The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[Bern80]

There is no denying that a consumption tax disproportionally hits the poor harder than those who benefit most from the government paying the expense of protecting the right to private ownership. It is certainly not fair that the more you own that is being protected the less you should pay for that protection.

That's rather nonesensical. Taxes aren't just being used for protection. The second biggest part of the budget is entitlements, which the wealthy have no use for whatsoever.

With a flat wealth tax, those that have the least pay the least and those that have the most pay the most, both at the same percentage. That's what I call fair. Everyone, rich or poor, pays the same percentage of their wealth.

Except I don't see that hitting the poor much less hard than a consumption tax. Thanks to our tax code the reality now is that the poor and low middle class generally break even at the end of the the tax year in rebates and deductions.

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by Bern80
No. Our taxes aren't funding capitalism or capitalistic programs. By definition, because government is the one spending the tax dollars, the money is being spent on SOCIAL programs.

There is no denying that a consumption tax disproportionally hits the poor harder than those who benefit most from the government paying the expense of protecting the right to private ownership. It is certainly not fair that the more you own that is being protected the less you should pay for that protection.

That's rather nonesensical. Taxes aren't just being used for protection. The second biggest part of the budget is entitlements, which the wealthy have no use for whatsoever.

With a flat wealth tax, those that have the least pay the least and those that have the most pay the most, both at the same percentage. That's what I call fair. Everyone, rich or poor, pays the same percentage of their wealth.

Except I don't see that hitting the poor much less hard than a consumption tax. Thanks to our tax code the reality now is that the poor and low middle class generally break even at the end of the the tax year in rebates and deductions.

Well at least you've walked back from your "SOCIAL programs" claim. However it is just "out of the frying pan, into the fire" for your argument. The social programs that the government spends the most on have their own PAYROLL taxes. Some, like SS payroll taxes, capital gains are exempt from even after they are realized, so the wealthy don't even pay for them.

 

[racewright]

Wealth redistrubtion is about the dumbist thing ever attempted by a goverment never worked and never will--Its akin to telling a Michael Jordan to keep playing hard and win the game while the other players watch.

Imagian telling Tom Brady his salary is to be the same as a lineman on the Buffalo Bills---Tom Would sit down and the Patriots would never win another game.
Thats the picture we have painted for the USA--we are starting to loose games.

The Wealth creators are waiting and watching to see when this idea has run its course before they get back in the game. This time the fools in washington have over step there bounds. Hope they wake up soon.

 

[editec]

The truth about wealth distribution is this

Distribute it now or it gets distributed later.

Either way you're gonna pay.

 

[georgephillip]

Helicopter Ben's pretty clear on his distribution model:

"On January 7, according to The Wall Street Journal, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments.

"We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance," he said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

"The states 'should not expect loans from the Fed.'"

While it's possible congress would have to change the Fed's mandate in order for the central bank to begin buying municipal bonds, it's certainly not about the amount of money needed.

"...The collective budget deficit of the states for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the sums the Fed managed to come up with to bail out the banks.

"According to data recently released, the central bank provided roughly $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans and other financial arrangements to banks, multinational corporations and foreign financial institutions following the credit crisis of 2008."

Ellen Brown, author of "The Fed Has Spoken:" tends to go along with Ben's assertion that "the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue.."

Ellen also understands the historical context:

"Bailing out state and local governments IS outside the Fed's mandate.

"The Federal Reserve Act was drafted by bankers to create a bankers' bank that would serve their interests.

"No others need apply.

"The Federal Reserve is the bankers' own private club, and its legal structure keeps all non-members out."

Ellen also notes how North Dakota's publicly owned state bank functions as a "mini-Fed", and how that state has largely escaped our current economic crisis:

"The BND (Bank of North Dakota) has helped North Dakota escape the credit crisis.

"In 2009, when other states were teetering on bankruptcy, North Dakota sported the largest surplus it had ever had.

"Other states, whose own budget crises prompted them to explore alternatives, are now looking to North Dakota for inspiration.

 

[Norman]

I am going to say that Ellen Brown is a whacko...


Heard her on peter schiff show yesterday and have read couple things prior to that by rockwell (or something like that). Anyway I think she pretty much lost the debate pretty bad. And prior to that the Rockwell article IMO destroyed her every point.

Mind you these guys do not support the fed. They are just saying the system of Brown's would be even worse, and I think they are right.

Also the FED is not exactly super private. I mean it basically is independent government guaranteed institution. Anyway I will leave this to LooseCannon.

 

[georgephillip]

How do you explain the success of North Dakota and Australia?

"Virg Bernero the mayor of Lansing, Michigan, just won the Democratic nomination for governor of his state, making a state-owned Bank of Michigan a real possibility.

"Bernero is one of at least a dozen candidates promoting that solution to the states’ economic woes. It is an innovative idea, with little precedent in the United States.

"North Dakota, currently the only state owning its own bank, also happens to be the only state sporting a budget surplus, and it has the lowest unemployment rate in the country; but skeptics can write these achievements off to coincidence.

"More data is needed, and fortunately other precedents are available from other countries.

"One of the most dramatic is the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which operated successfully as a government-owned bank for most of the 20th century, until it was privatized in the 1990s.

"The Commonwealth Bank’s creative founders demonstrated that a government-backed bank can make loans without capital.

"Denison Miller, the Bank’s first Governor, was fond of saying that the Bank did not need capital because “it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of Australia.'”

WHAT A GOVERNMENT

 

[Londoner]

In the 70s, the great postwar profit margins began to shrink.

Which is why in the 80's Reagan made a pact with the interests which funded his ascendency: he vowed to crush labor and give business access to cheap 3rd world labor and resources. He removed the exorbitant wage & tax burden which the pampered, entitlement-fed middle class put on capital.

Again: Reagan freed capital into a world of cheaper operating conditions. He broke unions and expensive regulations at home, then he deployed the Pentagon to create access to cheap labor and resources abroad.

A structural flaw in the American economy emerged. As America transitioned from the GM job model (high wages and benefits) to the Walmart job model (low wages and benefits) -- and as middle class support programs were cut -- the American consumer slowly became unable to consume.

So what did we do? How did we make up for the fact that profit margins were growing for a small class of wealthy shareholders while compensation was falling for the great bulk of consumers, that is, where would we get the money to finance middle class consumption in order to drive the economy?

Answer. Credit.

The wealthy would now loan the middle class the very money they used to make through wages, benefits, and government support programs. [This puts an Orwellian twist on the trickle down theory -- because now the money was trickling up in the form of interest payments. Brilliant]

Put simply, starting in the 80s, we sent 20 Master Cards a week to middle class families who were slipping farther and farther behind. The mother was forced into the workplace, the father had to work extra hours, and the children had to sign their lives away to pay for college. Which is to say, the only thing left to maintain their disappearing slice of the American dream was debt. The only thing left to avoid the never-ending recessions that come with demand shortfalls was debt. So every president, starting with Reagan, made it easier and easier for the middle class to borrow.

Again: starting with Reagan, the government and the people began to borrow and borrow and borrow. When we ran out of money, we hawked our houses.

When Reagan created the conditions for cheap labor in America, he failed to realize what this would do to consumers, who suddenly required more and more debt to drive consumption. Reagan didn't understand that the middle class consumer was and is too big to fail. Our economy was sustained by middle class spending for 50 years. What did you think would happen when we cut the middle class out of the loop in order to boost profit margins for the wealthy?

The money never trickled down, so we tried to cover up the structural flaw with debt.

We swallowed poison in 1980 and we are almost dead.

 

[georgephillip]

Poison indeed.

You combine a lawyer's logical insights with a flair for narrative usually reserved for novelists or screenwriters.

KEEP WRITING!

If you happen to be a fan of US football, the upcoming Super Bowl will kick off Sunday February 6, 2011 which happens to be the 100 anniversary of Ronald Wilson Reagan's birth.

It would seem an opportune time to kick off a discussion of Reaganomics that includes those Mastercard letters many of us must remember receiving every week.

"This puts an Orwellian twist on the trickle down theory -- because now the money was trickling up in the form of interest payments."

Orwell could not have said it any better.

Thank-you.

 

[Dante]

Only 6% of Republicans are on disability.

LOL what a bunch of bs

 

[daveman]

LOL what a bunch of bs

Jan 2, 2011

Awww, I have my very own butthurt stalker!

 

[Dante]

Jan 2, 2011

Awww, I have my very own butthurt stalker!

Butthurt? Nope.

and stalker? I remember you. You and Willow stalking the Dante. You two were the ones before the biggest creep, Liability

 

[daveman]

Butthurt? Nope.

and stalker? I remember you. You and Willow stalking the Dante. You two were the ones before the biggest creep, Liability

Hey, Dainty, long time no see!

Yup, Vesuvius-levels of butthurt on you. Might wanna see a proctologist about that.

 

[Dante]

Hey, Dainty, long time no see!

Yup, Vesuvius-levels of butthurt on you. Might wanna see a proctologist about that.

Hannity refugee say what?

What a friggin' loser you were. And now disability from the VA

PTSD -- non combat to boot

 

[initforme]

If people retired at a younger age it would boost the nation

 

[Ringo]

Fun fact:
If you made $5,000 every hour since the Egyptian pyramids were built, you'd still be poorer than the richest person in the world.