Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[MitchMan]

If what you say is true, Lonestar, I have nothing but respect for your personal industry, being smart enough to be effective, your work ethic, and am in awe of your personal success. The fact that you support like minded politicians, in and of itself, is certainly within your rights as a citizen. In theory, I support a citizen's right to get politically active, that is being a good citizen, per se.

What could be bad is if you support politicians that will further the economic bias in our economy that inequitably favors the accumulation of wealth and income at the top. More specifically, support of certain laws and policies that encourage the bias, among which are usually: less appropriate regulation of business, supporting the demise/emasculation of unions and employee group bargaining power, increased tax breaks for the wealthy, less spending on infrastructure, less business regulation in favor of preserving the environment, reduction/elimination of the minimum wage, reduction in education spending, reducing entitlements, legislation preserving loopholes, eliminating health insurance legislation and application, not applying antitrust law (which has been the case for decades), supporting the flat tax, supporting taxation on consumption, decreasing the level of progressiveness of the the current income tax rates, and otherwise permitting monopoly like behavior in business, especially for big business. You see, those are the things that exacerbate the already existing bias in our economy that under compensates the working class and over rewards the wealthy at the top. These are the items (and there are many more items) that are the cause of the majority of the working class not being able to pay for a decent livelihood - and that is bad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That depends entirely on conditions.

No... it doesn't.
In a free society, no one has standing to tell you that you have too much.

In a free society one has standing to tell you anything he wishes to tell you.

No... you have the right to express your opinion, which is not the same thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The way to assess the situation substantively, honestly, and accurately is to keep your eye and your perspective on the big picture. The big picture is that in this country there is a massively disproportionate concentration of wealth and income at the top. The USA is the 2nd worst offender in the world. Ever heard of the ‘GINI Coefficient’? Connected to this lopsidedness is the loud and clear fact that the majority of the working class is suffering badly, especially the bottom 40% of the majority.

False premise, that this is something for the government to address.

 

[MikeK]

If your saying an ex-con cannot have a valid opinion then you are as stupid as your name.

FTR, I was granted a full pardon by Gov. Mark White and my record has been expunged. So technically I don't have a prison record. Besides I couldn't have aquired a Class 3 dealers license without having my record expunged.

Would you agree that serving time in a typical American prison, most of which are de facto lunatic asylums, will unavoidably impart a negative and lasting effect on the psyche?

One question I believe is relevant to this discussion is whether your prison experience has imbued you with exceptional racist attitudes. If it has I can readily understand why it would. But I also believe the typical White man's prison experience would influence his opinion of Blacks, therefore the "lower class" (poor) in general.

Something else to think about is your "poor as poor can be" origin. Does the worthless impression you seem to have of the poor also apply to your own parents? What were the circumstances that led to their poverty? Illness? Imposing social circumstances? Addiction? Bad luck?

 

[MitchMan]

To quote myself:

The way to assess the situation substantively, honestly, and accurately is to keep your eye and your perspective on the big picture. The big picture is that in this country there is a massively disproportionate concentration of wealth and income at the top. The USA is the 2nd worst offender in the world. Ever heard of the ‘GINI Coefficient’? Connected to this lopsidedness is the loud and clear fact that the majority of the working class is suffering badly, especially the bottom 40% of the majority.

M14, educate us, please. How is this a false premise? Actually, specifically which part of what I wrote is false? And, specifically, which part is something for the government to address? Please be specific and unambiguous. Your comment needs more definition.

 

[MikeK]

No... it doesn't.
In a free society, no one has standing to tell you that you have too much.

In a free society one has standing to tell you anything he wishes to tell you.

No... you have the right to express your opinion, which is not the same thing.

What I'm telling you now is the U.S. economy has been hijacked by a small group of financial manipulators and greedy, exploitive corporatists, and that there needs to be radical change, one aspect of which must be recovery and redistribution of the Nation's wealth resources.

I don't expect you to agree with that and my telling you that as just one individual has no force. But when a sufficient number of voters are affected by the assault on the middle class and they begin electing progressive radicals, you might be hearing the same things from much more forceful voices.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I started out in life as poor as poor could get and I have forged quite a good life for myself and my family. Dropping out of school at 15 and in prison at 17 didn't sway me from making my way in this world. I now have the luxery of dining at $10,000 a plate benefit dinners and helping like-minded politicians get elected. I suppose you would view that as a bad thing.

The profile you've presented leaves much to the imagination.

You say you were poor, went to prison at age seventeen but your criminal record has since been expunged and you now attend $10k-a-plate dinners in support of politicians.

What does that sound like? It's not exactly a thumbnail Horatio Alger tale.

I could care less what it sounds like or what you think about it.


I spent almost three years on a five year sentence in the the Texas Department of Corrections for aggravated assault w/ intent. I've been a model citizen ever since.

 

[MikeK]

I could care less what it sounds like or what you think about it.


I spent almost three years on a five year sentence in the the Texas Department of Corrections for aggravated assault w/ intent. I've been a model citizen ever since.

Having served time in prison is an extremely unusual circumstance. I make no judgment on its basis but I am interested in what the effect of that experience has had on your political disposition.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I could care less what it sounds like or what you think about it.


I spent almost three years on a five year sentence in the the Texas Department of Corrections for aggravated assault w/ intent. I've been a model citizen ever since.

Having served time in prison is an extremely unusual circumstance. I make no judgment on its basis but I am interested in what the effect of that experience has had on your political disposition.

None really. Before I was incarcerated I wasn't much into politics at all. My parents were democrats and I suppose I thought I was too. But the more I learned about what they believed in the more I knew that I wasn't a democrat even though I was pardoned by a democrat governor.

It wasn't until my pardon that I really got into politics, before that I couldn't vote so there was no reason to watch politics. The limited government, personal responsibilty mantra of the Republican party really peaked my interest and the more I learned about conservatism the more I identified with it. I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-constitution, Christian that believes in small government and personal responsibility and accountability.

 

[MitchMan]

How do (the small minority of rich people that you claim cause the problems) harm you or society as a whole?

Let me get this straight. According to you, only a small portion of the wealthy are at fault for the (economic) malaise, but they're, for the most part, completely innocent. So you conclude it's our ecomomic system that's at fault.

You fail to realize there would be no working class if weren't for the wealthy that created the industries.

In summation, the answer to my question is that the rich does no harm to society as a whole.

Why you didn't just say that to begin with is beyond me.

Lonestar, Lonestar, Lonestar. If you read your first question carefully, you misquote me. I never wrote that the small minority of the rich people cause the problems, I said they contribute as only a small component of the key players that contribute to the biased economy which is the whole problem itself, i.e., the biased economy. The way you misquoted me literally means that the small minority cause all the problems. Get it yet? Didn’t say that. You inferred that. Your inability to understand correctly the written word is a big problem for you, and most other right wingers. That is probably why you are so often fundamentally wrong on things, and right here on this. This is just one example.

You almost got it there for a moment, then you lost it again. You give way, way too much credit to the wealthy. That is a common error by the right wing. I think it has to do with their conceit. The reason for the existence of a middle class is a two way completely equal dynamic between the demand of consumers and the opportunity taken by entrepreneurs to organize productive resources to provide product and services that fill the demand. It is an equal two way street, Lonestar. If you don’t believe me, create a business or an industry that has no customers for the product, in a place where there are no employees to be hired. An entrepreneur needs demand for the product, and the entrepreneur needs employees just as much as the employees need the job and those employees need the products. One doesn’t create the other, they are both needed to create a business. That’s what you fail to realize. Big time.

Then you go on to answer your own question with nothing that resembles what I said. Idiotic circle. I didn’t say the rich do no harm to society as a whole, you said that. I said that the rich as a whole are not bad people, and that only a small portion of the wealthy extrovertly supporting the existing unfair economic system together with the other key players that support the biased harmful economic system which does the harm (the system does the harm, that is to say).

Don’t ever try to paraphrase what I write, you’re not a careful enough nor apparently a capable enough reader, nor objective enough, nor a complicated enough of a thinker or writer to do it accurately. You’ve proved that almost every time you respond.


You know, I wrote very carefully and unambiguously on point responses twice and you still fail to understand what was literally written. You might be one of the many hopeless right wingers who are doomed to bewilderment or just steadfastly remain completely ignorant by choice. I don’t know, you could be a lost cause.

 

[georgephillip]

I'd have to see the evidence of that.

My source is Michael Hudson in CounterPunch:

"Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

In other words you have no evidence of any bribes taking place.

Fair enough.

There's no lack of evidence of campaign donation$ given in exchange for influence is there?

For the last thirty years Republicans and Democrats have accepted bribes from the richest 1% of Americans to pursue trade and high dollar policies intended to put downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers, and write tax laws biased in favor of debt over equity investing.

Over that same time period the richest 1% have increased their fair share of national income by almost 10 percentage points.

That's an upward redistribution of income amounting to $1.2 million per year for each of the families in the richest 1% of the population.

 

[georgephillip]

What's wrong with being Rich? Socialists/Progressives really are such silly & bitter Wankers on this stuff. Maybe if they quit sitting around bitchin & whining about the Rich,they too could be Winners instead of the Losers they are? Most Losers hate Winners. This is just the way it is and always will be. Average whiny Democrats love to sit back mooching off the hard working Taxpayers while screeching about those "Evil" Rich people. Their whining really is boring. It's certainly not new or original.

If you're a loser mooching off the American Taxpayers,you should just STFU and be grateful. And quit bitchin about the "Evil" Rich for God's sake. That shit is just so tired. Don't be mad at others because you're a Loser. You're a Loser because of your own decisions in life. So stop being bitter and just thank American Taxpayers for all the Freebies they provide you Losers with. Because without the Winners,you Losers would be much worse off. Think about that for a bit. Have a nice day.

There's certainly nothing new about denial, either.

"Many people might think that the country's problems stem from the fact that too much money has been going to the very rich.

"Over the last three decades, the richest one percent of the population has increased its share of national income by almost 10 percentage points (Excel spreadsheet).

"This comes to $1.5 trillion a year, or as the deficit hawks are fond of saying, $90 trillion over the next 75 years.

"To put this in context, the size of this upward redistribution to the richest one percent over the last three decades is roughly large enough to double the income of all the households in the bottom half of the income distribution.

Our current level of economic inequality won't be boring much longer. It will become deadly.

To millions of individual Americans, and to the republic they claim to support.

The Rich Get Richer While Nurses, Teachers, and Firefighters Get Trounced | Common Dreams

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrats are evil

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalists are evil!

"Capitalists want laws that weaken and cheapen labor.

"This means laws that make it harder for workers to organize unions; laws that make it easier to export production to other countries; laws that make it easier to import workers from other countries; laws and fiscal policies that keep unemployment high, so that workers will feel lucky just to have jobs, even with low pay and poor benefits.

"Capitalists want tax codes that allow them to pay as little tax as possible; laws that allow them to externalize the costs of production (e.g., the health damage caused by pollution); laws that allow them to swallow competitors and grow huge and more powerful; and laws that allow them to use their wealth to dominate the political process.

"Workers, when guided by their economic interests, generally want the opposite..."

A Primer on Class Struggle | Common Dreams

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How do (the small minority of rich people that you claim cause the problems) harm you or society as a whole?

Let me get this straight. According to you, only a small portion of the wealthy are at fault for the (economic) malaise, but they're, for the most part, completely innocent. So you conclude it's our ecomomic system that's at fault.

You fail to realize there would be no working class if weren't for the wealthy that created the industries.

In summation, the answer to my question is that the rich does no harm to society as a whole.

Why you didn't just say that to begin with is beyond me.

Lonestar, Lonestar, Lonestar. If you read your first question carefully, you misquote me. I never wrote that the small minority of the rich people cause the problems, I said they contribute as only a small component of the key players that contribute to the biased economy which is the whole problem itself, i.e., the biased economy. The way you misquoted me literally means that the small minority cause all the problems. Get it yet? Didn’t say that. You inferred that. Your inability to understand correctly the written word is a big problem for you, and most other right wingers. That is probably why you are so often fundamentally wrong on things, and right here on this. This is just one example.

You almost got it there for a moment, then you lost it again. You give way, way too much credit to the wealthy. That is a common error by the right wing. I think it has to do with their conceit. The reason for the existence of a middle class is a two way completely equal dynamic between the demand of consumers and the opportunity taken by entrepreneurs to organize productive resources to provide product and services that fill the demand. It is an equal two way street, Lonestar. If you don’t believe me, create a business or an industry that has no customers for the product, in a place where there are no employees to be hired. An entrepreneur needs demand for the product, and the entrepreneur needs employees just as much as the employees need the job and those employees need the products. One doesn’t create the other, they are both needed to create a business. That’s what you fail to realize. Big time.

Then you go on to answer your own question with nothing that resembles what I said. Idiotic circle. I didn’t say the rich do no harm to society as a whole, you said that. I said that the rich as a whole are not bad people, and that only a small portion of the wealthy extrovertly supporting the existing unfair economic system together with the other key players that support the biased harmful economic system which does the harm (the system does the harm, that is to say).

Don’t ever try to paraphrase what I write, you’re not a careful enough nor apparently a capable enough reader, nor objective enough, nor a complicated enough of a thinker or writer to do it accurately. You’ve proved that almost every time you respond.


You know, I wrote very carefully and unambiguously on point responses twice and you still fail to understand what was literally written. You might be one of the many hopeless right wingers who are doomed to bewilderment or just steadfastly remain completely ignorant by choice. I don’t know, you could be a lost cause.

Don't flatter yourself, your were not unambiguous at all, quite the contrary.

What I take from all the double talk you spouted is that you are against capitalism.

Your "two way street" example is missing one key fact, without industrialist (or as you say entrepreneurs) there would be no middle class no matter what the demands may be. There would be only one class or people, and all of them poor.

A poor man cannot start a business without the help of a rich man, i.e. a banker. You have to have money to make money and the more money you have, the more money you can make.

The fact is the ills of this country is not due to capitalism or anything the rich may do. The ills of this country is caused by the government plain and simple. They have created programs that keep people from having any incentive to better their stations in life.

Why would a person work if they if they didn't have to? It's sad to say but there are many in society that live off government cheese and have done so for generations. The entitlement mentality and immorality is what is dragging this country down. Not the rich, nor the capitalist system.

Now I have work to do.

 

[georgephillip]

"They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior – greatly the superior – of capital. They do not deny that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital." Lincoln, Abraham

Quote - They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, a.. on Quotations Book

 

[MitchMan]

Lonestar, you are just one bag of gas and cliches. You have absolutely nothing original to say, even your self-proclaimed description of a few posts ago was a rank cliche. No original thoughts means you are a common dupe. Your arguments and responses are simplistic and consistantly reveal that you have missed the point altogether. What is worse, you can't read.

The ills of the country are because of a distortion of capitalism, a distortion by those who have been able to increase their gains by such distortion, that's why there are laws such as anti trust. But, I don't expect a economic dummy like you to get your square thick oversized head around that, too esoteric and complicated for a simpleton, even though it is basic, classic economics.

Why would a person work if they if they didn't have to?

Speak for yourself (which you probably are). Would you not work if you didn't have to? Actually, many, many people work when they don't have to, bafoon. You see, that is your mindset and you just projected your lazy mindset onto all of society to form the basis of another flawed and errored point; in a feeble effort to support another one of your memorized right wing talking points. Still too complicated for you? Did you get that last one? Reread it, go ahead, we'll wait, use your index finger under each word as you use your lips to quietly mouth each word if it helps.

The ills of this country is caused by the government plain and simple.

Another memorized talking point. You're like a cliche vending machine, complete with grammatical errors. Come back when you have an original thought, come back after you have studied even some basic economics, you ignoramous, come back after you've learned how to read.

Unambiguous means that what is written or said can only be interpreted correctly in one way using sound logic and the rules of English grammar within the context of the statement itself. I challenge you to point out what I have written that is ambiguous, and, where I have denegrated capitalism itself. Your writing skills are so bad, that much of what you have written is absoloutely ambiguous with many legitimate literal interpretations. The only reason I can understand you is because you are so simple, so cliched intellectually that I've seen and heard everything you have ever said before many times before and what you say is really easily anticipated. In other words, you are very typical.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

My source is Michael Hudson in CounterPunch:

"Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

In other words you have no evidence of any bribes taking place.

Fair enough.

There's no lack of evidence of campaign donation$ given in exchange for influence is there?

For the last thirty years Republicans and Democrats have accepted bribes from the richest 1% of Americans to pursue trade and high dollar policies intended to put downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers, and write tax laws biased in favor of debt over equity investing.

Over that same time period the richest 1% have increased their fair share of national income by almost 10 percentage points.

That's an upward redistribution of income amounting to $1.2 million per year for each of the families in the richest 1% of the population.

Campaign donations aren't bribes . But nice spin.

 

[MitchMan]

Georgephillip, your last post, well stated and supported. Too often business sees itself as the end all for all things. As I pointed out before, business, for the greater part, cannot exist without a market and without labor. It's a two way street with equal co-dependency. One cannot exist without the other, period. Because business, as the principal employer in our country, has been given way too much authority, and because of this authority, they have mistakenly taken the position that they are the ultimate causal factor of the entire economy. That would be an error.

If we had stronger unions and more of them (we still need unions to be appropriately regulated because, like big corporations, they can become abusive and actually detrimental to the economy and to workers as well) and more opportunities for collective bargaining, the authority and influence balance would be more "normalized" and level the playing field between labor and business. Right now, the playing field is favoring business to a very deleterious and inequitable extent, hurting the working class badly.

I can envision a market based capitalist economy wherein there is sufficient and adequate regulation that levels the playing field between labor and business and government. Done well, there would be plenty of incentive for innovation, business growth, entrepreneurial venture, and ever continuing efficiency. But, the difference between this vision and what we have now is that income and wealth would not be lopsidedly concentrated in the hands of the few. More of the working class would have more wealth and income than they currently have and that would support a very robust economy because of the increased demand and purchasing power that this additional wealth and income in the hands of the middle and lower economic classes would have at their disposal.

That's the big macroeconomic problem that we have now: not enough demand to support/justify more production because the lion's share of the wealth produced by the working class has been legally allowed to be siphoned off and away from the working class. It's so severe that the majority of US citizens can't affort basic life necessities while the wealthy at the top are sitting on multiples more wealth that they can spend or consume.

Right Wingers, this is not a condemnation of the rich or wealthy. It is a condemnation of the economic system that easily permits financial inequity. Those key players that are responsible for allowing this to exist only include a few of the rich and wealthy, most of the rich and wealthy are not directly to blame for this at all. The key players are some rich and wealthy people, most all right wing politicians and pundits and right wng supporters, some Democrat politicians, most all big business and corporations. There are other key players. Also, the majority of those that are responsible are those that vote for right wing legislation and politicians and the liberals/democrats that don't vote.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, you are just one bag of gas and cliches. You have absolutely nothing original to say, even your self-proclaimed description of a few posts ago was a rank cliche. No original thoughts means you are a common dupe. Your arguments and responses are simplistic and consistantly reveal that you have missed the point altogether. What is worse, you can't read.

The ills of the country are because of a distortion of capitalism, a distortion by those who have been able to increase their gains by such distortion, that's why there are laws such as anti trust. But, I don't expect a economic dummy like you to get your square thick oversized head around that, too esoteric and complicated for a simpleton, even though it is basic, classic economics.

Why would a person work if they if they didn't have to?

Speak for yourself (which you probably are). Would you not work if you didn't have to? Actually, many, many people work when they don't have to, bafoon. You see, that is your mindset and you just projected your lazy mindset onto all of society to form the basis of another flawed and errored point; in a feeble effort to support another one of your memorized right wing talking points. Still too complicated for you? Did you get that last one? Reread it, go ahead, we'll wait, use your index finger under each word as you use your lips to quietly mouth each word if it helps.

The ills of this country is caused by the government plain and simple.

Another memorized talking point. You're like a cliche vending machine, complete with grammatical errors. Come back when you have an original thought, come back after you have studied even some basic economics, you ignoramous, come back after you've learned how to read.

Unambiguous means that what is written or said can only be interpreted correctly in one way using sound logic and the rules of English grammar within the context of the statement itself. I challenge you to point out what I have written that is ambiguous, and, where I have denegrated capitalism itself. Your writing skills are so bad, that much of what you have written is absoloutely ambiguous with many legitimate literal interpretations. The only reason I can understand you is because you are so simple, so cliched intellectually that I've seen and heard everything you have ever said before many times before and what you say is really easily anticipated. In other words, you are very typical.

Capitalism is what built this country and made it great. The progressive expanse of government is what's tearing it down.

Now you can insult me all you want, but the facts don't change.