Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution

[Capt Bringdown]

All those protests in Wisconsin? Don't mean a thing. Back to the weekend regatta in your private lagoon. Oh. Wait. The Wall Street Journal said what?

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution
Commentary: A ‘Super-Rich Delusion’ is leading us to ruin (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tax-the-super-rich-now-or-face-a-revolution-2011-03-29?pagenumber=1)

[Winehole23]

Tax breaks for millionaires and corporations, shared sacrifice for the rest of us. Too bad Obama doesn't have the guts to fight the trend.

[coyotes_geek]

Not raising taxes on the rich has wide bipartisan support.

[Capt Bringdown]

Not raising taxes on the rich has wide bipartisan support.

Of course - both parties are marching to the same neoliberal drumbeat.

[boutons_deux]

"Not raising taxes on the rich has wide bipartisan support"

In Congress compromised and corrupted by "rich" money. Human-Americans are for taxing the rich.

[Winehole23]

Fucked, unfuckable, VRWC, Repugs.

That should just about cover it. Take the rest of the day off.

[coyotes_geek]

Of course - both parties are marching to the same neoliberal drumbeat.

Damn VLWC.

[boutons_deux]

Fucked, unfuckable, VRWC, Repugs.

That should just about cover it. Take the rest of the day off.

My accurate VRWC sure beats sterile debating about minutiae that obscure the big picture.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Grimmtons needs his own reality show. I mean, really.

[Winehole23]

My accurate VRWC sure beats sterile debating about minutiae that obscure the big picture.Your supposedly accurate description is the night in which all cows are gray. As a description and as a discussion, it blows.

[Winehole23]

Being a broken record blows.

[coyotes_geek]

My accurate VRWC sure beats sterile debating about minutiae that obscure the big picture.

:rollin

Minutiae is all you're good for. You're basically just a wind-up doll who spouts off "VRWC" anytime someone pulls the string in your back by opening up a new thread.

[Marcus Bryant]

The possibility of a revolution is long gone. Unlike the 30s, the establishment did not expect a tightening of credit and liquidity, but the reverse. If this cluster was going to collapse, the opportunity was in a rapid and vastly more severe deflation brought on by the credit crisis.

Further, calls for revolution from the lower 99% who themselves live in a society in which the main anxiety for the majority is whether or not they can afford a daily Starbucks run is a bit much. Or, get over yourselves and see how the rest of the world lives.

[CubanMustGo]

All those protests in Wisconsin? Don't mean a thing. Back to the weekend regatta in your private lagoon. Oh. Wait. The Wall Street Journal said what?

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution
Commentary: A ‘Super-Rich Delusion’ is leading us to ruin (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tax-the-super-rich-now-or-face-a-revolution-2011-03-29?pagenumber=1)

The 'Wall Street Journal' didn't say dick, some Marketwatch commentator did. The guy's pretty much a Johnny One-Note:


More Paul B. Farrell

March 22, 2011 New Civil War erupts, led by super rich, GOP (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-civil-war-erupts-led-by-super-rich-gop-2011-03-22?link=MW_story_morecolumn)
March 15, 2011 Toxic Charlie Sheen virus infects Wall Street (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/toxic-charlie-sheen-virus-infects-wall-street-2011-03-15?link=MW_story_morecolumn)
March 8, 2011 The 2008 crash isn’t over, only covered up (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-2008-crash-isnt-over-only-covered-up-2011-03-08?link=MW_story_morecolumn)
March 1, 2011 Four time bombs that will blow up Wall Street (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-time-bombs-that-will-blow-up-wall-street-2011-03-01?link=MW_story_morecolumn)
Feb. 22, 2011 Market Crash 2011: It will hit by Christmas (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/market-crash-2011-it-will-hit-by-christmas-2011-02-22?link=MW_story_morecolumn)

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, holding up public sector unions and their comfortable sinecures secured at the expense of the people by the politicians they purchased before their apple cart was overturned as some kind of plot by the "Super Rich" to stick it to the people is absurd.

[Winehole23]

Cheerleading the immiseration thesis -- ghost dance for mechanical materialism?

[MannyIsGod]

Tax breaks for millionaires and corporations, shared sacrifice for the rest of us. Too bad Obama doesn't have the guts to fight the trend.

So true. So fucking true.

[MannyIsGod]

Not raising taxes on the rich has wide bipartisan support.

Neither party wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

[baseline bum]

Further, calls for revolution from the lower 99% who themselves live in a society in which the main anxiety for the majority is whether or not they can afford a daily Starbucks run is a bit much. Or, get over yourselves and see how the rest of the world lives.

Affording a daily starbucks is a bigger concern than having a job, being able to afford a mortgage/rent, or coping with out of control medical and education costs? Are you serious?

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. It doesn't fit the fairy tale, but then neither does life, and given the shallow self-centered society we live in, a lack of affluence is of greater concern than providing for the basics of life.

Our gripe with the "Super Rich" appears to be that they can afford more nice shit. Naturally this would be the type of revolution America in the 21st century would birth.

[boutons_deux]

Marcus, like WC, says the UCA Human-Americans should compare themselves to Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Chinese peasants, and STFU, and let the VRWC continue its thieving predations.

Starbucks? how about finding enough money to keep the utilities on? or make the rent? or buy gas a couple gallons at a time?

[Marcus Bryant]

croutons, like the rest of would be American latte revolutionaries, assumes any critique of his arguments to indicate support for the bogeymen of his conspiracy theory.

[baseline bum]

Not raising taxes on the rich has wide bipartisan support.

You know something is bad when it's supported by all the assholes in congress and not just half of them... the bailout, the Iraq War resolution, No Child Left Behind, and so on.

[DarrinS]

Wow, that article had just a tad of hysteria, didn't it?

[boutons_deux]

MB, the VRWC is real.

Your placing the blame for the fucked up UCA on the citizens is typical shilling for the VRWC, just like WC criminalizing the poor.

[MannyIsGod]

There won't be a revolution here until the people really suffer. The quality of life overall is too high to foster a revolution.

[Marcus Bryant]

The tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny are "real" to a five year old.

[Marcus Bryant]

There won't be a revolution here until the people really suffer. The quality of life overall is too high to foster a revolution.

[Winehole23]

Even if the level of privation or misery were so great as to cause serious social unrest, I doubt the great unwashed would have any idea who to shoot at. We'd probably see racial pogroms way before any expressly political insurrection.

[baseline bum]

The quality of life overall is too high to foster a revolution.

How long do you anticipate that being the case?

[Marcus Bryant]

Even if the level of privation or misery were so great as to cause serious social unrest, I doubt the great unwashed would have any idea who to shoot at. We'd probably see racial pogroms way before any expressly political insurrection.

What does an American circa 2011 regard as "privation or misery"? I have a feeling the description would leave us embarrassed as fellow countrymen.

[DarrinS]

I like how he compared us to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Very appropriate, considering that the entire Arab world has a combined GDP about equal to Spain's.

[MannyIsGod]

Even if the level of privation or misery were so great as to cause serious social unrest, I doubt the great unwashed would have any idea who to shoot at. We'd probably see racial pogroms way before any expressly political insurrection.

I don't know about that. I really don't. I mainly don't agree with that because I believe our main divisions today are definitely class related. Those lines tend to mimic racial divisions due to our nation's history but I just can't see middle class white people blaming Hispanics and African Americans for their troubles if the shit really hits the fan because its not like AA's or Hispanics are pulling the strings.

Obviously there would be more racial violence but I don't think it would be the center of the events. I do think most Americans know who the real problem is but I also think they don't care enough to do anything about it because they live relatively comfortable.

[MannyIsGod]

How long do you anticipate that being the case?

Until oil prices rise enough to really hurt our economy. Energy prices going up is what will ultimately bring Americans back in line with the rest of the world's standard of living because our standards are held up by an amazing level of energy consumption. We're able to do this because of cheap oil. Once energy isn't cheap anymore, I do think America is in for a hell of a surprise.

[Stringer_Bell]

There won't be a revolution here until the people really suffer. The quality of life overall is too high to foster a revolution.

And therein lies the greatest trick the Devil ever played. The Credit Revolution has doomed this generation, and the next. We're still able to amass quantity, but the quality has definately diminished. The textbook example calls for our handlers to raise the stove temprature little by little so we don't jump out of the pot too soon, and it has work perfectly. Not until the people have nothing to fight back with will they want to fight, and by then they'll just roll over and take it. Just saying.

For the rest of the Liberal ants that like to swarm all over the "tax the super rich" bandwagon, just remember that your lazy, less than $200K households aren't funding political campaigns. You are insignificant, go join a union or something.

[MannyIsGod]

I thought Howard Dean had it right when his campaign talked about the change in politics once regular people funded a campaign but the more I've thought about it the more I don't even think thats true - especially with the rulings on McCain-Finegold. Yeah, individual voters funding a campaign through small donations sounds great in theory, but even if we were able to out donate large and rich entities we would never be able to project the level of accountability that one single large donor can. Our power is too diluted. Further, with no checks on spending in campaigns the deep pockets now can exert even more pressure on the candidates.

[Bartleby]

Until oil prices rise enough to really hurt our economy. Energy prices going up is what will ultimately bring Americans back in line with the rest of the world's standard of living because our standards are held up by an amazing level of energy consumption. We're able to do this because of cheap oil. Once energy isn't cheap anymore, I do think America is in for a hell of a surprise.

Which in turn will cause food prices to shoot up. Then you have big problems.

[vy65]

The possibility of a revolution is long gone. Unlike the 30s, the establishment did not expect a tightening of credit and liquidity, but the reverse. If this cluster was going to collapse, the opportunity was in a rapid and vastly more severe deflation brought on by the credit crisis.

Further, calls for revolution from the lower 99% who themselves live in a society in which the main anxiety for the majority is whether or not they can afford a daily Starbucks run is a bit much. Or, get over yourselves and see how the rest of the world lives.

x1 million. I wonder how many people have seen what living conditions in a third world country are like.

[angrydude]

there won't be a revolution that the rich don't want to happen.

[Capt Bringdown]

What does an American circa 2011 regard as "privation or misery"? I have a feeling the description would leave us embarrassed as fellow countrymen.

Mr. Cunty-Bollocks needs to pull his head out of his ass. Go fuck yourself, you sniveling, privileged jackass.

[CubanMustGo]

Mr. Cunty-Bollocks needs to pull his head out of his ass. Go fuck yourself, you sniveling, privileged jackass.

Thank you, Mr. Spurs Fan from Thailand. The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you result to insults rather than actually rebutting an opinion contrary to yours.

[Winehole23]

Insulting everyone who doesn't agree with him is his MO. Sadly, it's a very common MO.

[Marcus Bryant]

Mr. Cunty-Bollocks needs to pull his head out of his ass. Go fuck yourself, you sniveling, privileged jackass.

I love you too, as well as your massfluent revolution.

[ManuBalboa]

There will be no revolution until peoples' stomachs are empty. And in the land of America, 20 Taco Bell Tacos for $.02 on your local corners says no revolution anytime soon.

Money and power rules the world. It has been like this for thousands of years. It is the nature of man. Quit thinking this will ever change.

[Marcus Bryant]

From each according to their ability, and extra espresso shots for all.

[Winehole23]

Coffee.

[DarrinS]

Question:


Do rich people make the poor more poor? Poorly worded, I know.


I mean, take for example this Zuckerberg dude. He steals and idea, creates a shitty social networking portal, screws his best friend out of stock options, and becomes a young billionaire. Did he make anyone MORE poor?

[Marcus Bryant]

A revolution based on envious materialist concerns won't get far. Reactions against a militarist state will have precisely the impact that they have had so far this century.

[Cry Havoc]

Tax breaks for millionaires and corporations, shared sacrifice for the rest of us. Too bad Obama doesn't have the guts to fight the trend.

[MannyIsGod]

Question:


Do rich people make the poor more poor? Poorly worded, I know.


I mean, take for example this Zuckerberg dude. He steals and idea, creates a shitty social networking portal, screws his best friend out of stock options, and becomes a young billionaire. Did he make anyone MORE poor?

Yes they do.

Ask Roubini about how much the financial sector cost the entire world. Its in the Trillions, and the biggest losers were the poor.

[MannyIsGod]

A revolution based on envious materialist concerns won't get far. Reactions against a militarist state will have precisely the impact that they have had so far this century.

Tell that to the founding fathers.

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, the people are aware that the wealthy have access to power and milk that for what it's worth, so it's not a matter of ignorance.

The basic problem is that for all its flaws, this wretched system works. Arguing against it from a materialist perspective is bound to fail unless you wish to gin up revolutionary angst about relative levels of conspicuous consumption.

Now if you wish to advocate a different cultural focus in a society in which everyone measures themselves by how much shit they have, good luck with that.

[Marcus Bryant]

Tell that to the founding fathers.

Ah yes, Beard's thesis.

[Stringer_Bell]

I mean, take for example this Zuckerberg dude. He steals and idea, creates a shitty social networking portal, screws his best friend out of stock options, and becomes a young billionaire. Did he make anyone MORE poor?

How dare you claim the first incarnations of Facebook were part of "a shitty social networking portal." It helped get a lot of people laid, and I am thankful I experienced the cusp of its greatness.

And the answer to your question is "NO." Rich people don't make people more poor, but the lack of revenue they provide the government causes a strain on the entitlement programs of poor people. So either the government needs to cut costs or tax the rich to keep up.

[Marcus Bryant]

The ideological focus of the American founding was quite real, as well as the disputations against distant governmental authority in favor of local authority.

[MannyIsGod]

The ideological focus of the American founding was quite real, as well as the disputations against distant governmental authority in favor of local authority.

The ideological focus for the leaders and founding fathers might have been real, but not for the people actually doing the fighting or the majority of those supporting them.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, perhaps they bought into the propaganda. And then there were those who didn't go along with the malcontents.

[DarrinS]

Yes they do.

Ask Roubini about how much the financial sector cost the entire world. Its in the Trillions, and the biggest losers were the poor.


The bailout was paid for by poor people?

[DarrinS]

And the answer to your question is "NO." Rich people don't make people more poor, but the lack of revenue they provide the government causes a strain on the entitlement programs of poor people. So either the government needs to cut costs or tax the rich to keep up.



Now, we're getting somewhere.


There's already redistribution taking place, it's just not "progressive" enough.

[boutons_deux]

"bailout was paid for by poor people"

the poor, the young, old, sick, disabled are losing UCA safety net, middle class are losing homes and schools, EVERYBODY is paying for the Banksters' Great Depression except the Banksters.

[MannyIsGod]

The bailout was paid for by poor people?

God sometimes you're such a fucking idiot that I just don't understand it. You think the largest cost associated with a world wide economic situation was the bailout?

[DarrinS]

God sometimes you're such a fucking idiot that I just don't understand it. You think the largest cost associated with a world wide economic situation was the bailout?


Instead of having a trantrum, why don't you explain how the poor are bearing the largest burden?

[MannyIsGod]

Now, we're getting somewhere.


There's already redistribution taking place, it's just not "progressive" enough.

The top tier of people have gained more wealth while everyone - especially the middle class - has lost wealth and there is redistribution going on? Well, there is actually, its just not progressive at all.

I've posted many threads on the consolidation of wealth in this country so for you to talk about redistribution is just another indicator of how you absolutely refuse to look at the actual facts of what is going on.

[baseline bum]

God sometimes you're such a fucking idiot that I just don't understand it. You think the largest cost associated with a world wide economic situation was the bailout?

sometimes?

[DarrinS]

The top tier of people have gained more wealth while everyone - especially the middle class - has lost wealth and there is redistribution going on? Well, there is actually, its just not progressive at all.


Whe DON'T have a progressive tax code in this country?

[MannyIsGod]

Instead of having a trantrum, why don't you explain how the poor are bearing the largest burden?

A tantrum? How long am I supposed to endure your stupidity and refusal to look at the facts? Am I supposed to just have an endless supply of patience that you are allowed to draw from every single day?

You really think the rich felt the majority of the burden of the economic crisis, Darrin? Have you not looked at the unemployment numbers that you've posted before? Have you not looked at the number of people who have lost houses? And thats just here in the United States. You think the poor around the world haven't been effected?

Instead of being willfully ignorant, why not actually gather some information BEFORE spewing your bullshit? Its one thing to have different ideologies its quite another to question the color of the sky.

[MannyIsGod]

Whe DON'T have a progressive tax code in this country?

:lmao

[DarrinS]

A tantrum? How long am I supposed to endure your stupidity and refusal to look at the facts? Am I supposed to just have an endless supply of patience that you are allowed to draw from every single day?


Like I said, a tantrum.



You really think the rich felt the majority of the burden of the economic crisis, Darrin?



No, I think the middle class did -- NOT the poor.

[DarrinS]

:lmao


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Progressive_nature

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I see, a progressive tax code means we can ignore the consolidation of wealth. Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, that tax code is completely set in stone. There are no loopholes. You pay a direct percentage of what you make with no way to lower it.

[MannyIsGod]

Like I said, a tantrum.




No, I think the middle class did -- NOT the poor.

Interesting considering places like China that don't have much a middle class but had huge impacts on the poor. But I'm sure you can backup your beliefs with a quantification of how this hurt them the most.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, your initial statement was about whether or not the rich can actually hurt the poor and now you've moved the goal posts. Congrats.

[DarrinS]

Oh I see, a progressive tax code means we can ignore the consolidation of wealth. Thanks.


This country allows people to become enormously wealthy -- many of these billionaires being self-made. Why does that bother you so much?

[DarrinS]

Also, your initial statement was about whether or not the rich can actually hurt the poor and now you've moved the goal posts. Congrats.


Actually, I wondered how someone like Mark Zuckerberg can make a poor person even more poor.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/2010-report-on-illinois-poverty-final.pdf

Have a primer on how it affected those in poverty here. This isn't even to mention those living in 3rd world countries that were impacted in a devastating manner.

[MannyIsGod]

Question:


Do rich people make the poor more poor? Poorly worded, I know.


I mean, take for example this Zuckerberg dude. He steals and idea, creates a shitty social networking portal, screws his best friend out of stock options, and becomes a young billionaire. Did he make anyone MORE poor?


Actually, I wondered how someone like Mark Zuckerberg can make a poor person even more poor.

Your own words, dipshit. I know you try to run from them, but those are your own words. Did Mark Zuckerberg make more people poor? Probably not, but not everyone who is rich is like Zuckerberg.

Can and do rich people make poor people more poor? The answer is an obvious yes, even if it doesn't apply to ever billionaire. Blanket statements are a specialty of yours so I can understand your inability to understand ....LOL....wait for it....nuance.

[MannyIsGod]

This country allows people to become enormously wealthy -- many of these billionaires being self-made. Why does that bother you so much?

Strawman!!!! No one is saying its bad that people get rich. Try again.

[DarrinS]

Your own words, dipshit. I know you try to run from them, but those are your own words. Did Mark Zuckerberg make more people poor? Probably not, but not everyone who is rich is like Zuckerberg.

Can and do rich people make poor people more poor? The answer is an obvious yes, even if it doesn't apply to ever billionaire. Blanket statements are a specialty of yours so I can understand your inability to understand ....LOL....wait for it....nuance.

http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx

[MannyIsGod]

Rich CEO fights the regulation of derrivates such as CDOs and CDSes and undertake other irresponsible economic behavior. CDO's and CDS collapse the market and cause huge economic recession. People under the poverty line lose their jobs within this recession and suffer greatly.

Did you really need this explained to you?

[Stringer_Bell]

If you want to be a billionaire, come up with a billion dollar idea. Otherwise, leave us conservatives alone and let America work the way it worked 200 years ago. Go on, live like a good American!

-aJROW6cuEM

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/fordisabilityservices/mrservices/index.htm

[MannyIsGod]

The global economy is expected to shrink by 1.7% in 2009
1
Gross domestic product (GDP) growth .
in developing countries is expected to slow to 2.1%, and recessions are projected in Europe and
Central Asia (-2.0%), and Latin America and the Caribbean (-0.6%). This global recession is coming
at a time when the impact of the rise in food prices between 2005 and the beginning of 2008 is
estimated to have increased. For example, the proportion of the population of East Asia, the Middle
East, and South Asia living in extreme poverty has risen by 1 or more percentage points. Impacts
in some parts of Africa were less pronounced than others partly because of variation in the linkage
between local and global market food prices. Overall the number of extremely poor is estimated to
have increased by between 130 and 155 million globally between 2005 and 2008, with 53 million
more expected in 2009. Moreover, cash inflow to developing countries will decrease as result of
reductions in foreign direct investment (FDI), foreign aid and migrant workers remittance.

In other words, an increase equal to more than half the population of the United States with even more yet to come.

http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/Briefs_on_Nutrition/SCN_Nutrition_Impacts_of_Financial_Crisis_4p.pdf

All because of irresponsible and downright criminal behavior by some rich people.

But no Darrin, its fucking impossible for the rich to make more people poor. I mean fuck, look at Mark Zuckerburg! Facebook!

[MannyIsGod]

Next up on Darrin's list - is it really possible for rain to make you wet.

[DarrinS]

In other words, an increase equal to more than half the population of the United States with even more yet to come.

http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/Briefs_on_Nutrition/SCN_Nutrition_Impacts_of_Financial_Crisis_4p.pdf

All because of irresponsible and downright criminal behavior by some rich people.

But no Darrin, its fucking impossible for the rich to make more people poor. I mean fuck, look at Mark Zuckerburg! Facebook!


Why are you so angry?


Do you think it's responsible for us to be using 30% of our corn for biofuel when so many people are starving?

[Wild Cobra]

So....

The WSG journalist thinks this is a solution, or does he just want our rich to move to other nations?

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you so angry?


Do you think it's responsible for us to be using 30% of our corn for biofuel when so many people are starving?

Why are you so stupid?

Of course not. Ethanol from corn is a shit fuel to begin with. I've expressed my displeasure with biofuels a large amount on here but you're too stupid to remember that.

[LnGrrrR]

If you want to be a billionaire, come up with a billion dollar idea. Otherwise, leave us conservatives alone and let America work the way it worked 200 years ago. Go on, live like a good American!

-aJROW6cuEM

Classic. Quality post. :tu

[Drachen]

In other words, an increase equal to more than half the population of the United States with even more yet to come.

http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/Briefs_on_Nutrition/SCN_Nutrition_Impacts_of_Financial_Crisis_4p.pdf

All because of irresponsible and downright criminal behavior by some rich people.

But no Darrin, its fucking impossible for the rich to make more people poor. I mean fuck, look at Mark Zuckerburg! Facebook!

A lot of divorces are happening due to the misbehavior made available through facebook. These divorces are causing some men or women to have to give up half of their assets to lawyers and the ex spouse. Zuckerberg made people poor. (shakes fist) DAMN YOU ZUCKERBERG.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you think it's responsible for us to be using 30% of our corn for biofuel when so many people are starving?

I think many on both sides of the aisle will admit that ethanol is a failed experiment.

[Wild Cobra]

I think many on both sides of the aisle will admit that ethanol is a failed experiment.
How many practical people ever thought it should have been done?

[Drachen]

How many practical people ever thought it should have been done?

I don't know, but I know that I do get frustrated every time I see the word.

[DarrinS]

Why are you so stupid?

Of course not. Ethanol from corn is a shit fuel to begin with. I've expressed my displeasure with biofuels a large amount on here but you're too stupid to remember that.


You should take something for that.

[Agloco]

Further, calls for revolution from the lower 99% who themselves live in a society in which the main anxiety for the majority is whether or not they can afford a daily Starbucks run is a bit much. Or, get over yourselves and see how the rest of the world lives.

+ < I can't type a number large enough here >

[MannyIsGod]

You should take something for that.

Remember when you asked if rich people could make the poor poorer? :lol

That was funny.

[Spurminator]

We're nowhere near revolution, but the wider the income gap gets, the harder people will have to work to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.

There was a time not too long ago when a family could live comfortably in their own home in a fairly good neighborhood while being supported by one middle-class income. There is no reason a nation with our wealth can't reinvest into its own quality of living, and there's no reason that would have to come at the expense of very rich people staying very rich. As I recall, this country still had rich people when the top income tax bracket was a higher rate.

[LnGrrrR]

+ < I can't type a number large enough here >

It's all about relativity though. No matter how many times one sees starving people in other countries, if everyone on the block has a new car but you, human nature means that you will feel pressure to do the same. It's only natural; outsiders tend to be marginalized, and being outside the pack means less survivability.

It's frankly unrealistic to think that the majority of Americans are going to say, "Well, I'm better off than third world countries, so I should be happy". That's not going to happen, even though it's true.

Unless you can get everyone to buy in to reduce their living standards, it's not going to happen. (Due to various issues, prisoner's dilemma, free rider, etc etc). If person X reduces their carbon footprint, that doesn't guarantee person Y will. The only ways to try to enforce it is through culture change, or through law. (Anti-smoking is an example of both, though I'm not sure which came first.)

[Agloco]

It's all about relativity though.

It's frankly unrealistic to think that the majority of Americans are going to say, "Well, I'm better off than third world countries, so I should be happy". That's not going to happen, even though it's true.

Unless you can get everyone to buy in to reduce their living standards, it's not going to happen. (Due to various issues, prisoner's dilemma, free rider, etc etc). If person X reduces their carbon footprint, that doesn't guarantee person Y will. The only ways to try to enforce it is through culture change, or through law. (Anti-smoking is an example of both, though I'm not sure which came first.)

Yeah good points. Changes which happen gradually are either generally unnoticed or tolerated well. I'm not sure of your age, but as a fresh graduate and young single man I became used to having a certain amount of buying power. By the time I was married 14 years later, that had changed noticeably (I'm fairly frugal compared to the average American). Our living standards (yes, very relative as you stated above) are decreasing already, and involuntarily I might add.

I'm not sold on the notion that a tax or lack thereof on the super rich will be as strong a catalyst as most think though. I continue to be on the fence about it. A tax? Perhaps yes. How much is my question. I'm not well versed on it, but there appears to be a fair amount of latitude there as far as public opinion goes.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem thats going to happen eventually is that the lies of trickle down economics will eventually draw accountability. We've been told for decades now that as the rich get richer it will filter down to everyone. The tag lines have been that all some boats may rise faster and higher but the main focus is that ALL BOATS RISE.

Its just not the case. The rich have gotten richer and have a larger share of wealth, but - and especially the last decade - there has simply been no new wealth added to most segments of American society. As you said, Agloco, all of us have faced a reduction in purchasing power and its going to keep going down.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you people worried about an income gap when wealth is so fluid. Just get more people producing wealth rather than expecting to steal others.

[boutons_deux]

"Why are you people worried about an income gap"

because real household income has been stagnant since St Ronnie got the VRWC shitball rolling. and remains stagnant.

economic mobility is decreasing. born poor, stay poor, born rich, stay rich.

While the rich get richer, no trickle-ly down-ly fluid-y for the rest of us, all just another Big VRWC Lie.

[Wild Cobra]

"Why are you people worried about an income gap"

because real household income has been stagnant since St Ronnie got the VRWC shitball rolling. and remains stagnant.

economic mobility is decreasing. born poor, stay poor, born rich, stay rich.

While the rich get richer, no trickle-ly down-ly fluid-y for the rest of us, all just another Big VRWC Lie.
You fucking idiot.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up.

[LnGrrrR]

Why are you people worried about an income gap when wealth is so fluid. Just get more people producing wealth rather than expecting to steal others.

If wealth is fluid, why hasn't the gap between the haves and havenots showed inconsistency over the last few decades? If your thesis is true, it shouldn't show a gradual enlargement, but spikes and dips.

And the whole "Just get more people producing wealth"... right. That's about as useful a solution as, "Let's just get less people committing crime, and then we won't have to worry about spending alot on police."

[LnGrrrR]

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Don't you think a certain level of income inequality might be undesirable?


The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up.

I'll assume this is just a broad stroke, and you don't actually mean that every person who is poor is lazy.

[ElNono]

You fucking idiot.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up.

Of course it's only and always their fault :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Of course it's only and always their fault :rolleyes
I didn't say that and you know it.

[Wild Cobra]

If wealth is fluid, why hasn't the gap between the haves and havenots showed inconsistency over the last few decades? If your thesis is true, it shouldn't show a gradual enlargement, but spikes and dips.

How about plotting the income gap trend vs. the trend of social welfare programs. They feed each other. The chain must be broken somehow, and punishing those who have is not going to help the have nots. Without promoting an environment to make everyone productive that are capable, we keep a cycle that is destructive to all.


And the whole "Just get more people producing wealth"... right. That's about as useful a solution as, "Let's just get less people committing crime, and then we won't have to worry about spending alot on police."

How little faith you have, and changing the argument. What's wrong, have no good argument to the current topic, so you have to attempt to change it?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't you think a certain level of income inequality might be undesirable?

Sorry, I don't covet other peoples wealth like liberals do. Maybe that's why liberals as a group want to push the ten commandments out of our lives.

I'll assume this is just a broad stroke, and you don't actually mean that every person who is poor is lazy.
God.... I hate it when you act like an ass. You are better than that. We have covered this idea time and time again. You know I have no problem for social programs that help the handicapped, elderly, sick, and others for short term. However, those who can work should.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry, I don't covet other peoples wealth like liberals do. Maybe that's why liberals as a group want to push the ten commandments out of our lives.

God.... I hate it when you act like an ass. You are better than that. We have covered this idea time and time again. You know I have no problem for social programs that help the handicapped, elderly, sick, and others for short term. However, those who can work should.

:lmao

You can't make this shit up.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

You can't make this shit up.
Yes, I seem hypocritical to those who aren't paying attention. However, I stay on point. LnGrrrR knows my viewpoint and creates a statement as if it's otherwise... I consider that being an ass, at least for no reason. It really pisses me off for people to effectively slander my viewpoint.

[Bartleby]

How about plotting the income gap trend vs. the trend of social welfare programs. They feed each other.

OK, how about it?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, I seem hypocritical to those who aren't paying attention. However, I stay on point. LnGrrrR knows my viewpoint and creates a statement as if it's otherwise... I consider that being an ass, at least for no reason. It really pisses me off for people to effectively slander my viewpoint.

You're an idiot. The hypocrisy has nothing to do with you even calling him an ass. You should probably review those commandments, moron.

[LnGrrrR]

Sorry, I don't covet other peoples wealth like liberals do. Maybe that's why liberals as a group want to push the ten commandments out of our lives.

So you're saying there's no level of income inequality that might be undesirable?

Take these two (admittedly unrealistic) scenarios:

Secnario A: Four people control 99% of the wealth in the United States. Our GDP is 500 billion per year.

Scenario B: 1,000,000 people control 99% of the wealth in the United States. Our GDP is 450 billion per year.

Is A always the better scenario because the US is effectively making "more" money?

Also, I don't give a fuck about the Ten Commandments, and don't see what they have to do with our government, thanks.


God.... I hate it when you act like an ass. You are better than that. We have covered this idea time and time again. You know I have no problem for social programs that help the handicapped, elderly, sick, and others for short term. However, those who can work should.

... which is exactly what I said. I assumed (correctly) that you didn't really believe that every poor person was lazy, and that some poor people are struck by unfortunate circumstances. Don't see why you'd think me an ass for being correct.

[LnGrrrR]

How about plotting the income gap trend vs. the trend of social welfare programs. They feed each other. The chain must be broken somehow, and punishing those who have is not going to help the have nots. Without promoting an environment to make everyone productive that are capable, we keep a cycle that is destructive to all.
Does that work for all countries, or only the US? Do you think that metric is true universally?


How little faith you have, and changing the argument. What's wrong, have no good argument to the current topic, so you have to attempt to change it?

If anyone had the answer to "producing more wealth" on a widescale basis, they'd be the next Jesus.

[ElNono]

I didn't say that and you know it.

So, what are you exactly saying when you spout:

"The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up. "

[RandomGuy]

Of course it's only and always [the fault of the poor that they are poor] :rolleyes


I didn't say that and you know it.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1579

That was exactly what you meant, and you know it. You have implied or explicitly stated as much on several occasions.

When you say:

"The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up. "

There is only one real way to interpret that, sorry. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have been more clear, so don't get all huffy that we can't read your mind.

[DarkReign]

Revolution? Please.

By whom, the spineless masses afraid of their neighbors who harken back to bygone days that never even existed?

70% of the voting population doesnt even vote. The US is so far from revolution it might as well be another word 70% of the population cant spell.

Unless this country hits 50% unemployment with no social fail-safes to catch them or the military rolls right down your city's streets shooting everything that moves, revolution is a dream of the enlightened few.

Should there be a revolution? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Will there be a revolution? Not in my great-grandchildren's lifetime.

[hater]

ppl seem to forget there is a very thin line between middle class and poverty. All you need to do is lose your job or get a sickness and boom, welcome to poverty.

[Stringer_Bell]

ppl seem to forget there is a very thin line between middle class and poverty. All you need to do is lose your job or get a sickness and boom, welcome to poverty.

Then those people need to save their money and invest in the market (take an active part in your economy!). Do we conservatives have to spell it all out for poor people? The options for becoming rich are out there for everyone, put in some elbow grease (and I don't mean wanking it to my stock portfolio LOL).

[DarrinS]

The options for becoming rich are out there for everyone, put in some elbow grease.


This may be sarcasm, but it's also true.

[DarrinS]

you're absolutely right about american's being too stupid, fat, cowardly, and lazy to ever fight back, but we didn't just wake up one day like this. oh no


Fight back against what?

[boutons_deux]

The Brits are furious: Why aren't we?

Depending on whom you ask, between a quarter- and half-million people marched through the streets of central London last weekend to protest against cuts to public services. Organized by trade unions but attended by people of all backgrounds -- mothers against the closing of childcare centers, students protesting hikes in education fees, pensioners dismayed at the elimination of senior centers and health services -- the demonstration was the largest in the U.K. since a 2003 march against the Iraq War, and one of the largest in British history.

For an American observer, it was an impressive showing that made it hard not to wonder why the only movement with any steam in the U.S. these days is the Tea Party. Why is it that our economic crisis has prompted people to beg for more public sector cuts instead of fewer, for more austerity instead of less? Is a movement against the continued ravaging of state services even possible here?

Of course, there are important political differences between the countries. Because the U.K.'s cuts came as part of a national package of reform, voters had a focus for their ire, as opposed to the U.S., where cuts are scattered across local, state and federal governments. And, of course, it’s easier to organize a nationwide movement in a country that’s geographically smaller than many American states.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/31/battistoni_uk_protests/index.html

[ElNono]

Then those people need to save their money and invest in the market (take an active part in your economy!).

Save what money? He's telling you their lost their jobs and got sick.

And being 'active part of your economy' can be done in many ways, some of them much more active than putting your money in the market lottery.
Sound market investments are normally fairly long term. Money going there is certainly not as active on the economy as a direct investment or actual commerce.

[LnGrrrR]

Fight back against what?

This is a good question, actually. Many would say that the fact that a great deal of Americans can be fat, lazy, etc etc shows how robust America is.

I can't find the quote, but I believe Nietzche said that the strongest society is perhaps one that can handle the most parasites. (I don't agree with many of his beliefs, but I thought that one rang true.)

[MannyIsGod]

If all that it takes to get rich is hard work, Darrin, then are all people who are not rich just not working hard enough?

[DarrinS]

If all that it takes to get rich is hard work, Darrin, then are all people who are not rich just not working hard enough?


The opportunities are out there, and most of them do involve hard work. Not everyone can win a lottery.


I don't have any "super" rich people in my family, but I do have some family members that are well off and others that are poor. Without exception, those that are well off are more industrious, have made more sacrifices, and have made better choices in their lives than my family members who are poor.

[MannyIsGod]

You didn't answer my question, Darrin. Its a very simple one.

[MannyIsGod]

Is this child and his family poor because they simply don't work hard enough?

http://doesprayerwork.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/starving-child-sudan.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

I don't have any "super" rich people in my family, but I do have some family members that are well off and others that are poor. Without exception, those that are well off are more industrious, have made more sacrifices, and have made better choices in their lives than my family members who are poor.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Surely, getting rich isn't about just being handed a lucky lottery ticket (unless, of course, you won the lottery), but that doesn't mean that each poor person has character flaws.

[DarrinS]

You didn't answer my question, Darrin. Its a very simple one.


No, you can't get rich JUST by working hard. If that were the case, garbage collectors would be rich. Like I said, the opportunities are there.

As for the emaciated child, most likely he's poor because he had the misfortune of being born in a failed state.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you think some people get rich with the absence of hard work? Also, do you think its easier to stay rich than it is to get rich, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Surely, getting rich isn't about just being handed a lucky lottery ticket (unless, of course, you won the lottery), but that doesn't mean that each poor person has character flaws.


I didn't mean to imply that ALL poor people have character flaws, just the ones in my family.

[DarrinS]

Do you think some people get rich with the absence of hard work?


If you win the lottery or get an inheritance.




Also, do you think its easier to stay rich than it is to get rich, Darrin?



If you are rich and hoard your money, then I suppose it is easier to stay rich.

[MannyIsGod]

Just to be clear on my end, Darrin, I firmly believe that a hard worker is far more likely to succeed (as he/she should be.) than a lazy ass.

[MannyIsGod]

If you win the lottery or get an inheritance.


Exactly - especially the 2nd portion since many more people receive money through inheritance than through lottery winnings. Which brings me to my next point...



If you are rich and hoard your money, then I suppose it is easier to stay rich.

So, perhaps with these two ideas in mind, you can see why the greatest indicator of how much money a person will make in their life is not the level of effort they put into things, but rather the amount of money their parents made.

[RandomGuy]

No, you can't get rich JUST by working hard.

Correct. The rest is pretty much pure luck.

[DarrinS]

So, perhaps with these two ideas in mind, you can see why the greatest indicator of how much money a person will make in their life is not the level of effort they put into things, but rather the amount of money their parents made.


I disagree. But, I'll admit, it wouldn't hurt to start of with wealthy parents.

[vy65]

I can't find the quote, but I believe Nietzche said that the strongest society is perhaps one that can handle the most parasites. (I don't agree with many of his beliefs, but I thought that one rang true.)

I'd be interested in seeing that quote if you can dig it up.

Part of me thinks that this whole discussion is outdated. I don't think that we'll have a worker's revolt anytime soon because of factors already raised - Americans are fat, lazy, stupid, apathetic, etc... But to think that our social condition is ripe for some proletarian uprising also misses the point. It's not a leap to say that society has changed drastically from the early 20th century - a time when a stronger class consciousness was present in America. And I think that those changes -- the biggest one being the permanance of large multinational institutions -- call for different types of "revolt." Ultimately, I think it's more productive to focus on different types of social change, i.e., how to combat notions of gender, racial, sexual inequality, etc... because that's more apropos to "late capitalism."

inb4 working within masters house = rearranging chairs on the titanic

[DarrinS]

Correct. The rest is pretty much pure luck.


Can you become a famous cardiovascular surgeon by luck?

[MannyIsGod]

I disagree. But, I'll admit, it wouldn't hurt to start of with wealthy parents.

Why do you disagree?

[Agloco]

ppl seem to forget there is a very thin line between middle class and poverty. All you need to do is lose your job or get a sickness and boom, welcome to poverty.


Then those people need to save their money and invest in the market (take an active part in your economy!). Do we conservatives have to spell it all out for poor people? The options for becoming rich are out there for everyone, put in some elbow grease (and I don't mean wanking it to my stock portfolio LOL).

The conditions that Hater laid out preclude utilizing your recommendations. Also, the scenario of losing ones job or coming down with a major illness landing you in the poor house most likely precluded utilizing your recommendations beforehand as well.

Not everyone has $500 bucks a month to stow away. And even if they did, how long would they need to save before they were ok with losing a job for 6+ months or getting hit with a 20k medical bill (or a 120k bill if they're unemployed when they got sick)?

On a smaller but no less relevant scale, I've seen far too many patients over the years who are forced to decide whether or not to pay rent or get their prescriptions filled. The reality is that 50k per year is ok so long as you are young, healthy and don't have a family. It's a different animal once your health begins to fail or your kids require daycare.

Someone other than the middle class needs to begin sharing the burden IMO. Close to 50% of folks/entities don't pay a dime in taxes. Insane.

[DarrinS]

Why do you disagree?


My intuition is that that's not the case, but there may be data to prove me wrong. I was raised in a poor, single-parent household, so I can only relate to my own experience. I'm glad I never had that victim philosphy.

[DarkReign]

Fight back against what?

Against a government that does not represent its own people.

A government that is bought and paid for by the super-wealthy.

A government whose every law is crafted to the benefit of corporate personhood.

A government that politically refuses to balance their financials because it isnt politically expedient to do so.

Against a government that is ever-expanding for no real reason.

Against a government that slowly but surely is eroding the meaning of privacy and personal freedom with laws, bylaws and regulatory bodies that declare fiat over private corporations customer lists under a guise of protection.

A revolution to redistribute power from the Few to the Many until the next time that balance is disrupted like it is now.

I am not concerned that a majority of my countrymen are ignorant partisans incapable of individual thought...nothing can change that.

I am concerned that the government is incapable of self-restraint, that it chooses not to govern responsibly or comprehensively, but instead feeds the pigs that makeup our population with promises of more for less.

I am concerned that the government is so damn scared of the wealthy. Fuck the wealthy along with everyone else.

I am concerned that even after the near collapse of our economy (and who says it isnt happening right now?), the government still refuses to pass legislation that would limit the ability of a handful of private institutions to become so ingrained into the balance sheets of the single greatest economic force the world has ever seen that their default could cause the loss of trillions to normal investors and moreover, complete chaos.

But beyond all of that, revolution is the tool used to remind those who think themselves immune that the host is indeed aware of the parasite's existence and dependance. Tolerance of its presence is the only thing keeping it alive.

Unfortunately, that tolerance is still at an almost all-time high for the great many.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not convinced that Americans need to be smarter to ferment a revolution of sorts. I simply maintain more need to feel the sting of pain. And they don't even need to feel the same level of pain others in counties far worse off than us feel. They merely need to be knocked down a few pegs on the comfort scale. Enough of them to matter anyway.

There is a reason the single greatest factor in our elections is the economy.

[coyotes_geek]

Someone other than the middle class needs to begin sharing the burden IMO. Close to 50% of folks/entities don't pay a dime in taxes. Insane.

It's the middle class who makes up a good chunk of that 50% who aren't paying a dime.

I do think that taxes on the rich need to go up, but so do everyone else's.

[MannyIsGod]

It's the middle class who makes up a good chunk of that 50% who aren't paying a dime.

I do think that taxes on the rich need to go up, but so do everyone else's.

Yes.

[Sec24Row7]

Revolution?

Who is armed? I don't think people with a liberal agenda want to start one. They wouldn't be the ones to end it...

I say that with no malice, that's just logistics.

[MannyIsGod]

A revolution need not mean a violent revolution.

[Sec24Row7]

A revolution need not mean a violent revolution.

In this country? Civil rights in the 60's was a MOVEMENT.

Revolution is something more extreme. Revolution means seizure of assets, overthrowing the constitution, removal of some people's rights.

It would be bloody.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't mean to imply that ALL poor people have character flaws, just the ones in my family.

Understood DarrinS. Wasn't sure or not if you were extending that analogy to America at large. :toast

[MannyIsGod]

In this country? Civil rights in the 60's was a MOVEMENT.

Revolution is something more extreme. Revolution means seizure of assets, overthrowing the constitution, removal of some people's rights.

It would be bloody.

I disagree. Thats a narrow view on the word, IMO.

[Sec24Row7]

I disagree. Thats a narrow view on the word, IMO.

You mean you want like a 60's revolution where they all protest against evil capitalist bastards and then get caught with their pants down flipping homes in their 50's with free credit?

[Marcus Bryant]

It's the middle class who makes up a good chunk of that 50% who aren't paying a dime.

I do think that taxes on the rich need to go up, but so do everyone else's.

Everyone believes they are overtaxed. Both parties pander to this belief among the middle class. While we have a charade about tax cuts for the wealthy or what not, the reality is that both candidates in the last election offered continued low taxes for the bottom 95% of the population (and the one that won stayed true to his word, and then some). Naturally no politician is going to offer anything different for this group.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, we have found the enemy and it is ourselves.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd be interested in seeing that quote if you can dig it up.

This isn't a direct link to the quotation, but a citation:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rw4u68fxYQMC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=nietzsche+society+most+parasites&source=bl&ots=ZhsWTNrX1m&sig=6qjBLfDKYU2I0DJqkLwoUboaoAI&hl=en&ei=e-KUTY7mH4aycY7GyZMH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nietzsche%20society%20most%20parasites&f=false

The sentence mentioning it says, "As one should 'measure the health of society and of individuals according to how many parasites they can stand'".

[DarrinS]

You mean you want like a 60's revolution where they all protest against evil capitalist bastards and then get caught with their pants down flipping homes in their 50's with free credit?

:lol

Actually, they're most likely in their 60's now. Still funny.

[LnGrrrR]

Ah, found it VY.

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/Nietzsche.html


As its power increases, a community ceases to take the individual's transgressions so seriously, because they can no longer be considered as dangerous and destructive to the whole as they were formerly: the malefactor is no longer "set beyond the pale of peace" and thrust out; universal anger may not be vented upon him as unrestrainedly as before-on the contrary, the whole from now on carefully defends the malefactor against this anger, especially that of those he has directly harmed, and takes him under its protection. A compromise with the anger of those directly injured by the criminal; an effort to localize the affair and to prevent it from causing any further, let alone a general, disturbance; attempts to discover equivalents and to settle the whole matter (compositio); above all, the increasingly definite will to treat every crime as in some sense dischargeable, and thus at least to a certain extent to Isolate the criminal and his deed from one another-these traits become more and more clearly visible as the penal law evolves. As the power and self-confidence of a community increase, the penal law always becomes more moderate; every weakening or imperiling of the former brings with it a restoration of the harsher forms of the latter. The "creditor" always becomes more humane to the extent that he has grown richer; finally, how much injury he can endure without suffering from it becomes the actual measure of his wealth. It is not unthinkable that a society might attain such a consciousness of power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury possible to it-letting those who harm it go unpunished. "What are my parasites to me?" it might say. "May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!"

[vy65]

Ah, found it VY.

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/Nietzsche.html

Nice. Thanks.

[vy65]

Ah, found it VY.

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/Nietzsche.html

Although thinking about it now, couldn't you argue that this quote - especially the un-bolded section - lays out a defense of the rich?

[coyotes_geek]

You mean you want like a 60's revolution where they all protest against evil capitalist bastards and then get caught with their pants down flipping homes in their 50's with free credit?

:lol because it's funny.

:bang because it's true.

[vy65]

As the power and self-confidence of a community increase, the penal law always becomes more moderate; every weakening or imperiling of the former brings with it a restoration of the harsher forms of the latter. The "creditor" always becomes more humane to the extent that he has grown richer; finally, how much injury he can endure without suffering from it becomes the actual measure of his wealth.

[Sec24Row7]

:lol

Actually, they're most likely in their 60's now. Still funny.

One of my pet baby boomers turned 60 just recently, the other one is 59.

18 in 1969... born in 1951... 57 at the peak of the "house flip" time.

[LnGrrrR]

Although thinking about it now, couldn't you argue that this quote - especially the un-bolded section - lays out a defense of the rich?

Yes, it does, in a round-about fashion. It says that the strongest creditor (we'll sub in "rich person" here) is not the one with the most money owed to him, but the one who can most easily shrug off the debts owed to him.

Then he extrapolates that to society. I pointed out that large amounts of Americans can afford to be lazy, fat, unintelligent, etc etc because America is strong as a whole.

Edit: IOW, I wasn't using the Nietzsche quote to justify taxing the rich or not; just using it as an example for why America won't go through a revolution until said "parasites" can't survive.

[vy65]

Yes, it does, in a round-about fashion. It says that the strongest creditor (we'll sub in "rich person" here) is not the one with the most money owed to him, but the one who can most easily shrug off the debts owed to him.

Then he extrapolates that to society. I pointed out that large amounts of Americans can afford to be lazy, fat, unintelligent, etc etc because America is strong as a whole.

Agreed. Although I think you can take it much further than that. The whole notion of the 'malefactor' in that quote suggests that the Fritz is thinking of a society wherein the rich (particularly the Madoffs, the Goldman-Sachs, and any other 'criminal' who would manipulate the middle and lower class) engage in their shenanigans - but - rather than responding with an uproar of financial regulation, criminal prosecution, etc... the people are strong enough to rely on themselves rather than on the government to rectify the situation.

That's a vague way of saying I think you can read this quote as a critique of "taxing the super rich now." That's because said taxation would signify that the "people" are not strong enough on their own (i.e., their finances, or their ability to work through financial turmoil and put their "fiscal house" back in order).

[LnGrrrR]

Agreed. Although I think you can take it much further than that. The whole notion of the 'malefactor' in that quote suggests that the Fritz is thinking of a society wherein the rich (particularly the Madoffs, the Goldman-Sachs, and any other 'criminal' who would manipulate the middle and lower class) engage in their shenanigans - but - rather than responding with an uproar of financial regulation, criminal prosecution, etc... the people are strong enough to rely on themselves rather than on the government to rectify the situation.

I don't really read it that way. Nietzsche specifically lists how many "parasites" society can get away with, implying those that don't provide.


That's a vague way of saying I think you can read this quote as a critique of "taxing the super rich now." That's because said taxation would signify that the "people" are not strong enough on their own (i.e., their finances, or their ability to work through financial turmoil and put their "fiscal house" back in order).

I don't agree with many of Nietzsche's views. That said, I don't see a justification in the text that allows rich people to get away with crimes, but not poor people. (Given his master/slave morality though, I wouldn't necessarily rule that reading out.)

[vy65]

I don't really read it that way. Nietzsche specifically lists how many "parasites" society can get away with, implying those that don't provide.

I didn't catch that part


I don't agree with many of Nietzsche's views. That said, I don't see a justification in the text that allows rich people to get away with crimes, but not poor people. (Given his master/slave morality though, I wouldn't necessarily rule that reading out.)

I think his point is that the one "aggreived" is the one who is owed something - hence the creditor (he discusses this right after the part you quoted). I agree that in the abstract, there's nothing here to cabin this to "just poor people" or "just rich people."

His point just seems to be that aggreived parties, those who are "owed" something, are stronger when they forget the transgressions done against them - when they forgive the debt they're owed - rather than giving into a ressentiment fueld tirade against their affluent/wealthy oppressors.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't catch that part

"What are my parasites to me?" it might say. "May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!"
I don't think he'd consider those in power as "parasites".


I think his point is that the one "aggreived" is the one who is owed something - hence the creditor (he discusses this right after the part you quoted). I agree that in the abstract, there's nothing here to cabin this to "just poor people" or "just rich people."

Fair enough. If you wanted to interpret that as a strong society not caring about certain crimes, whether committed by the rich or the poor, that would make sense.

Taking that out of the abstract, though, I don't think our society would be strong enough to survive excusing the rich from said crimes. (Of course, it's already happened in the case of some banks, but I don't think that's to our benefit.)


His point just seems to be that aggreived parties, those who are "owed" something, are stronger when they forget the transgressions done against them - when they forgive the debt they're owed - rather than giving into a ressentiment fueld tirade against their affluent/wealthy oppressors.

This is true. But to apply forgiveness to the upper class, instead of the "parasites" is a reversal of what he implies. He states that the creditor (read here: the rich) is strong if he forgives those who are indebted to him (the poor). He doesn't state that the debtor should forgive the creditor who tries to cheat him.

[Agloco]

Yes, it does, in a round-about fashion. It says that the strongest creditor (we'll sub in "rich person" here) is not the one with the most money owed to him, but the one who can most easily shrug off the debts owed to him.

Then he extrapolates that to society. I pointed out that large amounts of Americans can afford to be lazy, fat, unintelligent, etc etc because America is strong as a whole.

Edit: IOW, I wasn't using the Nietzsche quote to justify taxing the rich or not; just using it as an example for why America won't go through a revolution until said "parasites" can't survive.

:tu

Good read. Great analogy about the "parasites" as well.

[vy65]

I don't think he'd consider those in power as "parasites".

That's what we're discussing. I think that this quote can be read both ways: i.e. the parasites are the fat/lazy/middle-class Americans or are the rich/affluent/criminal bankers.

Regardless of that, however, I think that this quote criticizes (or at least envisions a society that would be a critique of) the notion that we should tax the "Super Rich now."

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/images/NietzscheWhip.jpg

[Agloco]

It's the middle class who makes up a good chunk of that 50% who aren't paying a dime.

I do think that taxes on the rich need to go up, but so do everyone else's.

Yeah, I wasn't specific enough. Proportionally to the rich, no. Having been on both sides of the fence I'm completely torn (crappy I know.....). But yes, we need the per capita tax to rise for a bit.

[LnGrrrR]

That's what we're discussing. I think that this quote can be read both ways: i.e. the parasites are the fat/lazy/middle-class Americans or are the rich/affluent/criminal bankers.

I don't think Neitzsche would call the rich/affluent parasites. He usually used the term "parasites" to those who don't contribute to society in meaningful ways, ones that took more than they produced. Nietzsche probably wouldn't call someone who made it so high in society a parasite.


Regardless of that, however, I think that this quote criticizes (or at least envisions a society that would be a critique of) the notion that we should tax the "Super Rich now."


I'm assuming that Nietzsche would definitely be against taxes on the rich. Of course, we're getting slightly off-tangent here, as I wasn't using that quote to discuss whether or not the rich should be taxed, merely as a reference to the strength of American society.

[vy65]

I don't think Neitzsche would call the rich/affluent parasites. He usually used the term "parasites" to those who don't contribute to society in meaningful ways, ones that took more than they produced. Nietzsche probably wouldn't call someone who made it so high in society a parasite.

I don't think that's as clear as it seems. He synonymizes parasites as those who harm society: "It is not unthinkable that a society might attain such a consciousness of power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury possible to it-letting those who harm it go unpunished. "What are my parasites to me?" it might say."

Given that, you can argue that either group is parasitic because they do society harm - albeit in different ways.


I'm assuming that Nietzsche would definitely be against taxes on the rich. Of course, we're getting slightly off-tangent here, as I wasn't using that quote to discuss whether or not the rich should be taxed, merely as a reference to the strength of American society.

I agree. I was trying to bring this back to the main topic.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, I wasn't specific enough. Proportionally to the rich, no. Having been on both sides of the fence I'm completely torn (crappy I know.....). But yes, we need the per capita tax to rise for a bit.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1554

I would tend to agree.

The question then becomes who pays what?

Aye, there's the rub.

[TheSullyMonster]

I disagree. But, I'll admit, it wouldn't hurt to start of with wealthy parents.

That's great and all, but the facts disagree with you.:lol

http://rightproperty.com/?p=178
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility



If you win the lottery or get an inheritance.

If you are rich and hoard your money, then I suppose it is easier to stay rich.

It helps that tax policies favor investment a whole lot, too.:wakeup

Look at capital gains, for instance.

When you are very healthy financially, cutting back makes a bigger difference, too. I mean, not taking a vacation saved my dad enough money to pay his mortgage for a year.:rolleyes Most people don't have the luxury of 2-3 vacations a year plus eliminating won't have that much impact.

To add on to the utter ridiculousness of how much easier it is to stay rich once you are rich, my dad retired in his late 40s, had another kid at 50. It's cheaper for him to pay for childcare and work(I use that term very loosely, I'm talking working 3 weeks out of 12 here) than it is to take care of his daughter as a stay at home Dad. I mean, he keeps an Au Paire around so he can take contracts out as needed, with no complications. Most people can't exactly have live in child care to allow them to work part time with no complications or scheduling issues.

Having enough money to pay 70% of his current house as a downpayment surely doesn't hurt, either.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think that's as clear as it seems. He synonymizes parasites as those who harm society: "It is not unthinkable that a society might attain such a consciousness of power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury possible to it-letting those who harm it go unpunished. "What are my parasites to me?" it might say."

Given that, you can argue that either group is parasitic because they do society harm - albeit in different ways.

Not sure how familiar you are with Nietzsche, but he tends to use the term parasite as one who doesn't add anything to society, or one who is a drain on resources, not one who harms society actively through criminal intent. (For instance, there's a famous quote where he likens an invalid to a parasite.)

[Agloco]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1554

I would tend to agree.

The question then becomes who pays what?

Aye, there's the rub.

No clue here. Apparently no one else has one either.....

I see another argument being thrown around about taxing the rich, and that's the notion that over taxation would lead to eventual stagnation due to the rich cutting their spending (shopping, creating jobs, etc). I heard it somewhere but don't remember.

I'm not an economic stalwart, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

[TheSullyMonster]

No clue here. Apparently no one else has one either.....

I see another argument being thrown around about taxing the rich, and that's the notion that over taxation would lead to eventual stagnation due to the rich cutting their spending (shopping, creating jobs, etc). I heard it somewhere but don't remember.

I'm not an economic stalwart, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

But the rich don't spend nearly as high a proportion of their wealth(as taxable purchases. IE, interest on a 1mil home is still tax deductible) as the poor.

If you're netting 30k a year with two kids, you're spending every penny. If you're netting 400k a year, your home, vacation home and 3 bmw's are paid off? Proportionally, you're putting a ton less sales tax into the system. A gallon of milk still costs the same. Sure, you drive your m3 like a maniac and get 10mpg compared to the civic's 30. But you're making 12 times as much, and only putting three times as much gas tax revenue in.

Thus, regressive income taxes.

[CosmicCowboy]

Excessive taxation eventually leads to tax evasion and avoidance. It changes the dynamics of the risk/reward. At a 39% tax rate it's not worth the risk to cheat. Kick that to 90% and I seriously reconsider.

[TheSullyMonster]

Excessive taxation eventually leads to tax evasion and avoidance. It changes the dynamics of the risk/reward. At a 39% tax rate it's not worth the risk to cheat. Kick that to 90% and I seriously reconsider.

Well yeah, I doubt there is some magic number, it should be somewhat dynamic. Or rather, that mythical number isn't static. Of course, nobody knows what ideal to aim for(and then adjust with changing economic and social health).

Thus, capital gains is taxed at 15%. No need to cheat if you're really uber-rich.

Accounting and tax preparation should be considered a creative or performance art, at the highest levels.

I wonder if I can find an analysis of say, the top 1% of wealth in the US, and how much of their income is taxed at 39.6% and how much is capital gains at 15%.

edit: But come on, it's not like dollar 400,000 is going to be at 39.6 and dollar 400,000 is going to be at 90%, it'll still be regressive.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Beatles were a great example. They were making shitloads of money but the UK government was only letting them keep a dime of every dollar they made. They renounced UK citizenship and moved to the US.

[vy65]

Just out of curiousity - who's being targeted here? Top 10%? Top 1%? Top 0.1%?

Is it fair to lump somone (taxing them at the same rate as) at the low-end of the 10% (roughly 160k) with someone at the high end (1.13mil)? If so, why?

[coyotes_geek]

Thus, capital gains is taxed at 15%. No need to cheat if you're really uber-rich.

Accounting and tax preparation should be considered a creative or performance art, at the highest levels.

I wonder if I can find an analysis of say, the top 1% of wealth in the US, and how much of their income is taxed at 39.6% and how much is capital gains at 15%.

Not that I've run the numbers, but I would think that if you eliminated capital gains tax rates entirely and just taxed it all as normal income, you could actually drop the marginal income tax rates and still end up with more revenue. Instead of taxing salary and benefits at 39.6% and cap gains at 15%, just lump them together and tax it all at something like 30% (or whatever magic number less than 39.6% makes sense). Seems like that would go a long way towards putting those working for their money and those living off investment income on the same field.

Just an idea...........

[coyotes_geek]

Of course if I were king, we'd go to this.

tax paid = (all income - the poverty level) X (one tax rate for everybody)

[TheSullyMonster]

Just out of curiousity - who's being targeted here? Top 10%? Top 1%? Top 0.1%?

Is it fair to lump somone (taxing them at the same rate as) at the low-end of the 10% (roughly 160k) with someone at the high end (1.13mil)? If so, why?

The capital gains rate, sure. It's that way currently.:lol

I would support more steps in the higher income levels with a regressive income tax schedule, sure.

There would be more than one step between 160k and 1.13mil.:lol

But really, it's capital gains and investments that are the tax shelters.

[vy65]

The capital gains rate, sure. It's that way currently.:lol

I would support more steps in the higher income levels with a regressive income tax schedule, sure.

There would be more than one step between 160k and 1.13mil.:lol

But really, it's capital gains and investments that are the tax shelters.

I wasn't focused on the capital gains rate. That said, chances are much higher that someone who makes 160k isn't going to have as much capital gains (or losses) as someone who makes 1.13mil. But that's besides the point.

While there is a big problem with the current treatment of cap gains - I also don't see the utility in taxing someone who makes 160k at the same rate as a millionaire. We don't tax someone who makes 30k the same as we tax someone who makes 300k - so why's there a difference?

inb4 30k <<< 160k, dipshit, that's why we tax them differently. My point is about the rate, not aggregate amount of tax paid.

[Bartleby]

Is it fair

Here we go again . . .

[ElNono]

Can you become a famous cardiovascular surgeon by luck?

Strawman... You can be a famous cardiovascular surgeon and not be rich...

[vy65]

Here we go again . . .

This time it's different. I'm only saying that it's fucked to charge someone who makes 160 the same tax rate as someone who makes 1.13mil.

::That's it and that's all.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't mean to imply that ALL poor people have character flaws, just the ones in my family. Understood DarrinS. Wasn't sure or not if you were extending that analogy to America at large. :toast
How many of you that disagree with the premise that we need to encourage people to work rather than be on the welfare systems?

I agree with Darrin, but I see it in others. How many of you have talked to someone on one or more social system? Their priority is rarely finding work. They already have a security blanket. Wouldn't one way to get them off the system to be to have an actual threat that they system may kick them off?

Yes, I know. Someone will attack that idea. First realize. It is only one of several things that can be done to make the social welfare systems less appealing to live in. People need to be motivated one way or another to be self sufficient instead of relying on others.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, I wasn't specific enough. Proportionally to the rich, no. Having been on both sides of the fence I'm completely torn (crappy I know.....). But yes, we need the per capita tax to rise for a bit.

How do you suggest we do that. From time to time, I have looked at the revenues generated. You can only remove so much. All the data I have seen suggests that no matter what rate you tax at the federal level, they get an average of 18.3% GDP in tax revenue. raising taxes create a short term increase in revenue, but it quickly returns to that 18.3% area. Decreasing taxes produce a short term loss of revenue, but same thing. It returns to that 18.3% area.

Now think about this concept for a moment.

This is why so many people advocate tax cuts rather than tax increases. Tax cuts allow for a larger economy. Higher taxes make for a smaller economy. When the economy is more prosperous, that 18.3% is a larger number.

Sure, there are practical limits. The problem is finding the lowest rate we can tax before that 18.3% starts dripping. Zero tax would produce zero revenue, at would 100% because people would stop working.

You are obviously intelligent. I ask you to look at the history of revenues and spending in percentages of GDP. Once you see this, you will agree we need to maximize our economy and keep spending under that 18.3% level.

Start here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/).

What is spending under this administration? Isn't it something like 21% or 22%?

[TheSullyMonster]

I wasn't focused on the capital gains rate. That said, chances are much higher that someone who makes 160k isn't going to have as much capital gains (or losses) as someone who makes 1.13mil. But that's besides the point.

While there is a big problem with the current treatment of cap gains - I also don't see the utility in taxing someone who makes 160k at the same rate as a millionaire. We don't tax someone who makes 30k the same as we tax someone who makes 300k - so why's there a difference?

inb4 30k <<< 160k, dipshit, that's why we tax them differently. My point is about the rate, not aggregate amount of tax paid.

If you're just speaking philosophically, cool. If you're responding to me specifically, did you not read the 2nd and 3rd lines of my post you quoted?

[CosmicCowboy]

Eliminate the capital gains tax and you eliminate life as we know it. Real estate investments suddenly don't work financially.

Want to pay $2000 a month for a shit apartment? Just go ahead and vote to eliminate capital gains.

[RandomGuy]

How many of you that disagree with the premise that we need to encourage people to work rather than be on the welfare systems?

I agree with Darrin, but I see it in others. How many of you have talked to someone on one or more social system? Their priority is rarely finding work. They already have a security blanket. Wouldn't one way to get them off the system to be to have an actual threat that they system may kick them off?

Yes, I know. Someone will attack that idea. First realize. It is only one of several things that can be done to make the social welfare systems less appealing to live in. People need to be motivated one way or another to be self sufficient instead of relying on others.

1) welfare systems in this country almost universally require work from those who are able.

2) lifetime limits and other disincentives have drastically limited the amount of time people on welfare actually stay on welfare. It is FAR less than you seem to imply.

3) Based on this, I don't think you have clue one what makes most people poor in this country.

Why don't you do some research on actual poverty, with data and shit, and get back to us.

[RandomGuy]

Eliminate the capital gains tax and you eliminate life as we know it. Real estate investments suddenly don't work financially.

Want to pay $2000 a month for a shit apartment? Just go ahead and vote to eliminate capital gains.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/ohdramaimage.jpg

Making capital gains equal to labor in the tax code is simply a way to be fair to the people who work, as opposed to punishing labor and unfairly rewarding capital.

[RandomGuy]

How do you suggest we do that. From time to time, I have looked at the revenues generated. You can only remove so much. All the data I have seen suggests that no matter what rate you tax at the federal level, they get an average of 18.3% GDP in tax revenue. raising taxes create a short term increase in revenue, but it quickly returns to that 18.3% area. Decreasing taxes produce a short term loss of revenue, but same thing. It returns to that 18.3% area.

Now think about this concept for a moment.

This is why so many people advocate tax cuts rather than tax increases. Tax cuts allow for a larger economy. Higher taxes make for a smaller economy. When the economy is more prosperous, that 18.3% is a larger number.

Sure, there are practical limits. The problem is finding the lowest rate we can tax before that 18.3% starts dripping. Zero tax would produce zero revenue, at would 100% because people would stop working.

You are obviously intelligent. I ask you to look at the history of revenues and spending in percentages of GDP. Once you see this, you will agree we need to maximize our economy and keep spending under that 18.3% level.

Start here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/).

What is spending under this administration? Isn't it something like 21% or 22%?

The laffer curve. Yes, we have heard about this mythical creature.

Reality sort of works that way, but there is no "magic" level. No one, and I do mean no one, has ever gotten a good number for the "optimal" tax rates, and it isn't for a lack of trying.

Sorry, the laffer curve is a novelty. A shiny trinket that is nice to look at, but useless for practical people.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/ohdramaimage.jpg

Making capital gains equal to labor in the tax code is simply a way to be fair to the people who work, as opposed to punishing labor and unfairly rewarding capital.
Why not just make all income taxed at the same rate as capital gains, with no exemptions?

[Marcus Bryant]

It's time to ditch these theories and balance the budget. That means increased tax collections and reduced expenditures, both of which our politics naturally function to prevent. Tax rates are too low across the board, and an increase does not mean the advent of socialism.

Further, we need to rethink the cost of maintaining an imperial military, as well as revamping the entitlement programs to where those provide a guarantee to those who need it as opposed to everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

Tax rates are too low across the board, and an increase does not mean the advent of socialism.

Sure it does.

We need to get people off the government tit.

As for tax rates, why then does the revenue stay around a 18.3% average of GDP, no matter what the tax rates are? i would say we are around the optimum tax rate, and we should tax less, to the point that we see we are on the low side where larger economy and 18.2% would be a larger revenue than on the other side of the peak where 18.2% of a smaller economy would be less revenue.

[Marcus Bryant]

Better yet, let them starve so their inferior genes disappear.

[Marcus Bryant]

So what's the non-'socialist' rate of taxation?

[Marcus Bryant]

Only true supermen are fit to be Americans. You useless eaters, immigrants, and libtards head to the ovens.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's Ameri-can, not Ameri-can't you commies.

[LnGrrrR]

The Beatles were a great example. They were making shitloads of money but the UK government was only letting them keep a dime of every dollar they made. They renounced UK citizenship and moved to the US.

Even if the US dropped its taxes less than other countries, how would we get around the fact that they can outsource for cheaper worldwide? That seems a more pressing issue to me.

[LnGrrrR]

Eliminate the capital gains tax and you eliminate life as we know it. Real estate investments suddenly don't work financially.

Want to pay $2000 a month for a shit apartment? Just go ahead and vote to eliminate capital gains.

Are you saying the free market can't find a way around that? :)

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you saying the free market can't find a way around that? :)

Yes

Do you understand how the free market typically works in rental property?

Lets say I am an apartment builder and want to build a new 500 unit complex.

My company pays me and all my employees a salary that we pay ordinary income tax on. These salaries are paid out of "profits" the company makes.

We locate the property, determine the design, estimate the cost, and then if all the numbers make sense we borrow the money to build the project.

We then lease and manage the property until it is at full occupancy and has a proven track record. At that point it will have a verifiable proven income stream.

We then market that property (with us continuing to manage it for a fee) to insurance and investment companies that are looking for a reasonable given rate of return on an investment. The value of the property is determined by the monthly income and calculations of future income within the life span of the project.

We take the money they paid us, pay off the interim construction loan, and hopefully have money left over to pay salaries and overhead.

If we don't, we go out of business.

They are making a LONG TERM HOLDING investment that will be influenced by inflation. If they know that when they sell the property in 20 years for dramatically "cheaper dollars" the paper "numbers" may show that they made a huge profit, when in fact, in inflation adjusted dollars the property is worth the same or less. Then, if taxed as ordinary income the government takes HALF of this fictitious income, the investment fails to yield the return that was anticipated.

If they ANTICIPATE that the government is going to take half of the fictitious profits in 20 years, then the only way they can make their necessary and reasonable rate of return is to either pay substantially less for the property initially (impossible because the costs of construction are greater than what they need to pay) or substantially raise rents to make up the difference.

One sure result of eliminating the cap gains tax for long term investors is you kill construction of new rental units and the price of existing units skyrockets dramatically.

[Agloco]

What about a luxury consumption tax? I'm not really sure how to go about describing it, except that it would have to be based to on price of the service/good purchased. You know, tax a Lexus purchase but not a Ford Focus purchase for example (I think that exists now no?). Extend that idea to hotels, clothing, etc. How much revenue might that generate?

[CosmicCowboy]

What about a luxury consumption tax? I'm not really sure how to go about describing it, except that it would have to be based to on price of the service/good purchased. You know, tax a Lexus purchase but not a Ford Focus purchase for example (I think that exists now no?). Extend that idea to hotels, clothing, etc. How much revenue might that generate?

The US already tried that and found that it was a job killer in the areas that provided those "luxury" goods. It was repealed in 1993.

[RandomGuy]

What about a luxury consumption tax? I'm not really sure how to go about describing it, except that it would have to be based to on price of the service/good purchased. You know, tax a Lexus purchase but not a Ford Focus purchase for example (I think that exists now no?). Extend that idea to hotels, clothing, etc. How much revenue might that generate?

There are already taxes in place that do that essentially. "ad valorum" or based on the value of the item do that.

You may also want to look up Value Added Tax systems. Interesting concept.

Personally, I think it is half a dozen of one and six of the other.

I used to oppose them out of hand as requiring too much in conversion costs, but I have come to view our current system of income tax with so many loopholes and giveaways to various interests as far too costly.

[Wild Cobra]

What about a luxury consumption tax? I'm not really sure how to go about describing it, except that it would have to be based to on price of the service/good purchased. You know, tax a Lexus purchase but not a Ford Focus purchase for example (I think that exists now no?). Extend that idea to hotels, clothing, etc. How much revenue might that generate?
They did that with yachts some years back and nearly killed the USA manufacturers when the rich bought them from overseas markets.

[Agloco]

The US already tried that and found that it was a job killer in the areas that provided those "luxury" goods. It was repealed in 1993.


There are already taxes in place that do that essentially. "ad valorum" or based on the value of the item do that.

You may also want to look up Value Added Tax systems. Interesting concept.

Personally, I think it is half a dozen of one and six of the other.

I used to oppose them out of hand as requiring too much in conversion costs, but I have come to view our current system of income tax with so many loopholes and giveaways to various interests as far too costly.


They did that with yachts some years back and nearly killed the USA manufacturers when the rich bought them from overseas markets.

:lol thanks all. Looks like I have some homework to do on this. It's just not my forte. There's a dusty macroeconomics book lying around here somewhere.

[boutons_deux]

CC, ignores that the economy and all income grouups did wonderfully well from 1945 to 1975, with vastly higher taxes, esp for people with access to enough capital to build rental property..

The disaster UCA finds itself in is not a Act of Mysterious Nature, unforseeable, unfathomable, incomprehensible. I say it is a powerful as force of nature, like a tsunami, it is irresistable, unstoppable.

The UCA disaster was created and sustained by Repug/VRWC low-tax policies (for the rich) and deregulation policies (for the corps and capitalists).

The pie is not limited, but the bigger the pie becomes incrementally, the more the increases goes to the the top 1%, fantastically so.

Here's a "CSI: UCA" crime story that explains clearly when the crime was committed, by whom, and why and how the crime continues non-stop.

Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer -- And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class

Three Big Clues

Clue #1: Hyperconcentration of Income

Clue #2: Sustained Hyperconcentration

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.alternet.org/images/Untitled.jpg

Clue #3: Limited Benefits for the Nonrich

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/150378

[Wild Cobra]

CC, ignores that the economy and all income grouups did wonderfully well from 1945 to 1975, with vastly higher taxes, esp for people with access to enough capital to build rental property..

And with the changing global economy, and world trade... Things changed now, didn't they?

[CosmicCowboy]

Only someone as batshit crazy as Boutons would compare 1945-1975 to 2011.

[Agloco]

CC, ignores that the economy and all income grouups did wonderfully well from 1945 to 1975, with vastly higher taxes, esp for people with access to enough capital to build rental property..

Can you compare across eras? Kinda like comparing athletes across eras isn't it?

[boutons_deux]

Yes, you can compare because tax and regulatory policies were very different 1945 - 1975, and the article is saying that is the reason since 1975, esp since St Ronnie, that the top 1% has taken almost all the gains in national wealth while the lower 95% has stagnated in real terms.

"d with the changing global economy, and world trade... Things changed now, didn't they?"

CC isn't making that argument. His argument is strictly tax policy.