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

[Widdekind]

The period with the highest tax rate is also the period of our greatest prosperity and productivity.

i'm grateful for some citing of statistics. However, please ponder the following figure, of year-to-year change, in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP. Overlooking the "noise" of periodic downturns & recessions, the long-term trend, has been increasing growth, of US real GDP, since WWII. In absolute terms, on long-term trend, US real GDP is growing faster today, than ever.

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".

That is very subtle, and mis-leading. You point to Public Investment programs by name (physical capital: infrastructure, interstates, internet; human capital: education). But then you (seemingly) really mean welfare programs. The former employed people, to do actual productive-and-hence-profitable work & labor, for "We the People". The latter pays people the same (or similarly), for free. It is not logically legitimate to call attention to productive, profitable, Public Investment programs:

when what you (seemingly) mean is Public dole:

Am i not understanding what you are saying ?? Many other posters on this forum seemingly say the same thing. i'm not trying to mischaracterize anybody. Nor do i deny the potential value, of unemployment protection, which could help get laid-off workers through all the "structural unemployment", which is a primary unavoidable short-term downside, to long-term Capitalist growth -- without technological change, we'd all be driving wagons, and making wagon wheels; in the short-term, technological change disemploys some workers, who could be helped by Public assistance; in the long-term, the economy improves

 

[regent]

Should the rich even have to pay taxes? After all they are the job creators, they support government with their campaign contributions, they do not ask for charity, food stamps, medical care, just a few simple tax shelters and loopholes. Also the rich would like a few accolades for being somewhat superior people, for their hard work and making it all on their very own.

 

[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.

Ah..so you think...

OK, we're changing the subject.

Before we were talking about the idea that wealth creation meant cheating, and how I said this thinking was stupid. Now you want to drop the subject --maybe because you agree that it was truly a stupid line of thinking-- and you want to talk about me instead. OK, I'll talk about me, although I'll warn you that I'm really a boring subject.

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

huh. Now we're jumping from us talking about me to you talking with imaginary demons who like Hitler and Mussolini.


I'll pass.

 

[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...

Sallow's "attitude" is simply the truth and Marx's ideology has nothing to do with it...

Sallow applied notion of right and wrong to the fact that people create wealth, and he said that it was bad. The idea that wealth creation by individuals is bad is the very core of a Marxist ideology that's caused unspeakable suffering.

 

[Rshermr]

Should the rich even have to pay taxes? After all they are the job creators, they support government with their campaign contributions, they do not ask for charity, food stamps, medical care, just a few simple tax shelters and loopholes. Also the rich would like a few accolades for being somewhat superior people, for their hard work and making it all on their very own.

Why don't you give them some more accolades. If you can get your head out of wherever it is long enough. Perhaps you can show a long term successful economy where the rich do not pay taxes. Sounds libertarian in nature. Any examples, or simply tea party dogma?

 

[Rshermr]

That attitude's a ticket to failure. Marx hated humanity...

Sallow's "attitude" is simply the truth and Marx's ideology has nothing to do with it...

Sallow applied notion of right and wrong to the fact that people create wealth, and he said that it was bad. The idea that wealth creation by individuals is bad is the very core of a Marxist ideology that's caused unspeakable suffering.

Who, exactly, believes in Marxist ideas? Just more tea party dogma. Get some evidence, if you can find some.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Also, how do you know what "excessively" wealthy people do with their money.

Some of them buy thirty bedroom manors and fifty million dollar yachts. But all of them hoard most of it -- much of it in offshore banks. Do you doubt or deny this?

Are you being serious. You seriously think that they "hoard" money?

What would you call it?

I will ask how much money it would take to satisfy your wishes for a luxuriously comfortable and secure life? When you return with a figure we can talk about the hoarding orientation, which is a recognized psychological disorder with roots in the mental sickness known casually as greed, or gluttony.

I recall my dear mother, an observant Catholic, teaching us that greed is a mortal sin which is characterized by not knowing when it's time to leave the table and make room for another.

Wealthy people are rich... because they don't know what to do with money? American politics seriously boils down, to "they are evil, give me their money' ?

Again, I remind you, there is nothing wrong with ordinary wealth. If you have it you should enjoy it, with my best wishes. But excessive wealth is quite another thing. It is a circumstance which imparts destructive effects on the politics and economic conditions of a democratic society and therefore should not be permitted.

 

[MikeK]

Sallow's "attitude" is simply the truth and Marx's ideology has nothing to do with it...

Sallow applied notion of right and wrong to the fact that people create wealth, and he said that it was bad. The idea that wealth creation by individuals is bad is the very core of a Marxist ideology that's caused unspeakable suffering.

Who, exactly, believes in Marxist ideas? Just more tea party dogma. Get some evidence, if you can find some.

Who invoked the name of Marx? I didn't.

 

[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...

...The idea that wealth creation by individuals is bad is the very core of a Marxist ideology that's caused unspeakable suffering.

Who, exactly, believes in Marxist ideas...

This is getting silly; is it that you're asking me who it is that believes wealth creation is exploitation?

 

[boedicca]

your synopsis lacks one important ingredient....logic as it pertains to how the wealth is assembled and used.

there is no hoarding, because there is no finite amount of money. There fore you are conflating the issue.

Romney can have a gazillion dollars in the Caymans, its means poopey. Your opportunity is not tied to what he or anyone has in their coffers.


"Pooling money" ? NO, constructing barriers to business at the low end of the threshold does more to constrict and limit creation of wealth than any "hoarding".

Now, if you want tax codes reworked and loopholes closed, sure, I can see that and I agree. We can tax them, all it takes is congress.

What's particularly disgusting is the implication that it's the government's or anybody else's business as to what a person does with his AFTER TAX income.

 

[MikeK]

Should the rich even have to pay taxes? After all they are the job creators[...]

"Job creators" is a cunning little paso doble which serves as an effective element of right-wing propaganda.

With the exception of public service jobs, which come about by social necessity, jobs in the private sector are not "created" by wealthy entrepreneurs, they occur as essential components in the process of economic enterprise. The workers, i.e., those who perform the "jobs," are the creators of wealth. It is the jobs that create the wealthy, not the reverse.

they support government with their campaign contributions[...]

They bribe politicians, which is quite a bit different from "supporting government."

they do not ask for charity, food stamps, medical care, just a few simple tax shelters and loopholes. Also the rich would like a few accolades for being somewhat superior people, for their hard work and making it all on their very own.

Can you tell us how much "hard work" it takes to accumulate ten million dollars? Twenty million? Fifty million? Six hundred million? A billion dollars? Ten billion dollars? How about fifty billion?

What never ceases to amaze me is how the super-rich are reflexively defended by so many who don't have a pot to piss in and can't even conceive of the kind of aristocratic excess they so readily defer to and endorse.

 

[boedicca]

You really don't understand anything about the private sector, you poor widdle booby.

 

[MikeK]

your synopsis lacks one important ingredient....logic as it pertains to how the wealth is assembled and used.

there is no hoarding, because there is no finite amount of money. There fore you are conflating the issue.

Romney can have a gazillion dollars in the Caymans, its means poopey. Your opportunity is not tied to what he or anyone has in their coffers.


"Pooling money" ? NO, constructing barriers to business at the low end of the threshold does more to constrict and limit creation of wealth than any "hoarding".

Now, if you want tax codes reworked and loopholes closed, sure, I can see that and I agree. We can tax them, all it takes is congress.

What's particularly disgusting is the implication that it's the government's or anybody else's business as to what a person does with his AFTER TAX income.

When the accumulation of excessive after-tax wealth imparts a destabilizing effect on a nation's economy and social structure it becomes the business of the People who are affected by the imbalance.

 

[MikeK]

You really don't understand anything about the private sector, you poor widdle booby.

Is this is all you have to contribute you deserve being ignored.

 

[boedicca]

When the accumulation of excessive after-tax wealth imparts a destabilizing effect on a nation's economy and social structure it becomes the business of the People who are affected by the imbalance.

Bald.R.Dash

This is just class warfare nonsense. The only reason somebody having more wealth than another becomes a "destabilizing effect" is because cynical class warfare hustlers promote it as one to ignorant people.

 

[boedicca]

You really don't understand anything about the private sector, you poor widdle booby.

Is this is all you have to contribute you deserve being ignored.

You're an utter moron whose comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the role of capital.

Who is more productive? A farmer pushing a handplow or one with a combine?

How does one get the latter? Capital.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Societies that are in decline or low on the development index have a very hard time extracting money, taxing money from the elites in their society. And that is the direction which we are headed and that is what is represented in the Mitt Romney tax return," he concluded.

True, there is nothing illegal about how Romney pays his taxes, and of course that was never at issue, or should never have been at issue.

At issue is Romney’s inability, or unwillingness, to be honest as to the great advantage his wealth affords him, and the overall adverse effect that advantage has on the economy overall.

 

[boedicca]

Please provide proof that Romney's wealth has an overall adverse effect on the economy overall.

 

[Ariux]

You're an utter moron whose comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the role of capital.

Who is more productive? A farmer pushing a handplow or one with a combine?

How does one get the latter? Capital.

Shithead, our regressive tax system makes it more difficult for the farmer with a handplow to buy a combine. And, by making that more difficult, it relieves the farmer with a combine from competitive pressure, allowing him to be less productive than he otherwise could be.

You support a tax system that makes everyone less productive.

 

[boedicca]

You're an utter moron whose comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the role of capital.

Who is more productive? A farmer pushing a handplow or one with a combine?

How does one get the latter? Capital.

Shithead, our regressive tax system makes it more difficult for the farmer with a handplow to buy a combine. And, by making that more difficult, it relieves the farmer with a combine from competitive pressure, allowing him to be less productive than he otherwise could be.

You support a tax system that makes everyone less productive.

My, aren't you eloquent.

Our tax system is not regressive, you sad little pea green with envy person.