Hayes: We Are No Longer Able To Tax The Very Rich In Our Country

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One day some people might find the solution is not with the rich who have more than they do, the solution is with they themselves changing their own work ethic, and reckless spending habits.

That would require too much work. Much easier to be jealous and blame others.

 

[Wiseacre]

Typical leftwing nonsense: focusing on getting an extra dime in revenue for every dollar of debt/borrowed money. Used to be called penny wise and dollar foolish.

 

[Ariux]

Wealthy people have lots of money -- that is why they're called "wealthy", in the first place. They do not "owe" their money, to anybody else; any more (or less) than anybody else, "owes" them. The correct answer, for economic recovery,

Shithead Widdekind impresses himself by realizing "Wealthy people have lots of money." He figured this out from the definition of "wealthy". That takes smarts, at least a double-digit IQ!

But, he also thinks this thread is about whether the rich "owe" or if the topic is about economic recovery. That's pretty dumb. So, we've narrowed down Widdekind's IQ to lower double digits.

 

[Widdekind]

One day some people might find the solution is not with the rich who have more than they do, the solution is with they themselves changing their own work ethic, and reckless spending habits.

That would require too much work. Much easier to be jealous and blame others.

Evidently, voting transfer payments is easier than working and saving. i guess, if enough people "gossip about you behind your back", then they can vote themselves your money, and accredit themselves for "people skills", "social skills", and "networking"

 

[Widdekind]

he also thinks this thread is about whether the rich "owe" or if the topic is about economic recovery

"we the people" cannot tax wealthy Americans? Every statistic indicates, that over all forms of taxation, wealthy Americans pay more per dollar, than others. Meanwhile, "single handedly", lawyers can "fee" wealthy Americans, nearly as much per dollar.

i ask any observers, to stand back, and look at "all those Americans on USMB", at "arms length". In the middle of a recession... they are talking about taxes... as if strangling economies, "when they are down", would help them "get back up again"

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Of course it 'depends' on what you are talking specifically, if its your feeling corps are evil entities looking to **** anyone they can out of their jobs, pensions, and homes, well you can always provide evidence as the systemic raping you appear to be alluding to.

Watch the video (Inside Job) indicated in my Signature Line. It contains not only evidence but explains its mechanism. Anyone who might be inclined to agree with your notions of right and wrong could benefit from watching it, too.

 

[Widdekind]

According to the Inside Job study guide

financial markets are important and valuable. It is good for companies to be able to borrow money easily and at low cost, just as it is good for us to be able to invest our money instead of stuffing it under our mattresses

Banks (financial markets) are the "heart" of the economy, re-circulating money (from savings, back into the stream of spending) like blood being re-circulated back to the body. When that "heart" stops -- as in Balance Sheet Recessions, when savings are not reborrowed -- then the economy enters recession. Inexpertly, the re-cycling & re-circulation of money, from savings, back into spending in the economy, is the most important part, of the economy -- without which the economy has a "heart attack":

savings (S) ---> spending (Y = C + I + G + NX)​

Stereotypically, Republicans advocate "private sector investment", whereby savings (S) are borrowed by businesses, for investments (I) in expanded operations:

S ---> I​

whereas Democrats advocate "Public sector welfare", whereby savings (S) are taxed by governments (T), for "progressive" Public programs, e.g. welfare for poor people (who then spend the money for food, clothing, and other goods & services, of personal consumption expenditures, C):

S ---> T ---> C​

Alternative to that "dole" approach, the "New Deal" approach, of Fiscal Stimulus, mimics the "private sector" solution, with governments as "Big Borrowers", for large-scale Public Investments (I):

S ---> I​

Large-scale Public Investment in infrastructure (roads, buildings, dams) during the New Deal under FDR; and on the internet during Reagan-era deficit spending; recycled & recirculated savings, back into spending in the economy, for productive-and-profitable Public Investments, by borrowing, not by taxing. Taxing never helps, and only hinders, economic growth. Borrowing savings, back into spending in the economy, for productive-and-profitable investments (private or Public) always helps, and never hinders, economic growth. All of the above are ways, of taking "stationary" money out of savings, and "moving" the money back into spending, in the economy. "Consensual" borrowing-based investment (private or Public) has had a better track-record, for long term growth & sustainability, than "non-consensual" tax-based welfare, for personal consumption expenditures. In analogy, the former is like manufacturing fishing poles (capital) and teaching people (human capital) how to fish; the latter is like giving them (money for) fish. Only the former is sustainable in the long term.

Successful Public Investment programs, based on borrowing savings, in the past; do not logically justify Public welfare programs, based on taxing savings, in the present. The only similarity, between borrowing-based Public Investment (Fiscal Stimulus), and taxation-based Public assistance (welfare), is that both involve Government. In analogy, the former is like an "apple", and the latter is like an "orange", that "both come from the same grocery store". In further analogy, Pres. Obama and Senator-candidate Warren (seemingly) suggesting that successful Public Investment programs, from generations ago; automatically mandate "gratitude to Government", and hiking taxes, today, for welfare programs; is like selling "oranges" today, by reminding store customers that "apples" from weeks & months ago were good.

The successful, past, Public Investment programs, to which prominent Democrats (seemingly) draw attention, were funded differently (revenue side, borrowing vs. taxing), and spent differently (expenditure side, Public Investments by "We the People" vs. personal welfare for millions of "me myself & i's"), than the welfare programs, to which they, then and thereby, seem to promote.



EDIT:

At present, the rate of personal savings is about a half trillion dollars (per year), whilst businesses save about one and a half trillion dollars (per year). Thus, most re-investment, of savings, is done by businesses, with their own retained earnings. Still, a half trillion dollars per year is allot of money; is about 4% of GDP; could decrease the UE rate by about 2% (according to Okun's Law), if borrowed and spent wisely. Inexpertly, much of aggregate personal savings would be accumulated by wealthier, higher-income earners. If so, then they could make an important minor contribution to the economy as a whole.

 

[Rshermr]

he also thinks this thread is about whether the rich "owe" or if the topic is about economic recovery

"we the people" cannot tax wealthy Americans? Every statistic indicates, that over all forms of taxation, wealthy Americans pay more per dollar, than others. Meanwhile, "single handedly", lawyers can "fee" wealthy Americans, nearly as much per dollar.

i ask any observers, to stand back, and look at "all those Americans on USMB", at "arms length". In the middle of a recession... they are talking about taxes... as if strangling economies, "when they are down", would help them "get back up again"

Brilliant. The recession is officially over. What we have now is UNEMPLOYMENT. So, you have problems with federal tax increases. Show me when tax increases and spending in a high unemployment economy has hurt. Show me when tax decreases in a high unemployment economy have helped. I have asked this question of cons multiple times with no answer. How about you, Widde

 

[Sallow]

It's like libs believe that wealthy people like to have mountains of money so they can look at it. They are all Unca Scrooges, visting the vaults.

The rich spend a lot of money. They buy some very expensive toys, support charitable causes because it gets their name in the paper. Bill Clinton found this out by instituting a luxury tax on mega toys like yachts. So the rich stopped buying yachts. Which hurt the yacht builders and suppliers. Clinton shortly had to rescind that tax.

Los Angeles decided to overtax the luxury car market, finally making the rich who buy Ferraris and Porche's pay their fair share dammit! Now LA is proposing NO tax at all on luxury cars in a naked plea to please come back.

If you really want to see the rich start hoarding money, start confiscatory taxes to force it out of them. Then there will be no taxes at all. Sort of like New York City is doing it.

When the top tax rate was 94 percent the unemployment rate was 1.2 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com

I would rather the U.S. economy produce more goods most of us can afford, and fewer luxury goods.

You do know that this was during and immediately following WWII, right? If we had high taxes and low unemployment it was because we were the only country still standing and able to produce anything. We didn't have a better mousetrap, we had the ONLY mousetrap. We were booming in spite of high tax rates being the only market on the planet. Europe was a cinder, Japan was radioactive, China was a rice paddy, Communist Russia's collective produced nothing and it's own people lived on whatever potatoes they could scrounge up.

That seems to be the rightwing meme..except it doesn't account for the fact that both Europe and Japan were up and running in short order..and in a very few years..competing with the US for consumers. Japan is particularly interesting because they adopted the philosophy of Edward Demings..a guy laughed out of the United States for his common sense business practices. He led Japan's economy back into the majors.

In any case..low taxes haven't translated to more jobs, better wages or even innovation. What they have translated into is rich folks getting obscenely rich. And it seems they are using that wealth to buy power..and create a de facto plutocracy.

 

[Friends]

It's like libs believe that wealthy people like to have mountains of money so they can look at it. They are all Unca Scrooges, visting the vaults.

The rich spend a lot of money. They buy some very expensive toys, support charitable causes because it gets their name in the paper. Bill Clinton found this out by instituting a luxury tax on mega toys like yachts. So the rich stopped buying yachts. Which hurt the yacht builders and suppliers. Clinton shortly had to rescind that tax.

Los Angeles decided to overtax the luxury car market, finally making the rich who buy Ferraris and Porche's pay their fair share dammit! Now LA is proposing NO tax at all on luxury cars in a naked plea to please come back.

If you really want to see the rich start hoarding money, start confiscatory taxes to force it out of them. Then there will be no taxes at all. Sort of like New York City is doing it.

When the top tax rate was 94 percent the unemployment rate was 1.2 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com

I would rather the U.S. economy produce more goods most of us can afford, and fewer luxury goods.

You do know that this was during and immediately following WWII, right? If we had high taxes and low unemployment it was because we were the only country still standing and able to produce anything. We didn't have a better mousetrap, we had the ONLY mousetrap. We were booming in spite of high tax rates being the only market on the planet. Europe was a cinder, Japan was radioactive, China was a rice paddy, Communist Russia's collective produced nothing and it's own people lived on whatever potatoes they could scrounge up.

Military spending is government spending. If the government had been spending the money on infrastructure projects and the public sector of the economy the benefits to the economy would have been greater.

 

[Friends]

he also thinks this thread is about whether the rich "owe" or if the topic is about economic recovery

"we the people" cannot tax wealthy Americans? Every statistic indicates, that over all forms of taxation, wealthy Americans pay more per dollar, than others. Meanwhile, "single handedly", lawyers can "fee" wealthy Americans, nearly as much per dollar.

i ask any observers, to stand back, and look at "all those Americans on USMB", at "arms length". In the middle of a recession... they are talking about taxes... as if strangling economies, "when they are down", would help them "get back up again"

Brilliant. The recession is officially over. What we have now is UNEMPLOYMENT. So, you have problems with federal tax increases. Show me when tax increases and spending in a high unemployment economy has hurt. Show me when tax decreases in a high unemployment economy have helped. I have asked this question of cons multiple times with no answer. How about you, Widde

Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

There was less job creation per year under Reagan than under Jimmy Carter.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Unemployment was higher under Reagan than under Carter or Barack Obama.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Jimmy Carter paid down the national debt in terms of per capita gross domestic product. Reagan doubled it.

National Debt Graph by President

File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inflation that ended Carter's presidency and which declined during Reagan's presidency was due to fluctuations in the price of petroleum over which neither president had much control.

Historical Oil Prices: InflationData.com

 

[Sallow]

Chris Hayes said:

"the taxes of ... wealthy people are bizarre, strange and alienating... they pay people a lot of money to game the system"

Wealthy people do not pay "no taxes"; they pay taxes to government, and fees to lawyers. How much people pay lawyers, instead of government, reveals how much they otherwise would have paid government, without those lawyers & their legal loopholes. If anybody is benefitting, then tax lawyers are benefitting.

Wealthy people have lots of money -- that is why they're called "wealthy", in the first place. They do not "owe" their money, to anybody else; any more (or less) than anybody else, "owes" them. The correct answer, for economic recovery, is entrepreneurial spirit, and innovating "the next sliced bread", that will be profitable for everybody, and worth wealthy people's money, to invest in. That "good idea" would recycle savings, back into the economy, as investment (S ---> I), generating jobs, and growing the economy.

(Taking wealthy people's money would be plundering. Plundering would redistribute money, to other people. Then they would be the ones with "more money than they know what to profitably do with". That wouldn't help the economy. Robbing banks would not generate jobs, growth, or improve productivity. "Fine, now you have all the money... so, what's your "good" idea to do with it all?" If wealthy people surrendered their "hoards" to everybody else, then much of the money would flow abroad, for cheap foreign imports. Anybody got any better ideas? No?)

There's a couple of things wrong with this..

First off..you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not. And much of that is due to government corruption. Lobbyists have been able to "buy" legislators that weaken laws and gut regulatory agencies. The recent economic meltdowns are stunning examples of this. Even in the system that they created..and that favors them..they screw up. Thus leaving people with much less means to clean up the mess. There were no attachments to personal wealth by people taking big risks, by in large...they kept their big bonus and cash salaries..while everyone else paid.

Second, some income inequality is good and necessary in a capitalistic system to provide incentive. The question becomes, how much is too much? Without limits, you get what we basically have now..a system entirely gamed to favor a small sector of the general population. Executive to employee compensation in this country is over 400:1. That's unique to industrialized and advanced nations. And this is in the face of a nation filled with tax payers..that pay for the very infrastructure that makes a successful business possible. So it seems that duty to country, fair play, the notion that well paid employees make good consumers and that an uncorrupted government leads best..falls on deaf ears with these folks. And their primary motivation seems to be unbridled greed. That, in itself, is natural. But it CANNOT be what rules the roost.

 

[expat_panama]

...you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not...

That attitude's a ticket to failure.

Marx hated humanity, was unable to support himself, and also had many followers who also hated people and lived off others. The problem is when these people attack the rest of us, but fortunately we're in the overwhelming majority and we're pretty good at maintaining order.

 

[expat_panama]

...Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Historical Top Tax Rate There was less job creation per year under Reagan than under Jimmy Carter...

Huh, that's actually true--

top rate 70% 1980
top rate changed to 28%: 1988


date emplymnt chg/yr
1977 Jan 80,692
1981 Jan 91,031 2,585
1989 Jan 107,133 2,013
​

--so we're saying the 1988 tax cut reduced 1981 job growth.




ok....

 

[tinydancer]

My husbands last paycheck ( and we consider ourselves lower mid class these days because we abandoned the high life of the corporate world personal choice if you've ever lived it and left it you will know what I mean) was $2,443.06 two week time period.

Now right from the get go the Fed tax on this is $470.02

Why do they get that money? What the hell did they do for that almost 500 freaking dollars out of my husbands two weeks of labor did they earn?

And why does anyone in any country put up with this shit?

 

[Widdekind]

Show me when tax increases and spending in a high unemployment economy has hurt.

1938 ? FDR stopped his New Deal "Fiscal Stimulus", for "austerity" (or "Fiscal Consolidation", i.e. balanced budget). Taxes increased, and the economy recessed. UE increased nearly 5%.

your turn ? When has hiking taxes helped ?

 

[Sallow]

...you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not...

That attitude's a ticket to failure.

Marx hated humanity, was unable to support himself, and also had many followers who also hated people and lived off others. The problem is when these people attack the rest of us, but fortunately we're in the overwhelming majority and we're pretty good at maintaining order.

Ah..so you think Madoff and Lay were ethical business men. And that Hitler and Mussolini were right.

Good on you.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'll bet that none of the wingnuts in this thread clicked the OP link and watched the clip.

 

[Sallow]

My husbands last paycheck ( and we consider ourselves lower mid class these days because we abandoned the high life of the corporate world personal choice if you've ever lived it and left it you will know what I mean) was $2,443.06 two week time period.

Now right from the get go the Fed tax on this is $470.02

Why do they get that money? What the hell did they do for that almost 500 freaking dollars out of my husbands two weeks of labor did they earn?

And why does anyone in any country put up with this shit?

Because the rest of us realize that the roads, bridges, airports, sports stadiums, police, firemen, sanitationmen, teachers, legal clerks and a host of other services are worth "putting up with".

 

[Sallow]

I'll bet that none of the wingnuts in this thread clicked the OP link and watched the clip.

Of course not.

They are depending on my synopsis, which really isn't a synopsis at all..but an addendum.