with the facts, are available:
* Capitol Voice and,
* Reclaim Democracy 

Knowing all the facts that pertain to any given matter/issue/subject is not easy. And obtaining a balanced view is even more difficult.

There are of course other sites out there. But one must start somewhere in the lonesome journey of getting our country back from the clutches of its present plutocracy.

And, as Eleanor Roosevelt was fond of saying, “It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness”. Go for it.

COMMON SENSE

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., says, “Should taxpayers in Indiana who have paid their bills on time, who have done their job fiscally, be bailing out Californians who haven’t? No.”

Unfortunately, this makes common sense.

The states have been profligate in their spending. Many have spent way beyond their means ... in the very same vein of many, many Americans who binged on cheap money.

Nobody is “bailing out” our fellow citizens who went binging these past five years, so why save the states? And this is not at all like TARP, which was not a bail-out but a loan that has been largely repaid with interest by the banks.

Profligacy is a bad habit that overcomes states like people. It happens every generation or so, probably because Civics Classes teach our children how government works in theory. In practice, however, is the shambles we see all around us at the local, state and Federal levels.

My favorite quotation for situations such as this: “Those who refuse to understand history are condemned to repeat it”. (George Santayana, Harvard philosopher, not George Orwell.)

We seem to think American history is replaying old Revolutionary or Civil War battles? That’s entertainment (ala TeaParty Sect). Real history is that which is taught by our mistakes of the past.

We learn them in order to avoid making them again in the future. And heaven help a nation that cannot learn from its past.

POST SCRIPTUM

Much politics, both at home and abroad, consists of the same idiotic manipulation. Politicians like to show that they are “doing something” in order to justify reelection. And nothing justifies a politician like a sign that is put up, “Your Tax Dollars At Work”. Which is usually just the tip of the iceberg - since most of the money goes into maintaining current operating expenses.

The political idiocy resides in the fact that a great many of these same politicians also abide by the rule “No Tax Increases!” Because they figure that their constituency likes those words as well.

And it never occurs to them that these two phrases are in contradiction with one another?

There is much Public Services can do that Free Enterprise cannot possibly do as well. So, “starving the beast” is just another one of those mindless phrases that the Replicants use to bamboozle others.

If we want Public Services to work for us, and not against us, then we need common sense appreciation of the “what services?” and “how much?” they will cost in terms of tax rates. How often are we given this treatment at election time ... instead of the “I wash whiter than white” palaver over the Boob-Tube?

If politicians started treating their constituencies like adults, maybe the latter wouldn’t behave like children?

billybookworm, you write: “The TDT article is an op ed by a rightwinger, not a statement of facts.”

Take another look and click the source link at the bottom.  It goes to the Tax Foundation Background Paper with complete data.  Oregon is one of the stronger states (14th best).  More importantly, this is the same Tax Foundation that Sirota himself cites in this column.

We agree, David Sirota is a lucky guy. 
But I don’t dislike him personally.
He’s smart, young, good-looking, successful & has huge vocabulary skills. 
Bet he’s a good neighbor and I see he has a new son.  We could probably enjoy a micro-brew together (a nice porter for me) and maybe talk cars, music, sports or the joys & challenges of being a dad.
 
Just not politics.  Actually, even there we can agree on a few things—and if you read my other posts you’ll see, Sirota gets his props when he gets it right.  Check out my comments re: TARP from his piece last week.  Or on his 1/28 “Quantity to Quality” column
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_quality_to_quantity_—_and_maybe_back_again_20110127/
I’ve also came out for him on other blogsites for his “Deja Vu” and “Elite Democrats” columns back in August.

On balance, though, I’m a Sirota critic because of his overly florid and oft-venomous rhetoric, a penchant for rudeness to those who disagree with him, his frequent false premises and dichotomies .. and, as detailed below, a real bad case of Pot & Kettle Syndrome.

BobZ—Being able to threaten bankruptcy might be a very effective way to pressure unions.

Broke Town, U.S.A.

appears to need to be read by readers of two posts at truthdig

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/magazine/06Muni-t.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

The semantic shell game is an old component of the Republican long con. It would
be nice to believe that more people could see through those streetcorner tricks.
But we really can’t expect that from people who are living in FOX news’ spinning of
George Bush’s interpretation of Ronald Reagan’s fantasy about reality.

But ... the United States government is already cutting off its nose to spite its face in several areas:
  Going to wars that bankrupt its citizens and kill their sons and daughters.
  Trying to sell democracy around the world while cutting back on its own citizens’ rights and freedoms.
  Allowing its corporations to pollute anywhere and everywhere, thus destroying everybody’s future.

I’m somewhat surprised that Gingrich and other Republican’s would be pushing so
hard for states to be able to declare bankruptcy. That is not a view supported by
Wall Street, because of the negative impact on the bond markets and spillover
affect on other markets. Perception becomes reality and the perception that the
United States is unstable and can’t be counted on to honor its debt obligations and
contracts would have world-wide repercussions. There is little doubt that kind of a
move would throw us into a double dip recession or worse. For that and other
reasons I doubt any major policy moves of this type would gain much traction. Not
even tea partiers have the power of Wall Street. Moneyed interests are not going to
sit back and let a bunch of people in tin hats evaporate their wealth. I wonder
though what kind of game Republican’s are trying to play here. They know their
benefactors on Wall Street would strongly object to states going into bankruptcy.

The morally bankrupt rich and powerful are forcing the middle class and poor to pay for the bailout from the crippling losses created by the amoral financial depredations of the rich. In a nation that functioned under the rule of a just law, those rich would now be financially, as well as morally, bankrupt.

So, oddsox, are you saying the rich cannot be taxed?  That’s an interesting proposition; when I say things like that, people think I’m some kind of slavering radical.

LOL, when Sirota writes of distorting vernacular, ignoring facts or rank hypocrisy he’s throwing stones from his glass house.

Just last month in his Super Bowl op-ed, he revised the meaning of Socialism so widely as to include all public works: education, the military, public airwaves & infrastructure—such a reach that even Ronald Reagan, he claimed, was a supporter.

Given free rein to choose one’s own definitions, anyone can make his point.  Sirota knows this going in, it’s one of his favorite tactics.

Under the “ignoring facts” header, look at last week’s column.  Other scribes writing on Wisconsin included a discussion of significant and obvious distinctions between:
—public and private sector unions
—federal vs. state collective bargaining rights
—pay and benefits of Wisconsin’s state employees vs. other workers, both public and private.
—the makeup and motivations of negotiators on the other side: private vs. state. 
Sirota ignores all this, as none of it supports his argument.
Found a much better column on the topic in a small newspaper.
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20110227/NEWS/110229903/1024&parentprofile=1

As for “rank hypocrisy,” you just can’t beat Sirota’s attempt to parachute himself onto the side of civility following Tucson in January. 
http://www.truthdig.com/report /item/finding_the_forgotten_majority_20110113/
(read my original Truthdig comment on page 2)
This after guffawing at “electric chair” solutions for corrupt CEOs (his November 19 column)and earlier calling Republicans “psychopaths,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhh66q5uzc
along with the usual angry banter you’d expect from talking-head cable guests, pre-Tucson.
As posted elsewhere, I give credence to those whose civility predates Tucson, and Sirota is not among them.

Lastly, one thing I’ve learned from reading Sirota’s columns is that he’s long on complaint, short on solution.
In this one, though, he hints at a cure for CA’s woes:  Use its powers of taxation upon the rich. 
Have you heard that joke, “the beatings will continue until morale improves?” 
That’s CA raising taxes.
Too late, won’t work, tax refugees are already fleeing the state.
A recent article ranks CA #3 worst for business.
http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/Best-states-for-business-taxes.htm
The state is in a corner now—their only way out is to help small business. 
Or sit back and wait for outside help (dare I say “bailout?”) from the rest of us.  Just as Paul Ryan, and so many others, fear.