Jump to content
ringringlingling

Raising Taxes

Recommended Posts

How much tax revenue would raising the tax rate on the wealthy to 70 or even 90 percent produce?

 

How would we spend that money?

 

Back in the 50s and 60's, when the wealthy tax rates were around 90 and 70 percent, what did they spend the money on back then? (I would think a considerable amount was invested in military spending, especially the creation of submarines, ICBM's, and subsidies for nuclear power)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with wealth inequality, created largely by tax relief for the rich, is that resentment among the heavily contributing lower wealth groups, becomes widespread. Eventually, universal tax cheating becomes inevitable and a tax revolt becomes a likelihood.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/26/why-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-is-important/

- snip -

Taxing superwealthy Americans at 94 percent was not intended to raise a lot of money, at least not directly. Rather, it was designed to ensure that money could be raised from taxpayers in the lower brackets, who would agree to new tax burdens as long as rich Americans were taking it on the chin at the same time.

This bargain proved both effective and durable — as evidenced by the persistence of high tax rates throughout the supposedly conservative 1950s and well into the 1960s. Indeed, the legacy of those rates was still much in evidence until Ronald Reagan pushed through his landmark tax cut of 1981.

- snip -

 

 

Extreme wealth inequality undermines meritocracy.

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/01/27/Taxing-Wealthy-Promotes-Economic-Growth

- snip -

Wealth gives some people advantages over others who are equally talented and meritorious, advantages they did nothing to deserve except having the right parents. The wealthy have access to better education, highly valuable social networks, more educational opportunities outside the classroom, and so on.

That alone is cause for concern, but there is more. The very thing that conservatives worry about with social programs, the (largely unfounded) worry that payments to the needy will seriously undercut motivation on a wide scale, is certainly present for those who receive large inheritances. As Buttonwood at the Economist says while discussing Thomas Piketty’s concerns about inherited wealth, “History, as well as fiction, suggests that being born to inherited wealth is not normally a spur to greater effort; instead, life is devoted to social display or indolence.”

Wealth that is earned rather than inherited is more defensible; though there are legitimate questions about how much of this wealth is truly the result of an individual’s effort rather than from luck, the help of society, and political and economic power that distorts the flow of income. A meritocracy is undermined when workers are not paid what they are worth –– when the income workers have earned through hard work is misdirected to those at the top. Hence, there are legitimate questions about how much of the income and wealth of those at the top should be reclaimed and redistributed through taxation.

Wealth gives some people advantages over others who are equally talented and meritorious, advantages they did nothing to deserve except having the right parents. The wealthy have access to better education, highly valuable social networks, more educational opportunities outside the classroom, and so on.

That alone is cause for concern, but there is more. The very thing that conservatives worry about with social programs, the (largely unfounded) worry that payments to the needy will seriously undercut motivation on a wide scale, is certainly present for those who receive large inheritances. As Buttonwood at the Economist says while discussing Thomas Piketty’s concerns about inherited wealth, “History, as well as fiction, suggests that being born to inherited wealth is not normally a spur to greater effort; instead, life is devoted to social display or indolence.”

Wealth that is earned rather than inherited is more defensible; though there are legitimate questions about how much of this wealth is truly the result of an individual’s effort rather than from luck, the help of society, and political and economic power that distorts the flow of income. A meritocracy is undermined when workers are not paid what they are worth –– when the income workers have earned through hard work is misdirected to those at the top. Hence, there are legitimate questions about how much of the income and wealth of those at the top should be reclaimed and redistributed through taxation.

- snip -

 

 

Raising taxes on the wealthy makes a lower tax burden possible for everyone else. This is good for business as it raises demand. When the bottom economic 90% pay almost all the taxes, they have less money to spend. That's not only bad for business but slows the economy.

 

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/03/why-higher-taxes-wealthy-are-good-business

- snip -

By lowering taxes on the wealthy precipitously over the past half-century, policymakers have effectively reduced the demand for products and services. Why? Because as the tax burden on the few wealthy has decreased, the economic burden on the vast majority of middle-class Americans has increased dramatically. For example, while the tax rates on the wealthy have dropped from over 90 percent in the 1950s to 35 percent today, the middle class is now faced with dramatically higher health-care costs, increased tuition and staggering student-loan debt, increased local property taxes, and many other economic burdens.

And because the vast majority of Americans now carry such high debt loads and have stagnant incomes, they are not able to sustain the kind of high demand for goods and services that businesses need to thrive.

It is not a surprise, therefore, that the last major expansion of the U.S. economy (during the 1990s under President Bill Clinton) occurred shortly after a rise in the marginal tax rates on the top earners (from 31 percent to 39.6 percent). And it is also not a surprise that when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were reduced (from 39.6 percent to 35 percent) under President George W. Bush, economic growth stalled.

- snip -

 

Most economists are in agreement that raising taxes on the rich would help the economy. It's $$political pressure$$ that produced the lopsided tax system we have now.

Just a few titles of articles on the economy:

 

Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important - Forbes

www.forbes.com/.../taxanalysts/.../why-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-is...
Forbes
Mar 26, 2014 - The leading global publisher of tax news, analysis and commentary .... percent would be reasonable and ultimately beneficial for most nations.

 

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth | The Fiscal ...

www.thefiscaltimes.com/.../Taxing-Wealthy-Promotes-E...
The Fiscal Times
Jan 27, 2015 - If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that ...

 

Taxing the rich is good for the economy | Marketplace.org

www.marketplace.org/topics/.../taxing-rich-good-economy
Marketplace
Apr 18, 2012 - By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow ... A modest suggestion: Perhaps it would be best for Mr Reich to stick to ...

 

Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income ...

www.cbpp.org/.../recent-studies-fi...
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
by CC Huang - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles
Apr 24, 2012 - ... households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run. .... [17] This also suggests that while many tax reform proposals would broaden the tax base and .... d Reuven S. Avi-Yonah “Why Tax the Rich?
Why Raising Taxes on the Rich Is Good Economics - CBS ...
www.cbsnews.com/.../why-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-is-good-e...
CBS News
Aug 9, 2011 - Even if taxes on those with the highest incomes are substantially increased, income gains at the top over time would still dramatically outpace ...
Rein in the Rich: How Higher Taxes Could Lift the Economy ...
www.newrepublic.com/.../rein-rich-how-higher-taxes-...
The New Republic

Dec 12, 2012 - Republicans have insisted that raising taxes on the rich would cost jobs – as many as 700,000, according to House Speaker John Boehner.

You visited this page on 10/23/15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you raise taxes, then you also have to cut out most of the loopholes. you have to find ways to stop the very high income earners from hiding the wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would we spend that money?

 

Back in the 50s and 60's, when the wealthy tax rates were around 90 and 70 percent, what did they spend the money on back then? (I would think a considerable amount was invested in military spending, especially the creation of submarines, ICBM's, and subsidies for nuclear power)

 

Spending is dependent 1 - The beliefs of the politicians the electorate vote in. 2 - Political pressure in the form of campaign contributions and lobbying.

 

How SHOULD the money be spent? That's a matter of conscience, belief and ideology.

 

I subscribe to many of the ideas of Democratic Socialism. So I want to see a return of publicly funded education including higher education for the qualified.... A cradle to grave welfare system for all.... A highly progressive tax system in which it's difficult to cheat..... Capitalism which is strongly regulated to work for the people, not against...... A return of publicly funded basic research.... Free trade.... A strong military for defense - That means DEFENSE not aggression.

 

I understand it's unrealistic to expect Democratic Socialism to come soon, even in my lifetime and even if Bernie should become president. But public awareness of the principles and benefits are the first step.

 

 

If you raise taxes, then you also have to cut out most of the loopholes. you have to find ways to stop the very high income earners from hiding the wealth.

 

Absolutely necessary. Nothing serious is being done about the problem now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe that raising taxes on the rich is the right thing to do.

It sounds like the right thing to do, and it feels like the right thing to do,

but I'm not sure.

 

How does taxing the rich make me any less poor?

Relative to the richest man on earth, it makes me less poor.

But in an actual, realistic sense, am I any better off?

Does a rich man have any less power over me than he did before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe that raising taxes on the rich is the right thing to do.

It sounds like the right thing to do, and it feels like the right thing to do,

but I'm not sure.

 

How does taxing the rich make me any less poor?

Relative to the richest man on earth, it makes me less poor.

But in an actual, realistic sense, am I any better off?

Does a rich man have any less power over me than he did before?

Good question.

 

I remember when the rich had tax rates in the 90% range. They mostly didn't pay taxes at that rate, instead they took their money in other ways. For example, instead of giving themselves giant bonuses they would have the company they own make investments in future growth, research, and infrastructure. That way, their wealth would grow, without being taxed. The power they could wield would grow without having so much more income than they could spend in a lifetime anyway.

 

The advantage is the growth of the economy. With more investment in growth, our economy grew faster, for everyone, including the rich and the middle class. So yes, having high tax rates on the rich, doesn't make them pay more in taxes, but enriches everyone, including you. It makes you richer in a real, money in the bank sense.

 

Are you then better off? With more investment, all of society benefits. Products become better and lower cost. Wages and benefits for workers and management become better. So in addition to having more money, you have a better society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much tax revenue would raising the tax rate on the wealthy to 70 or even 90 percent produce?

 

How would we spend that money?

 

Back in the 50s and 60's, when the wealthy tax rates were around 90 and 70 percent, what did they spend the money on back then? (I would think a considerable amount was invested in military spending, especially the creation of submarines, ICBM's, and subsidies for nuclear power)

They built a lot of highways for sure. This employed a lot of people too. The spending helps states out quite a lot as well - a lot of schools were built back in those years. Raising taxes on rich folk makes excellent economic sense if you want a sustainable middle class and a better infrastructure - which we need, especially the energy grid.

 

Also of note, when the taxes were reduced, first by Kennedy, we ended up on Vietnam. That put us in an economic rut, not to mention the unbelievable loss of life. Things also quickly went sour with the oil embargo - energy being the chief resource of manufacturing. Lots of grid locks ensued and have been sustained ever since. With all the technological advances in many ways we've gone backwards, not because we had to either.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of the problems with wealth inequality, created largely by tax relief for the rich, is that resentment among the heavily contributing lower wealth groups, becomes widespread.

Let me correct something here. While there should definitely be higher taxes on the rich, that isn't what created the huge inequality.

 

What created the huge inequality is the huge amount of value and income that is the result of new technologies. Whenever there is change to the system of wealth production, the ones best positioned to profit from that become hugely rich.

 

The same happened during the industrialization of England in Charles Dickens' time. The same happened in America with the industrialists who came to be called "robber barons".

 

Our new wealth has come the emergence of the use of information as the engine of wealth production. It's no coincidence that the richest man in the world is Bill Gates. Look at this list:

 

Obviously #1, 2, and 5 are about computing or communications. It's not hard to see that the success of #8 and #9 comes from information too: sourcing inexpensive products, managing a supply chain, and efficiently leveraging economies of scale.

 

It can even be argued that the wealth of both #6's expanded due to the increased world-wide use of energy due to computing world-wide.

 

Go through this more complete list and see how many owe their billions to technology.

 

Yes we should tax them. Many of them would approve of that too.

But their wealth and income inequality isn't due to taxes being too low. It's due to them having radically changed the world for the better. (Except Sheldon Adelson. He is a scumbag. A smart scumbag, but still a scumbag.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a contradiction.

 

The world is going through rapid changes, for instance, advancing technology as pointed out above. Free trade is another area which every country needs so it won't be left behind. And yet, free trade can be lopsided in its benefit to the wealthy.

 

Democratic Socialism, with its cradle to grave welfare and highly progressive taxation allows for new technology and free trade while still preserving a prosperous middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a contradiction.

 

The world is going through rapid changes, for instance, advancing technology as pointed out above. Free trade is another area which every country needs so it won't be left behind. And yet, free trade can be lopsided in its benefit to the wealthy.

 

Democratic Socialism, with its cradle to grave welfare and highly progressive taxation allows for new technology and free trade while still preserving a prosperous middle class.

 

I guess I didn't make it clear. Let me try again.

 

No matter what tax scheme is implemented, for example one with much higher rates for rich people and no loopholes (of which I would approve) ... even if we did that, there would still be massive income inequality.

 

In fact the income inequality is going to get worse no matter what.

 

That's because technology and science advance exponentially: The more you know and understand, the more you can do (in the areas left to understand). And the more you can do, the more you can learn, so the cycle feeds on itself. Exponential growth of knowledge and ability (and not coincidentally, for less and less money).

 

So life gets a little better for everyone, lots better for rich people and for people positioned to profit, there will be income like we've never seen before. (And the current income is like we'd never seen before 20 year ago.)

 

So yeah, tax more so that we can make life better for people at the lower end. I'm all for that.

 

But how life is for people at the lower end is not what I'm afraid of, because it will get better. Democratic socialism might make it get better a bit faster.

 

What I'm afraid of is that the tech that gets more and more sophisticated, and also cheaper and cheaper, will soon be cheap enough to be in the hands of evil people. Terrorists. Dictators. Religious fanatics. Name your poison.

 

We can't control it and and we can't stop it. All we can do is make the best available to the good guys.

 

Here's an example. Two decades ago, infrared technology was new and available to the most sophisticated military (US, of course). See this. Today, you can buy a cheapo IR camera for $26. Militarized versions for terrorists are either already there or will be within a short time.

 

Income inequality isn't the problem. The problem is making sure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed, educated and can work to their productive ability. If that happens, I don't care how rich anyone gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I disagree: As the rich get richer, life will not automatically get better,but less, for ordinary people.... Trickle-down theory has been widely debunked.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/news/economy/trickle-down-theory-wrong-imf/

The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.

That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

 

In reality, not fantasy, life is getting worse. A plummeting standard of living in the US shows ordinary people are falling behind, economically. More people are recognizing it as evidenced by the relative popularity of Bernie Sanders and his advocacy for Democratic Socialism. Such a large following as Bernie has now would have been impossible in 2000.

 

Still things may have to get worse before someone with Sanders beliefs can gain a majority vote. Unfortunately, things have been going downhill, economically, for most in the US during the last 40 years.... An undeniable fact that no amount of rosy predictions can make disappear.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/americas-sinking-middle-class.html?_r=0

America's Sinking Middle Class

Sept 18, 2013

Eduardo Porter

 

In key respects, in fact, the standard of living of most Americans has fallen decidedly behind. Just take the cost of medical services. Health care spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has roughly doubled since 1988, to about $8,500 — pushing up health insurance premiums and eating into workers’ wages.

The cost of going to college has been rising faster than inflation as well. About two-thirds of people with bachelor’s degrees relied on loans to get through college, up from 45 percent two decades ago. Average student debt in 2011 was $23,300.

 

I don't dispute, for one second that science and technology are advancing exponentially, creating considerably more financial opportunity for those at the top than below.

 

I have nothing against the rich whether they pursue opulent lifestyles or not. But ordinary people should still have significant money in their pockets after taking care of necessities. It's good for them and good for a balance of supply and demand. And people should be provided with a cradle to grave welfare system, including education, like in the Democratic Socialist countries.. What is need to accomplish it is a highly progressive, strongly enforced tax system and heavily regulated industry. When those things are accomplished, Free Trade and Advancing Technology will no longer be a threat to ordinary people's well being.

 

Without doubt, advancing leaps in technology have made improvements in many products and services as diverse as cell phones to dentistry. It's just that fewer people can afford them,. Although new products tend to get cheaper over time, due to efficiencies of production, etc, average wages are falling too fast to make much difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I disagree: As the rich get richer, life will not automatically get better,but less, for ordinary people.... Trickle-down theory has been widely debunked.

 

I'm not talking about trickle-down. I agree that trickle-down is nonsense.

 

Here are some areas in which life got better for ordinary people over the last 30 years. Health, communication and information.

  • At my local Publix, filling generic prescriptions of antibiotics is free. At Walmart, prescriptions of almost all generic medications are $4.
  • Surgical treatments used to be scary and cut you all the way open. Today: laparoscopy.
  • In 1985, learning about something took a trip to the library or a course at university. Today: Google, and most people have smartphones: http://marketingland.com/report-us-smartphone-penetration-now-75-percent-117746 Those who don't have smartphones often have desktops, laptops or tablets. Information has gone from being inconvenient and expensive to nearly free. (In 2014, 81% of all adults used a computer. More today. And a higher percentage for kids, since many very old people didn't catch on.)
  • Countervailing argument: while availability of information has sky-rocketed, so has availability of mis-information. e.g. Fox News and Glenn Beck, not to mention all the right wing internet sources.
  • In 1985 if you were out of the house, communication meant finding a pay phone. Today, everyone can text or call.
  • Long distance within the US went from expensive to included free with a cell-phone plan.
  • Free (commerical-paid) entertainment options have skyrocketed while production values have improved tremendously. Don't believe me? Watch an old "Incredible Hulk" show with Bill Bixby, if you can stand it. Then watch Marvel's Agents of Shield.
  • Globalization has made products from all over the world available and cheap, while simultaneously developing the countries that learn to produce them. (But also driven down salaries in the US, to be fair. And the increased military might of China is also a problem.)

My point is that the rich have gotten hugely richer because they were in a position to profit from the huge improvements and changes undergone by society via the technology boom.

 

Yes, they need to pay higher taxes. But tech will still expand exponentially (which is good), and so will profits. You can't possibly tax enough to stave off income inequality. It will get to a point where even if the marginal rate for the 1% is 99%, they will still have 80% of the wealth in the country, because technology will have produced that much wealth.

 

 

I have nothing against the rich whether they pursue opulent lifestyles or not. But ordinary people should still have significant money in their pockets after taking care of necessities. It's good for them and good for a balance of supply and demand. And people should be provided with a cradle to grave welfare system, including education, like in the Democratic Socialist countries.. What is need to accomplish it is a highly progressive, strongly enforced tax system and heavily regulated industry. When those things are accomplished, Free Trade and Advancing Technology will no longer be a threat to ordinary people's well being.

 

I agree with this. Actually, free university education for people with appropriate grades will actually make the middle class a little bit better off, but make rich vastly richer, because there will be a bigger talent pool to use for higher-value, more profitable ways to make money. Free university education will make smart middle-class people a bit better off, while increasing income inequality.

 

Some people will just never be better off. The reasons will be lack of intelligence, addictions (drugs or gambling), improvidence (but universal Medicare and Social Security can help in that regard).

 

Some necessary jobs just will never pay very much. When I was a student, there was a couple acting as janitors in the high-rise building I lived in. They got discounted rent and a bit of cash. If something broke they contacted the repair people. They collected rent for the people that owned the building. They worked about two hours a day, and didn't get paid much. They were happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not talking about trickle-down. I agree that trickle-down is nonsense.

 

Here are some areas in which life got better for ordinary people over the last 30 years. Health, communication and information.

  • At my local Publix, filling generic prescriptions of antibiotics is free. At Walmart, prescriptions of almost all generic medications are $4.
  • Surgical treatments used to be scary and cut you all the way open. Today: laparoscopy.
  • In 1985, learning about something took a trip to the library or a course at university. Today: Google, and most people have smartphones: http://marketingland.com/report-us-smartphone-penetration-now-75-percent-117746 Those who don't have smartphones often have desktops, laptops or tablets. Information has gone from being inconvenient and expensive to nearly free. (In 2014, 81% of all adults used a computer. More today. And a higher percentage for kids, since many very old people didn't catch on.)
  • Countervailing argument: while availability of information has sky-rocketed, so has availability of mis-information. e.g. Fox News and Glenn Beck, not to mention all the right wing internet sources.
  • In 1985 if you were out of the house, communication meant finding a pay phone. Today, everyone can text or call.
  • Long distance within the US went from expensive to included free with a cell-phone plan.
  • Free (commerical-paid) entertainment options have skyrocketed while production values have improved tremendously. Don't believe me? Watch an old "Incredible Hulk" show with Bill Bixby, if you can stand it. Then watch Marvel's Agents of Shield.
  • Globalization has made products from all over the world available and cheap, while simultaneously developing the countries that learn to produce them. (But also driven down salaries in the US, to be fair. And the increased military might of China is also a problem.)

My point is that the rich have gotten hugely richer because they were in a position to profit from the huge improvements and changes undergone by society via the technology boom.

 

True, ordinary people benefit from consumer product introductions and improvements made possible by new technologies. While in the production area, increasing automation and computerization, made possible by new technologies, eliminates skilled jobs and has the effect of lowering pay. Advancing technology is a double edged sword.

 

From the MIT Technology Review:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

 

How Technology is Destroying Jobs

By David Rotman, June 12, 2013

impressive advances in computer technology—from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services—are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Even more ominous for workers, the MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education, and medicine.

 

That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who’s worked in automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.

 

==========================================================================

 

My point is that the rich have gotten hugely richer because they were in a position to profit from the huge improvements and changes undergone by society via the technology boom.

 

Two problems: 1 - Nothing is being done about the problem of the super rich hiding their income in offshore banks. In order for their income tax to be significant, laws need to be passed to force them to declare their entire incomes. 2 - The passing on of huge fortunes creates an indolent Aristocracy. Estate taxes need to be raised enough to prevent the worst of it.

 

 

Yes, they need to pay higher taxes. But tech will still expand exponentially (which is good), and so will profits. You can't possibly tax enough to stave off income inequality. It will get to a point where even if the marginal rate for the 1% is 99%, they will still have 80% of the wealth in the country, because technology will have produced that much wealth.

 

I have made this point many times. When dealing with fortunes as large as those of the .001%, they can be taxed at an extremely high rate and still easily retain opulent lifestyles complete with yachts, jets, mansions, etc. And that's why the tax rates have to be highly progressive, leaving people with enough for a decent standard of living while taking a fair amount for each level of income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's important to note that our government spends far too little as a percentage of GDP in this country. There are an assortment of ways to increase the revenue the government takes in. How should we spend it?

Infrastructure, a new energy grid that will create jobs?

Equitable school systems everywhere?

Increased SS benefits?

Increased spending for NIH and Space exploration?

 

We need people in congress who care about people in this country. We need to invest in our future. It's an investment if it's right. It's not an investment if you are just subsidizing rich people who get richer from rents.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's important to note that our government spends far too little as a percentage of GDP in this country. There are an assortment of ways to increase the revenue the government takes in. How should we spend it?

Infrastructure, a new energy grid that will create jobs?

Equitable school systems everywhere?

Increased SS benefits?

Increased spending for NIH and Space exploration?

 

Good list. I would add Basic Research. The government, is free to pursue long term research goals while corporations need to restrict their research to goals set by the quarterly bottom line. Research should range from NASA space technology to exploration on basic causes of cancer, and a possible cure.

 

 

We need people in congress who care about people in this country. We need to invest in our future. It's an investment if it's right. It's not an investment if you are just subsidizing rich people who get richer from rents.

 

Peace!

 

Subsidizing the rich is now a major pursuit of government. In order to put more people in Congress "who care about the people of this country", we need reforms:

~ Amend the Constitution to get rid of corporate personhood.

~ Overturn the SCOTUS "Citizen's United" ruling with an amendment that can't be touched judicially.

~ Election reform to eliminate large donations in return for a legislative agenda.

~ Lobby reform which denies lobbyists from free access to the halls of Congress, which they have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good list. I would add Basic Research. The government, is free to pursue long term research goals while corporations need to restrict their research to goals set by the quarterly bottom line. Research should range from NASA space technology to exploration on basic causes of cancer, and a possible cure.

 

 

 

Subsidizing the rich is now a major pursuit of government. In order to put more people in Congress "who care about the people of this country", we need reforms:

~ Amend the Constitution to get rid of corporate personhood.

~ Overturn the SCOTUS "Citizen's United" ruling with an amendment that can't be touched judicially.

~ Election reform to eliminate large donations in return for a legislative agenda.

~ Lobby reform which denies lobbyists from free access to the halls of Congress, which they have now.

I suggest there are a good many things the US government should invest in. There should be open discussion about exactly what those things are.

 

In addition to the reforms you mentioned, which are certainly needed we also need:

 

~revocation of the Pat Act to restore freedom.

~elimination of the private ballot counting boxes which are free to distort our elections

~investigation of the corruption in government. I don't want the crimes simply ignored, so that future crimes will also be ignored.

~ Restoration of the USSC so that there will be considerations of the constitution and the rule of law when hearing cases.

~elimination of the bribes the rich use to control our government.

 

I am sure there are a great many others.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all those things.

 

How do you feel about a compulsory national service? Not necessarily military, but something for the common good, a work/study program. It would last somewhere between two to four years and act as a way to train unemployed young people who might otherwise not get training.

 

I'm thinking of it as a way to sneak in free junior college or university, without having to call it that and get the idea stomped on by Republicans. They might find "the draft" more palatable than "free junior college" ... but it can end up being the same thing. Like an apprenticeship, but organized at the federal level.

 

Exemptions can be allowed for people already in university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all those things.

 

How do you feel about a compulsory national service? Not necessarily military, but something for the common good, a work/study program. It would last somewhere between two to four years and act as a way to train unemployed young people who might otherwise not get training.

 

I'm thinking of it as a way to sneak in free junior college or university, without having to call it that and get the idea stomped on by Republicans. They might find "the draft" more palatable than "free junior college" ... but it can end up being the same thing. Like an apprenticeship, but organized at the federal level.

 

Exemptions can be allowed for people already in university.

 

That's a truly wonderful idea. One possibility would be to give courts the option to assign parole and "compulsory national service" instead of jail time, in non-violent cases where the offender is evaluated to be receptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One possibility would be to give courts the option to assign parole and "compulsory national service" instead of jail time, in non-violent cases where the offender is evaluated to be receptive.

That makes sense. Write your senator. Or your Bernie. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not talking about trickle-down. I agree that trickle-down is nonsense.

 

Here are some areas in which life got better for ordinary people over the last 30 years. Health, communication and information.

  • At my local Publix, filling generic prescriptions of antibiotics is free. At Walmart, prescriptions of almost all generic medications are $4.

Yes, some prescriptions are not outrageously priced. However, my father worked at a factory, without even a high school education and the medicines were free. Claiming that perhaps not all drugs are priced out of the middle class is not much of a benefit compared to times past.

  • Surgical treatments used to be scary and cut you all the way open. Today: laparoscopy.

Yes, some surgical procedures are better than in times past, if you need it and can afford it. I understand that there is some current benefit to Obamacare, but I expect that to go away as the GOP makes exception after exception on what the insurance covers until it covers nothing.

Yes, there are improvements in availability of information.However, for internet, cell phone and TV and house phone it costs $300 per month (and comcast prices are going up again).

  • Countervailing argument: while availability of information has sky-rocketed, so has availability of mis-information. e.g. Fox News and Glenn Beck, not to mention all the right wing internet sources.

Additionally there is much censorship of the internet. While mis-information continues to rise, information not favorable to the ruling elite is removed.

  • In 1985 if you were out of the house, communication meant finding a pay phone. Today, everyone can text or call.

If you can afford the phone and the monthly plan.

  • Long distance within the US went from expensive to included free with a cell-phone plan.
  • Free (commerical-paid) entertainment options have skyrocketed while production values have improved tremendously. Don't believe me? Watch an old "Incredible Hulk" show with Bill Bixby, if you can stand it. Then watch Marvel's Agents of Shield.

A better example is Dr Who. Watch an episode from 1963 and watch an episode from 2015. Big difference. So we get better entertainment.

  • Globalization has made products from all over the world available and cheap, while simultaneously developing the countries that learn to produce them. (But also driven down salaries in the US, to be fair. And the increased military might of China is also a problem.)

I suggest this is a short term situation as China's currency manipulation is one main reason for low prices. Once they have all our jobs and we have sold them all our resources, prices will skyrocket.

 

My point is that the rich have gotten hugely richer because they were in a position to profit from the huge improvements and changes undergone by society via the technology boom.

 

...

 

Comments placed above in red.

 

I agree that the rich have gotten hugely richer, however, the middle class is getting poorer and poorer. There is very little sharing of the advances.

 

I like technology and have worked in it for more than 30 years. There are advantages. However, some people (the rich) get lots of advantages from it, while most people only get a very tiny benefit. The rich getting billions more dollars while the middle class getting to take a cell phone to a good movie are not equivalent.

 

Additionally, the rich can and are using their new wealth to change our political system to their benefit. They are spewing non-stop propaganda to get people to buy into their schemes to extract more of the fruit of our labor for themselves. And millions of people are buying into the concept that we just need to give more of our wealth to the very very rich. It has become a game of monopoly wherein there is only one winner, and that person becomes King; while everyone else descends into bankruptcy. Congress is owned by the rich, who pay for the campaigns. The executive branch is owned by the rich who pay for the campaign. The judicial branch is owned by the rich who have had their choice for appointments done by politicians they own. Take a look at the current supreme court, and their rulings. They were even so bold as to void the 2000 election and appoint the guy they wanted in power. So far, no one has done anything about it, other than make it politically incorrect to even mention.With the supreme court able to overturn every other court in the nation, we have no judicial system at all. Just the rulings of the rich. It is no wonder that the rich can get away with murder.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Comments placed above in red.

 

I agree that the rich have gotten hugely richer, however, the middle class is getting poorer and poorer. There is very little sharing of the advances.

 

I like technology and have worked in it for more than 30 years. There are advantages. However, some people (the rich) get lots of advantages from it, while most people only get a very tiny benefit. The rich getting billions more dollars while the middle class getting to take a cell phone to a good movie are not equivalent.

 

Additionally, the rich can and are using their new wealth to change our political system to their benefit. They are spewing non-stop propaganda to get people to buy into their schemes to extract more of the fruit of our labor for themselves. And millions of people are buying into the concept that we just need to give more of our wealth to the very very rich. It has become a game of monopoly wherein there is only one winner, and that person becomes King; while everyone else descends into bankruptcy. Congress is owned by the rich, who pay for the campaigns. The executive branch is owned by the rich who pay for the campaign. The judicial branch is owned by the rich who have had their choice for appointments done by politicians they own. Take a look at the current supreme court, and their rulings. They were even so bold as to void the 2000 election and appoint the guy they wanted in power. So far, no one has done anything about it, other than make it politically incorrect to even mention.With the supreme court able to overturn every other court in the nation, we have no judicial system at all. Just the rulings of the rich. It is no wonder that the rich can get away with murder.

Take a look here to see a more concise version of what I was talking about:

 

http://usuncut.com/news/edit-complete-hw-stephen-hawking-says-really-scared-capitalism-not-robots/

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Stephen Hawking WOULD say that. Damn robot-lover.


 

That's a truly wonderful idea. One possibility would be to give courts the option to assign parole and "compulsory national service" instead of jail time, in non-violent cases where the offender is evaluated to be receptive.

Didn't they try that in Vietnam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all those things.

 

How do you feel about a compulsory national service? Not necessarily military, but something for the common good, a work/study program. It would last somewhere between two to four years and act as a way to train unemployed young people who might otherwise not get training.

 

I'm thinking of it as a way to sneak in free junior college or university, without having to call it that and get the idea stomped on by Republicans. They might find "the draft" more palatable than "free junior college" ... but it can end up being the same thing. Like an apprenticeship, but organized at the federal level.

 

Exemptions can be allowed for people already in university.

 

 

See above ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Didn't they try that in Vietnam?

 

 

 

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.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • By teacher

    All lives matter.


  • By teacher

    Double post deleted.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...