Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
anukulardecider

Are Any Of You Sick Of Hearing 50% Of This Country Referred To As &#34

Recommended Posts

Are any of you sick of hearing 50% of this country referred to as "takers" or "moochers?"

 

I'm sick of it. When the top 10% pretend they don't get preferential treatment, and act all dramatized over a tax increase they won't even feel, they are actually mocking the American dream which was built with the sacrifice of the working class. To call hard working American's "takers" during a time when lots of people are hurting, after the wealthy plundered our money and recources, well....it just makes me want to punch that person in the mouth....then apologize because I'm a Liberal, and I try to be polite at all times! :D

 

I would like to share a very interesting article I read today about taxes and pay inequality. Usually this is a boring subject for most, but I think if you give this a chance, you will also find it totally worth the read. I'm sorry, but there is something really wrong with Washington D.C. to hire people connected to Wall Street, the very people responsible for plundering our economy, then put them in charge of handing out the bailout money. And some of them are still in office. We should have run them out of the country, or put them in prison.

 

 

Anyhoot, this is a long, long article, so I'll shut up. I hope you take the time to read it. I'm also very interested in hearing your opinion about the article.


Dr. Michael Hudson -Naked Capitalism


Taxes pay for the cost of government by withdrawing income from the parties being taxed. From Adam Smith through John Stuart Mill to the Progressive Era, general agreement emerged that the most appropriate taxes should not fall on labor, capital or on sales of basic consumer needs. Such taxes raise the break-even cost of employing labor. In today’s world, FICA wage withholding for Social Security raises the price that employers must pay their work force to maintain living standards and buy the products they produce.


However, these economists singled out one kind of tax that does not increase prices: taxes on the land’s rental value, natural resource rents and monopoly rents. These payments for rent-extraction rights are not a return to “factors of production,” but are privatized levy reflecting privileges that have no ongoing cost of production. They are rentier rake-offs.


Land is the economy’s largest asset. A site’s rental value is set by market conditions – what people pay for being able to live in a good location. People pay more to live in prestigious and convenient neighborhoods. They pay more if there is local investment in roads and public transportation, and if there are parks, museums and cultural centers nearby, or nice shopping districts. People also pay more as the economy grows more prosperous, because one of the first things they desire is status, and in today’s world this is defined largely by where one lives.


Landlords do not create this site value. But speculators may seek to ride the wave by buying property on credit, where the rate of land-price gain exceeds the interest rate. This “capital” gain is the proverbial free lunch. It is created by public investment, by the general level of prosperity, and by the terms on which banks extend credit. In a nutshell, a property is worth whatever a bank will lend, because that is the price that new buyers will be able to pay for it.


This logic was more familiar to the public a century ago than it is today. A property tax to collect this “free lunch” rent is paid out of the rent. This leaves less to be capitalized into new interest-bearing loans – while freeing the government from having to tax labor and industrial capital. So this tax not only is “less bad” than others; it is actively desirable to reduce the debt overhead. Rent levels are not affected, but the government collects the rent instead of the property owner or, at one remove, the mortgage banker who turns this rent into a flow of interest by advancing the purchase price of rent-yielding properties to new buyers.


Real estate was the major source of rising net worth and wealth for America’s middle class for over sixty years, from the return to peace in 1945 until the 2008 financial collapse. Rising property prices were fueled largely by banks providing mortgage credit on easier terms. But by 2008 these terms had reached their limit. Interest rates were seemingly as low as they could go. So were down payments (zero down payment) and amortization rates (zero, with interest-only loans) and property values were becoming fictitious as a result of a tidal wave of fraud by the banking system’s property appraisers, while the income statements of borrowers also was becoming fictitious (“liars’ loans,” with the main liars being the mortgage writers)
.
If the rise in real estate prices (mainly site values) had been taxed, there would have been no financial overgrowth, because this price-gain would have been collected as the tax base. The government would not have needed to tax labor either via income tax, FICA wage withholding or consumer sales. And taken in conjunction with the government’s money-creating power, there would have been little need for public debt to grow. Taxing rent extraction privileges thus would minimize debt levels and taxes on the 99%.


The next leading form of economic rent is taken by oil, gas and mining companies from the mineral deposits created by nature, as well as by owners or leasers of forests and other natural resources. Classical economics from David Ricardo onward defined such income received by landlords, mining companies, forestry and fisheries as “economic rent.” It is not profit on capital investment, because nature has provided the resource, not human labor or expenditure on capital – except for tangible capital investment in the buildings erected on the land, saws to cut down trees, earth-moving equipment to do the mining, and so forth.


The basic contrast is between a productive industrial economy and a rent-extracting one in which special privileges, monopoly pricing and economic rents divert spending away from tangible capital investment and real output. Classical economists defined economic rent generically as “empty” pricing in excess of technologically necessary costs of production. This would include payments to pharmaceutical companies, health management organizations (HMOs) and monopolies above their necessary cost of doing business. Much like paying debt service, such economic rent siphons market revenue away from tangible production and consumption.


It was to demonstrate this that Francois Quesnay developed the first national income statistics, the Tableau Économique. His aim was to show that the landed aristocracy’s rental rake-offs should form the basis for taxation rather than the excise taxes that were burdening industry and making it uncompetitive. But for the past hundred years, commercial banks have opposed property taxes, because taxing the land’s rent would mean less left over to pay interest. Some 80 percent of bank loans are for real estate, mainly to capitalize the rental value left untaxed. A property and wealth tax would reduce this market – along with the government’s need to borrow, and hence to pay interest to bondholders. And without a fiscal squeeze there would have been less of an opportunity for the financial sector to push to privatize what remains of the public domain.


Today’s central financial problem is that the banking system lends mainly for rent extraction opportunities rather than for tangible capital investment and economic growth to raise living standards. To maximize rent, it has lobbied to untax land and natural resources. At issue in today’s tax and financial crisis is thus whether the world is going to have an economy based on progressive industrial democracy or a financialized and polarizing rent-extracting society.


The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today’s Tax and Financial Policy


From antiquity and for thousands of years, land, natural resources and monopolies, seaports and roads were kept in the public domain. In more recent times railroads, subway lines, airlines, and gas and electric utilities were made public. The aim was to provide their basic services at cost or at subsidized prices rather than letting them be privatized into rent-extracting opportunities. The Progressive Era capped this transition to a more equitable economy by enacting progressive income and wealth taxes.


Economies were liberating themselves from the special privileges that European feudalism and colonialism had granted to favored insiders. The aim of ending these privileges – or taxing away economic rent where it occurs naturally, as in the land’s site value and natural resource rent – was to lower the costs of living and doing business. This was expected to make progressive economies more competitive, obliging other countries to follow suit or be rendered obsolete. The era of what was considered to be socialism in one form or another seemed to be at hand – rising role of the public sector as part and parcel of the evolution of technology and prosperity.


But the landowning and financial classes fought back, seeking to expunge the central policy conclusion of classical economics: the doctrine that free-lunch economic rent should serve as the tax base for economies seeking to be most efficient and fair. Imbued with academic legitimacy by the University of Chicago (which Upton Sinclair aptly named the University of Standard Oil) the new post-classical economics has adopted Milton Friedman’s motto: “There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” (TINSTAAFL). If it is not seen, after all, it has less likelihood of being taxed.


The political problem faced by rentiers – the “idle rich” siphoning off most of the economy’s gains for themselves – is to convince voters to agree that labor and consumers should be taxed rather than the financial gains of the wealthiest 1%. How long can they defer people from seeing that making interest tax-exempt pushes the government’s budget further into deficit? To free financial wealth and asset-price gains from taxes – while blocking the government from financing its deficits by its own public option for money creation – the academics sponsored by financial lobbyists hijacked monetary theory, fiscal policy and economic theory in general. On seeming grounds of efficiency they claimed that government no longer should regulate Wall Street and its corporate clients. Instead of criticizing rent seeking as in earlier centuries, they depicted government as an oppressive Leviathan for using its power to protect markets from monopolies, crooked drug companies, health insurance companies and predatory finance.


This idea that a “free market” is one free for Wall Street to act without regulation can be popularized only by censoring the history of economic thought. It would not do for people to read what Adam Smith and subsequent economists actually taught about rent, taxes and the need for regulation or public ownership. Academic economics is turned into an Orwellian exercise in doublethink, designed to convince the population that the bottom 99% should pay taxes rather than the 1% that obtain most interest, dividends and capital gains. By denying that a free lunch exists, and by confusing the relationship between money and taxes, they have turned the economics discipline and much political discourse into a lobbying effort for the 1%.


Lobbyists for the 1% frame the fiscal question in terms of “How can we make the 99% pay for their own social programs?” The implicit follow-up is, “so that we (the 1%) don’t have to pay?” This is how the Social Security system came to be “funded” and then “underfunded.” The most regressive tax of all is the FICA payroll tax at 15.3% of wages up to about $105,000. Above that, the rich don’t have to contribute. This payroll tax exceeds the income tax paid by many blue-collar families. The pretense is that not taxing these free lunchers will make economies more competitive and pull them out of depression. The reality is the opposite: Instead of taxing the wealthy on their free lunch, the tax burden raises the cost of living and doing business. This is a major reason why the U.S. economy is being de-industrialized today.


The key question is what the 1% do with their revenue “freed” from taxes. The answer is that they lend it out to indebt the 99%. This polarizes the economy between creditors and debtors. Over the past generation the wealthiest 1% have rewritten the tax laws to a point where they now receive an estimated 66% – two thirds – of all returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rents and capital gains), and a reported 93% of all income gains since the Wall Street bailout of September 2008.


They have used this money to finance the election campaigns of politicians committed to shifting taxes onto the 99%. They also have bought control of the major news media that shape peoples’ understanding of what is happening. And as Thorstein Veblen described nearly a century ago, businessmen have become the heads most universities and directed their curriculum along “business friendly” lines.


The clearest way to analyze any financial system is to ask Who/Whom. That is because financial systems are basically a set of debts owed to creditors. In today’s neo-rentier economy the bottom 99% (labor and consumers) owe the 1% (bondholders, stockholders and property owners). Corporate business and government bodies also are indebted to this 1%. The degree of financial polarization has sharply accelerated as the 1% are making their move to indebt the 99% – along with industry, state, local and federal government – to the point where the entire economic surplus is owed as debt service. The aim is to monopolize the economy, above all the money-creating privilege of supplying the credit that the economy needs to grow and transact business, enabling them to extract interest and other fees for this privilege.


The top 1% have nearly succeeded in siphoning off the entire surplus for themselves, receiving 93% of U.S. income growth since September 2008. Their control over the political process has enabled them to use each new financial crisis to strengthen their position by forcing companies, states and localities to relinquish property to creditors and financial investors. So after monopolizing the economic surplus, they now are seeking to transfer to themselves the economic infrastructure, land and natural resources, and any other asset on which a rent-extracting tollbooth can be placed.


The situation is akin to that of medieval Europe in the wake of the Nordic invasions. The supra-national force of Rome in feudal times is now situated in Washington, with Christianity replaced by the Washington Consensus wielded via the IMF, World Bank, WTO and its satellite institutions such as the European Central Bank, backed by the moral and ideological role academic economists rather than the Church. And on the new financial battlefield, Wall Street underwriters have used the crisis as an opportunity to press for privatization. Chicago’s strong Democratic political machine sold rights to install parking meters on its sidewalks, and has tried to turn its public roads into privatized toll roads. And the city’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel has used privatization of its airport services to break labor unionization, Thatcher-style. The class war is back in business, with financial tactics playing a leading role barely anticipated a century ago.


This monopolization of property is what Europe’s medieval military conquests sought to achieve, and what its colonization of foreign continents replicated. But whereas it achieved this originally by military conquest of the land, today’s 1% do it l by financializing the economy (although the military arm of force is not absent, to be sure, as the world saw in Chile after 1973)
.
The Financial Quandary Confronting Us


The economy’s debt overhead has grown so large that not everyone can be paid. This poses the question age-old question of Who/Whom. The answer almost always is that big fish eat little fish. Big banks (too big to fail) are eating little banks, while the 1% try to take the lion’s share for themselves by annulling public and corporate debts owed to the 99%. Their plan is to downgrade Social Security and Medicare savings to “entitlements,” as if it is a matter of sound fiscal choice not to pay low-income recipients, in order to reward rentiers at the top, who have re-christened themselves “job creators.”


The problem is not Social Security, which can be paid out of normal tax revenue, as in Germany’s pay-as-you-go system. This fiscal problem has been falsely depicted as a financial problem, as if one needs to save in advance by a special tax on the 99%. The real pension cliff is with corporate, state and local pension plans, which are being underfunded and looted by financial managers. The shortfall is getting worse as the downturn reduces local tax revenues, leaving states and cities unable to fund their programs, to invest in new public infrastructure, or even to maintain and repair existing investments. Public transportation is suffering in particular – raising user fees to riders in order to pay bondholders. But it is mainly retirees who are being told to sacrifice. (The sanctimonious verb is to “share” in the sacrifice, although this evidently does not mean the 1%.)


The bank lobby suggests that the economy borrow its way out of debt. Their proposal to “stabilize” the financial system is for the government to bail do for the banks what it has not been willing to do for recipients of Social Security and Medicare, or for states and localities no longer receiving revenue sharing, or for homeowners in negative equity suffering from exploding interest rates even while bank borrowing costs from the Fed have plunged. The government is to supply nearly free credit to the banks, to lend debtors enough – at the widest interest-rate markups in recent memory – to keep paying the debts that were run up before 2008.


The problem is that this set of policies will further destabilize the economy rather than alleviating today’s debt deflation. What makes this a quandary is that the proposed moves to cure this instability will only make things worse. The Fed’s prime directive is to keep interest rates low – to revive lending not to finance new business investment to produce more, but simply to inflate the asset prices that back the bank loans that constitute bank reserves.


However, if the Fed keeps interest rates low, there is no way that corporate, state and local pension plans can make the 8+% returns needed to pay their scheduled pensions. But if the Fed lets interest rates rise, this will reduce the capitalization rate at which banks lend against current rental income and profits. That will lower prices for real estate, corporate stocks and bonds, pushing the banks even deeper into negative equity. So if the economy is saved, the banks cannot be. This is why the Obama Administration has chosen to save the banks, not the economy.
Either way, the financial system cannot continue along its present path. Only debt write-offs will “free” markets to resume spending on goods and services. And only a shift of taxes onto rent-yielding property, finance and monopolies will save financialized prices from being loaded down with interest charges as banks lend to raise the economic overhead rather than for production and employment.


The solution for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is to de-financialize them, treating them like government programs for military spending, beachfront rebuilding and bank subsidies, paid out of current tax revenue and new government money creation, which is what central banks are supposed to facilitate, after all.


Governments shy away from confronting these lines of solution mainly because the financial sector has sponsored an economic tunnel vision that ignores the role of debt, money, tax philosophy, and the phenomena of economic rent and asset-price inflation that are the defining characteristics of our financialized age. The focus of government policy is to save a financial system that cannot be saved more than temporarily. The economy will shrink as a result of income being diverting to pay credit card debt and mortgage debts. Students without jobs will remain burdened with student debt (over $1 trillion), with the time-honored safety valve of bankruptcy closed off to them. Many graduates are still living with their parents as marriages, and family formation (and hence, new house-buying) turn down.


Now that the debt build-up has run its course, the banking sector is left to put its hope in gambling on mathematical probabilities via hedge fund capitalism. So Casino Capitalist has become the stage of finance capitalism following Pension Fund capitalism, and preceding the insolvency stage of austerity and neofeudal property seizures.


Austerity will deepen rather than cure the public budget deficit. Unlike past centuries, this deficit is not being incurred to wage war, but to pay a financial system that has become predatory on the “real” economy of production and consumption. The collapse of this system is what caused today’s budget deficit. Instead of recognizing this, the Obama Administration is trying to make labor pay. Pushing wage-earners over the “fiscal cliff” to make it pay the costs of Wall Street’s financial bailout can only shrink of the domestic market more, destabilizing the economy by pushing into a fatal combination of tax-ridden and debt-ridden fiscal and financial austerity.


What is held out as the technocratic hope of “deleveraging” means diverting yet more income to pay the financial sector rather than to resume economic growth and restore employment levels. Yet the recent lesson of European experience is that despite austerity, debt has risen from 381% of GDP in mid-2007 to 417% in mid—2012. That is what happens when economies shrink: debts mount up at arrears (and with stiff financial penalties). Yet the aim of Obama Administration of Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Erik Holder et al. seems to be to make America look like Europe, wracked by rising unemployment, falling markets and the related syndrome of adverse social and political consequences of financial warfare waged against labor, industry and government together.

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of you sick of hearing 50% of this country referred to as "takers" or "moochers?"

 

I'm sick of it. When the top 10% pretend they don't get preferential treatment, and act all dramatized over a tax increase they won't even feel, they are actually mocking the American dream which was built with the sacrifice of the working class. To call hard working American's "takers" during a time when lots of people are hurting, after the wealthy plundered our money and recources, well....it just makes me want to punch that person in the mouth....then apologize because I'm a Liberal, and I try to be polite at all times! :D

 

From a liberty perspective, just because someone won't feel something doesn't mean it isn't right.

 

I mean I agree the blind conservative rhetoric blame on losing the election because all the moochers is just not right. I think there were more factors. Like for example, liberties that a strong evangelical conservative would so easily take away to legislate morality would contribute (and I think heavily) to the loss of the Republican party.

 

However, the same ideas of liberty that caused the loss for republicans is where I take issue with your comment. If a woman was paralyzed from the waist down, would it be ok for her to be sexually assaulted/raped simply because she could not feel it? Would it be acceptable for a criminal to steal even only a dollar from Bill Gates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From a liberty perspective, just because someone won't feel something doesn't mean it isn't right.

 

I mean I agree the blind conservative rhetoric blame on losing the election because all the moochers is just not right. I think there were more factors. Like for example, liberties that a strong evangelical conservative would so easily take away to legislate morality would contribute (and I think heavily) to the loss of the Republican party.

 

However, the same ideas of liberty that caused the loss for republicans is where I take issue with your comment. If a woman was paralyzed from the waist down, would it be ok for her to be sexually assaulted/raped simply because she could not feel it? Would it be acceptable for a criminal to steal even only a dollar from Bill Gates?

 

 

You're comparing paying taxes to rape and theft? Really? Is it not stealing to use our tax dollars (bailouts), to keep the economy from collasping, when you are the one who caused it to collaspe? Paying taxes is patriotic. It's how we build our infrastucture, pay for teachers, policemen, firemen, and all that security, half of which we don't need. Income inequality and the concentration of wealth is staggering. The average CEO makes around 375 times the average worker, and almost 30% of workers a not making living wages. The top 10% owns 75% of the wealth. How does one own most of the wealth, then bitch about paying taxes? They must have balls dragging the ground. Most of the money at the top comes from passive income, and the top earners make most of their money from capital gains or dividends, versus the 10% from salaries of hard working people. And it's still taxed (capital gains) at a low 20%. 15% less than the 90's. Holy crap, they acted like a bunch of two year old chidlren throwing a tantrum.

 

And did I mention the ones with the all wealth are the ones responsible for plundering our economy and our recources, then they handed themselves bailout money with bonus pay, for a job that was NOT well done. How dare we ask them to pay more taxes?

 

I hate to say this, but there is no tax fairy coming to pay our deficit.

 

Most people would be grateful to live in a country that allowed them to make obsene amounts of money, and be happy to contribute for the well being of this once great country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's how we build our infrastucture, pay for teachers, policemen, firemen, and all that security, half of which we don't need.

Alright. Let's look at an analogy here. Let's say we are all brothers and sisters living under one big house. We are all paying rent and have equal spaces. If we need to all contribute to pay utilities and basic stuff to keep the house in running order, do you think that the cost charged to each sibling should be relative to their income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. Let's look at an analogy here. Let's say we are all brothers and sisters living under one big house. We are all paying rent and have equal spaces. If we need to all contribute to pay utilities and basic stuff to keep the house in running order, do you think that the cost charged to each sibling should be relative to their income?

 

 

 

Oh, I like this game. To even compare, this house must have had a debt for about 220, give or take a few years. This house must be able to print money out of thin air. This house must be able to regulate the dollar value. There has never been a case where a house, with a surplus, has caused a national depression, but we'll try to make this work. This house must issue our currency in IOU's. Those IOU's must ALWAYS be accepted as payment. This house pays its debt with bank deposits, cash, or treasury bonds. Be aware that people will steal, sell, lie, cheat, work, and also kill to get those house dollars.

 

This must be a large diverse house, with people from differnt walks of life. After all, we are comparing a house to a soverign Government. In my house there will be 5 politicians, two bankers, one Ins CEO, along with two other various types of CEO, a couple business executives, two managers, 2 lobbyist, 1 special interest group, a teacher,2 police officers, 1 fireman, 2 military personell, a construction worker, a muscian, a Muslim, a Latino, a caucasian an Asian, an African American, one child, Bill Gates, Michael Moore, 2 pundits, a comedian, one union worker, one postal worker, one CIA agent 2 regular joe six packs, one working single mother, one working single father, 1 small business owner, one oil company,1 1 journalist from an independent media outlet, 3 journalist from mainstream media outlets, one crack whore, one dope smoking, peace loving hippie, a low income senior, one disabled person, a college student, a secretary, 1 gang member, one right wing militia type of extremist, one democrat, one liberal, one libertarian, one green party, one athiest, one pregnant teen, she's from the south, by the way, an evangelical preacher, with his own private jet, along with one religious fanatic, 2 activist, one tea party member, and 2 Supreme Court judges, along with two attorneys.

 

I know I'm leaving some people out, and I apologize. If anyone is offended by me leaving out a particular group or person, please feel free to add to my list.

 

Okay, MrUSPatriot, you get your house in order and come up with a similar senearo, of a house that compares to a Soverign Government. This should be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....so you take a simple scenario and expand on it. Fine. Your haven't answered my question. You feel some should pay more than others. Wouldn't you ask everyone to pay their fair share.....and those that couldn't afford it....wouldn't you distribute that balance to everyone else that could (evenly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....so you take a simple scenario and expand on it. Fine. Your haven't answered my question. You feel some should pay more than others. Wouldn't you ask everyone to pay their fair share.....and those that couldn't afford it....wouldn't you distribute that balance to everyone else that could (evenly).

 

 

How our Government is run, is not a simple scenario. It's a very complex system. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.If we're going to compare, shouldn't we make it a fair comparison? Do you normally compare a stove fire to a forrest fire? But okay, I'll play along. Who lives in this house? A mother, a father, a brother, sister and grandma? How many people live in this house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you like things simple, I thought I would post this video. I think it's kinda cute.

 

 

Watched it. Simple but right on the money (pun intended).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you like things simple, I thought I would post this video. I think it's kinda cute.

 

 

 

I agree there were some very dirty people in the financial industry. I know this because I actually worked in a financial company that actually specialized in products for sub-prime mortgages. I posed a question. How are we able to lend to these very risky loan scenarios? The answer were. 1) The products came with interests rates and payment structures that were barely what the borrowers could handle, 2) Some were adjustable rates that seemed appealing in the beginning....but came with higher rates once a particular period had passed. (they were convincing borrowers that the market was growing and that they could refinance in a few years with a higher home value and better credit landing them in a conventional fixed 30 year mortgage) 3) Borrowers although informed of the high risk continued because of the desire to own a home.

 

Do I blame people with big money in the financial industry? Yes. They knew the government would be there to pick up any risks they took on and they partnered with the government (corruption in government - gasp - how could this be). I also blame those that took the risk. They looked at all their liabilities and could barely afford the home....but went ahead and signed the line because of the sales people who wanted to profit on their desires to own a home.

 

Do I blame all rich people? No. For the little time that I've been on this forum, I see blanket stereotypes applied to certain groups and anger/hatred pointed in that direction. How is that any worse than being racist?

 

There are good people with money out there that didn't contribute to the mess. They have the money, but you would still lump them into the corrupt rich financial executives and say....pay more...pay more!

 

If some rich person is paying a lower tax rate than a poor person, we get upset right. What if I told you at the tax rate that the rich person is paying, he/she is still paying 200x what the poor person is paying. In fact, that individual is paying the equivalent of 400 poor people's contribution to this country.

 

Would we still say....NO....you must pay more?

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's funny also is that I see we have rich people with politicians in their pocket (as depicted in the video). In essence, the rich elite (according to the video) control the politics (I think this is accurate....although I would include not just rich people but special interest groups with a lot of money).

 

With an angry group of citizens, who do you think actually supports making changes to the second amendment? They (rich in bed with the government) do not fear people. They'll control the government, police, and military. They'll use the emotions to further the disarmament of America. It's funny that the same group that is angry with a corrupt government also support the disarmament of "we the people".

 

That's where the wealthy elite side with you guys on. Disarmament!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. Let's look at an analogy here. Let's say we are all brothers and sisters living under one big house. We are all paying rent and have equal spaces. If we need to all contribute to pay utilities and basic stuff to keep the house in running order, do you think that the cost charged to each sibling should be relative to their income?

If one person living in the home makes $16,000 a month, and the second person makes $27 million a year, do you think they should pay the same amount in taxes? I'm just curious, because that's what it sounds like.

Ok....so you take a simple scenario and expand on it. Fine. Your haven't answered my question. You feel some should pay more than others. Wouldn't you ask everyone to pay their fair share.....and those that couldn't afford it....wouldn't you distribute that balance to everyone else that could (evenly).

Now you're saying something totally different. Who are those who can't afford it? mmmmmmm, "distribute the balance to everyone else that could" See, this does not fit. First you sound like you think all roomates should pay exactly the same amount regardless of their income. Now you're talking about those who can't afford it. Well, which is it? You're not being very clear at all.

 

I agree there were some very dirty people in the financial industry. I know this because I actually worked in a financial company that actually specialized in products for sub-prime mortgages. I posed a question. How are we able to lend to these very risky loan scenarios? The answer were. 1) The products came with interests rates and payment structures that were barely what the borrowers could handle, 2) Some were adjustable rates that seemed appealing in the beginning....but came with higher rates once a particular period had passed. (they were convincing borrowers that the market was growing and that they could refinance in a few years with a higher home value and better credit landing them in a conventional fixed 30 year mortgage) 3) Borrowers although informed of the high risk continued because of the desire to own a home.

 

Do I blame people with big money in the financial industry? Yes. They knew the government would be there to pick up any risks they took on and they partnered with the government (corruption in government - gasp - how could this be). I also blame those that took the risk. They looked at all their liabilities and could barely afford the home....but went ahead and signed the line because of the sales people who wanted to profit on their desires to own a home.

 

Do I blame all rich people? No. For the little time that I've been on this forum, I see blanket stereotypes applied to certain groups and anger/hatred pointed in that direction. How is that any worse than being racist?

 

There are good people with money out there that didn't contribute to the mess. They have the money, but you would still lump them into the corrupt rich financial executives and say....pay more...pay more!

 

If some rich person is paying a lower tax rate than a poor person, we get upset right. What if I told you at the tax rate that the rich person is paying, he/she is still paying 200x what the poor person is paying. In fact, that individual is paying the equivalent of 400 poor people's contribution to this country.

 

Would we still say....NO....you must pay more?

There's plenty of blame to go around, I agree. And both political parites were involved. It was billionaire villains, taking advantage of hard working American's. Credit was made cheap, and people took advantage of the easy credit approval, with zero down payments. Congress making mortgage tax deductions and incentives for home purchasing, Real Estate agents made higher bonuses for selling expensive homes, less regulation and, low downpayments. Alan Greenspan from the Federal Reserve, encouraged American's to take adjustable mortgages, risky loans, and the list goes on and on.

 

Your next paragraph, starting with "do I hate rich people," along with the next 3 paragraphs, is a strawman argument. It's cheap and intellectually dishonest.. You didn't read the article I posted, did you? There is nothing in this thread to suggest that I hate rich people or that I am making generalized statements about all rich people. This thead is specifically about particular individuals, in Congress, Wall Street, journalist, D.C.Think Tanks, and who have either participated in tanking our economy, or are out spreading misinformation and lies about taxes. I'm also talking about people who cheat on their taxes or hide their money in offshore accounts, and pay large sums of money to get out misinformation and buy politician so they can write their own policies. Not all rich people are trying to scam the system. Some rich people want to pay taxes, and the the current system is unfair. What you're doing here is trying to stage the argument so you can win, by creating a false position for me by misrepresenting what I've actually said, and what this thread is about. Usually people create a strawman argument when they fear own position has no merit.

 

And for your third paragraph:

 

"If some rich person is paying a lower tax rate than a poor person, we get upset right. What if I told you at the tax rate that the rich person is paying, he/she is still paying 200x what the poor person is paying. In fact, that individual is paying the equivalent of 400 poor people's contribution to this country."

 

The rich ARE paying a lesser rate on investment income, we know this. And when you say they are still paying 200x what the poor person is paying, I say that's because concentrated wealth at the very top, and obviously we are having a problem with pay inequality when half of the country can't afford to pay federal income taxes. Which leads me back to my question at the beginning:

 

"If one person living in the home makes $16,000 a month, and the second person makes $27 million a year, do you think they should pay the same amount in state/federal income taxes...across the board? I'm just curious, because that's what it sounds like."

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's funny also is that I see we have rich people with politicians in their pocket (as depicted in the video). In essence, the rich elite (according to the video) control the politics (I think this is accurate....although I would include not just rich people but special interest groups with a lot of money).

 

With an angry group of citizens, who do you think actually supports making changes to the second amendment? They (rich in bed with the government) do not fear people. They'll control the government, police, and military. They'll use the emotions to further the disarmament of America. It's funny that the same group that is angry with a corrupt government also support the disarmament of "we the people".

 

That's where the wealthy elite side with you guys on. Disarmament!

 

 

 

What wealthy people want to change the 2nd Amendment, and disarm people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What you're doing here is trying to stage the argument so you can win, by creating a false position for me by misrepresenting what I've actually said, and what this thread is about. Usually people create a strawman argument when they fear own position has no merit.

 

 

"If one person living in the home makes $16,000 a month, and the second person makes $27 million a year, do you think they should pay the same amount in state/federal income taxes...across the board? I'm just curious, because that's what it sounds like."

 

Yes I have read the full article and it raises some good points. I was laser focused on "tax increase they won't even feel". That DID take away from what the thread is about and if that did create a false position for you, well then for that I apologize. :blush:

 

So I don't exit without answering your question through. In a scenario with siblings under a household, I would like to assume the whole house would agree to paying equal shares of what keeps the house running. I know that's how I would be if another sibling made much much more than I did. In my family, I was always expected to pay for everyone else. When we'd go to a big family dinner, they would say, "Hey he makes more than six figures....shouldn't he be paying." At those times, I would have paid for everybody.... However, I was a bit upset by the fact they all thought a $400 dinner would be something "I wouldn't feel," Yes...maybe I carried the bitterness of my personal experience to your statement about a much more complex scenario....

 

And you are right about that.....this nation is more complex than a bunch of people simply living in one house....paying for it to keep it running. :)

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes I have read the full article and it raises some good points. I was laser focused on "tax increase they won't even feel". That DID take away from what the thread is about and if that did create a false position for you, well then for that I apologize. :blush:

 

So I don't exit without answering your question through. In a scenario with siblings under a household, I would like to assume the whole house would agree to paying equal shares of what keeps the house running. I know that's how I would be if another sibling made much much more than I did. In my family, I was always expected to pay for everyone else. When we'd go to a big family dinner, they would say, "Hey he makes more than six figures....shouldn't he be paying." At those times, I would have paid for everybody.... However, I was a bit upset by the fact they all thought a $400 dinner would be something "I wouldn't feel," Yes...maybe I carried the bitterness of my personal experience to your statement about a much more complex scenario....

 

And you are right about that.....this nation is more complex than a bunch of people simply living in one house....paying for it to keep it running. :)

 

 

The "they won't feel it" comment was inspired by just reading an article about a creepy man, who hid his money in offshore accounts, over in the Cayman Islands, and invested millions of $$$ donating to super PAC's, trying to buy the election, while funding think tanks to provide false charts, with false information, in order to convice the general public, that the pubic should foot the bill. I wonder if they're trying to wreck the economy on purpose? If they only spent on taxes, the money they spend trying to get out of paying taxes... but no, now they twist facts to make working American's look bad. This country used to pride itsef on hard workers, just making an honest living, instead of promoting selfishness as a virtue.

 

American's are not roommates, where we all pitch in a few hundred a month, everything is paid till next month, and we all get along just fine until someone doesn't pay thier share. You cannot compare a houshold budget to the Federal budget. That's not how this country operates. The shakers and makers paying a higher percentage is NOT unfair. Thinking everybody should pay the same amount is completely unrealistic and wrong on so many levels. It's economically wrong,morally wrong and factually wrong. If we all tried to pay a flat tax, and everyone paid an equal amount, nobody would end up paying taxes, because we'd have to start at the lowest income..You can't live on $1,600, let alone be pay Federal taxes. He wouldn't be able to survie, on top of payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, licenses, etc. that he's already paying. Okay, so you take a couple of bucks from him, and expect people making $27 million a year to do the same? .Does this sound reasonable and rational to you? It might depending on what kind of country you want to live in. Afghanistan anyone?

 

The poorest 1/5 of households paid around 16% of the income taxes in 2011. It makes no sense economically to raise taxes on the Middle Class and poor, because then people consume less, which leads to high unemployment. You need them spending money (consumption) to pump money into the economy, thus creating jobs. Say you give a unemployed person food stamps, this also pumps money into the economy by consumption.. For the past 12 years, the high income folks have paid their lowest share of federal taxes, and corporations sometimes don't pay any taxes, while making record profits, I think it's pretty obvious who needs to pay more in taxes.

 

I guess the millions they've spent on propaganda think tanks, convincing people to resent the working class has worked. What's funny, is that most of the people resenting the working class, are the working class. That's some pretty powerful propaganda. I doubt if Joseph Goebbels could have done a better job himself.

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way the poor will ever be able to pay in what they get out, which is what I'd call a fair share. They barely make enough to survive now.

 

That does not mean they should not have some skin in the game though. They should have to pay some small rate. Additionally, If we all had to actually pay taxes every pay period rather than having our employer withhold those taxes then I'd bet all of us would be a lot more interested in reducing spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way the poor will ever be able to pay in what they get out, which is what I'd call a fair share. They barely make enough to survive now.

 

That does not mean they should not have some skin in the game though. They should have to pay some small rate. Additionally, If we all had to actually pay taxes every pay period rather than having our employer withhold those taxes then I'd bet all of us would be a lot more interested in reducing spending.

 

 

 

Your second paragraph totally contradicts your first two sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Your second paragraph totally contradicts your first two sentences.

 

I'm not sure why you feel that way. Maybe I should put it another way.

 

Just because the poor cannot pay their enitre fair share, does not mean they should not have to pay something.

 

Also, for the record, I've already stated that the little guy should be given at least a tad more share of the massive wealth accumulated by the largest of the profiteers. Small businesses that don't make all that much money may not be able to pay workers more, but those that reap profits in the billions could probably distribute profits a bit fairer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Oh, I like this game. To even compare, this house must have had a debt for about 220, give or take a few years. This house must be able to print money out of thin air. This house must be able to regulate the dollar value. There has never been a case where a house, with a surplus, has caused a national depression, but we'll try to make this work. This house must issue our currency in IOU's. Those IOU's must ALWAYS be accepted as payment. This house pays its debt with bank deposits, cash, or treasury bonds. Be aware that people will steal, sell, lie, cheat, work, and also kill to get those house dollars.

 

This must be a large diverse house, with people from differnt walks of life. After all, we are comparing a house to a soverign Government. In my house there will be 5 politicians, two bankers, one Ins CEO, along with two other various types of CEO, a couple business executives, two managers, 2 lobbyist, 1 special interest group, a teacher,2 police officers, 1 fireman, 2 military personell, a construction worker, a muscian, a Muslim, a Latino, a caucasian an Asian, an African American, one child, Bill Gates, Michael Moore, 2 pundits, a comedian, one union worker, one postal worker, one CIA agent 2 regular joe six packs, one working single mother, one working single father, 1 small business owner, one oil company,1 1 journalist from an independent media outlet, 3 journalist from mainstream media outlets, one crack whore, one dope smoking, peace loving hippie, a low income senior, one disabled person, a college student, a secretary, 1 gang member, one right wing militia type of extremist, one democrat, one liberal, one libertarian, one green party, one athiest, one pregnant teen, she's from the south, by the way, an evangelical preacher, with his own private jet, along with one religious fanatic, 2 activist, one tea party member, and 2 Supreme Court judges, along with two attorneys.

 

I know I'm leaving some people out, and I apologize. If anyone is offended by me leaving out a particular group or person, please feel free to add to my list.

 

Okay, MrUSPatriot, you get your house in order and come up with a similar senearo, of a house that compares to a Soverign Government. This should be fun.

 

 

 

 

Oh, I like this game. To even compare, this house must have had a debt for about 220, give or take a few years. This house must be able to print money out of thin air. This house must be able to regulate the dollar value. There has never been a case where a house, with a surplus, has caused a national depression, but we'll try to make this work. This house must issue our currency in IOU's. Those IOU's must ALWAYS be accepted as payment. This house pays its debt with bank deposits, cash, or treasury bonds. Be aware that people will steal, sell, lie, cheat, work, and also kill to get those house dollars.

 

This must be a large diverse house, with people from differnt walks of life. After all, we are comparing a house to a soverign Government. In my house there will be 5 politicians, two bankers, one Ins CEO, along with two other various types of CEO, a couple business executives, two managers, 2 lobbyist, 1 special interest group, a teacher,2 police officers, 1 fireman, 2 military personell, a construction worker, a muscian, a Muslim, a Latino, a caucasian an Asian, an African American, one child, Bill Gates, Michael Moore, 2 pundits, a comedian, one union worker, one postal worker, one CIA agent 2 regular joe six packs, one working single mother, one working single father, 1 small business owner, one oil company,1 1 journalist from an independent media outlet, 3 journalist from mainstream media outlets, one crack whore, one dope smoking, peace loving hippie, a low income senior, one disabled person, a college student, a secretary, 1 gang member, one right wing militia type of extremist, one democrat, one liberal, one libertarian, one green party, one athiest, one pregnant teen, she's from the south, by the way, an evangelical preacher, with his own private jet, along with one religious fanatic, 2 activist, one tea party member, and 2 Supreme Court judges, along with two attorneys.

 

I know I'm leaving some people out, and I apologize. If anyone is offended by me leaving out a particular group or person, please feel free to add to my list.

 

Okay, MrUSPatriot, you get your house in order and come up with a similar senearo, of a house that compares to a Soverign Government. This should be fun.

To further complicate...the house is a DEMOCRACY...and everyone votes on things like painting a room or how to pay for a new washing machine. Some rooms are bigger or have the good view. Some are quieter or have more closet space.

 

Where I'd lived, one guy actually had the lease,was the "manager" had the bigger room and lower rent. My room was smaller but included a small second room for hobbies or storage..and a private entrance to the patio, the room in the middle...had it's own bathroom and one big picture window with a view of the redwood forest and a couple big Fuschia bushes hummingbirds loved. I was there 15 yr so my rents went up less...but I also did a lot of landscaping,a lot of "handyman" the room in the middle,with the bathroom...had maybe 7 different tenants over 15 yr...and the rent on it...went up. It might be vacant a few weeks between tenant,might get repainted a few times more. There were a LOT of factors. Downstairs was a studio. Whoever was there did not have to deal with the rest of us as "roomates" had one big room that was kitchen,living room,bedroom, plus a small bathroom. They paid at another rate.

 

It was a complex set of factors..really. If...as in the example...you expand it all to DOZENS of folks of all sorts..then say...and it's a democracy...and the household can BORROW $$ for wants or needs and has certain common infrastructure and some plan for age and retirement and unanticipated medical costs or natural disasters,and the matter of some tenants being basically...incompetent,nuts, or so nasty they get locked up in the cellar....then it quite shifts the analogy. Then...lets say some housemates are born owning rights to a dozen rooms and get richer off others who's status is they have to pay them rents. Then lets say all this is connected to a big complex of farms,factories,finance doing trade with the outside world but in that...the labor, the skills, the returns are not split evenly...are WAY unbalanced.

 

Pretty much....the more this big household gets more like America..the more everything gets complicated,the more it's no longer 3 buddies renting an apartment or a half dozen siblings sharing a farmhouse or whatever. Generally...never have me and my roomates ever chipped in to buy an aircraft carrier or build a dam or a freeway. We chipped in on internet service. We didn't have to also invent the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderfully accurate post - and great article regarding rent raking, as it were. The cost passed off to the renter in addition to market forces which form the basis of profit. I think about this a lot when I think of small business owners who rent their buildings. This can really stifle new business due to high property rents. You see this all the time when you see empty store fronts or garages or even factories.

Instead of a collective - and what I mean by that is, a buy in regarding profit growth - or a win win, between the renter and the land owner or conglomerate, instead you have a flat market price --- which of course is never entirely accurate.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to add something more here. Say a business plan is a good one. And say it pays dividends for both the small business owner and the land owner. Further down the line, this successful small business person can one day elect to build on their own site becoming a real owner of land too. This helps everyone. The government builds on its tax base and infrastructure is called upon to be improved --- we should hope. also, when I think about economics, I'm really thinking about efficiency in how we use resources, which of course includes all people. Achievement or the dynamic to achieve a total improvement of outcome for all depends chiefly on both competition and collaboration among human beings. eventually we do away with free trade because it becomes less than dynamic, and is replaced with fair trade - or a continually improved efficient use of resources. Investment made here at home creates a larger middle class. It's an economic model that all countries could develop on their own as well - hence, fair trade.

Edited by TheOldBarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only moral answer is to eliminate forced taxation. Without the status quo one can easily come to this. Taking someone's property by force and coersion is bad and shouldn't be part of a civilized society. Do we really want this? Is this the way it has to be?i don't think so. Modern liberals open your eyes to classical liberals amazing insights. Classic liberals are closer to libertarians whereas modern liberals are much closer to socialists. We've been bamboozled!

but i like stop lights, and laws controlling the purity of my food, and air i don't have to crew first to breathe and seeing the kids able to read, or not speaking german as a first language.

 

the private sector is not the answer...the private sector is the wild west without regulation.

most of the ron paul type libertarian ideas seem to be based on the notion of honesty of the average human being while completely ignoring the human ability to exploit the exploitable....while the average human is basically honest, its the minority controlled by greed that cause almost every major problem is the history of mankind.

ever heard of the east india tea company?...look em up.

the private sector run amok would be worse than tryanny

 

 

the world is what it is...taxes are real, and they are not going anywhere in either of our lifetimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 types of people on earth. One thinks they should have authority over others the other believes in self ownership.

 

 

2 types huh?

wow

those are pretty far ranges in personalities, and we are ALL slated into one or the other?

 

that's simplistic at best

I think its obvious now that you dont belong in this room...please stay out and enjoy the no holds barred forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...