Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTax the Speculators
A Fair Plan to Pay for Economic Recovery
With the specter of financial Armageddon raised in headlines everywhere, two questions keep occurring to me. Where will the government find the $85 billon to bail out AIG and other Wall Street giants? And how will we pay for the proposed Main Street recovery, including federal aid to states, relief to homeowners, and public works projects for the unemployed?
The Bush administration plans to add to the $400 billion projected deficit and our $9 trillion national debt. But it's irresponsible to shift the bill entirely to the next generation. The corporations that rigged the casino economy and the wealthy CEOs and investors that profited at everyone else's expense should bear the recovery costs, not our kids and grandchildren.
We can't recover the money from the companies now. They have extracted the profits and their CEOs have cashed they gilded paychecks. The speculators bought mansions, private jets, and small islands. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on Monday and 25,000 workers are on the brink of unemployment. But Lehman CEO Richard Fuld is sitting pretty, with his $354 million compensation from the last five years and a mega-mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut.
When a CEO or employee improperly takes money from a company and is forced to pay it back, it is colorfully referred to as "disgorgement." In 1999, managers of Compaq Computer cooked the books and gorged on bonuses based on misrepresented profits. The government forced them to pay it back.
But what happens when a whole sector of the economy has been cooked and billions of dollars have already been stashed in offshore bank accounts? How are the crooks held accountable for robbing our entire economy?
Here are six actions that will fairly generate over $400 billion a year to pay for a broad-based economic recovery and reduce the extreme inequalities that fueled speculation at the outset.
Institute a Financial Transactions Tax. Congress should levy a tax on financial transactions such as sale and purchase of stock and more exotic transactions such as credit default swaps, options, and futures. The UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.25 percent, a penny on every $4 invested. This is negligible for a long-term investor, but imposes a cost on the fast-buck flippers. Estimated annual revenue: $100 billion.
Impose an Income Tax Surcharge Rate on Incomes Over $5 Million. The 50,000 households with annual incomes over $5 million are the bigger winners from twenty-five years of Wall Street deregulation. They've also seen their effective tax rates decline under President George W. Bush. Instituting a 50 percent tax rate surcharge on incomes over $5 million and a 70 percent rate on incomes over $10 million would generate $105 billion a year.
Eliminate the Tax Preference for Capital Gains. Wealth extracted from Wall Street windfalls will pay out income for years to come. There's no economic reason for taxing income from corporate dividends and capital gains at 15% while taxing income from actual work at 35%. Taxing wealth and work at the same rates would generate $95 billion a year in revenue.
Progressive Inheritance Taxes. When great amounts of wealth passes to the next generation a portion of it should be taxed. A progressive estate tax could generate $50 billion a year in the short term, but much more in outlying decades.
Eliminate Taxpayer Subsidies for Excessive CEO Pay. Five loopholes that benefit top executives should be abolished. These include eliminating offshore deferred compensation, capping the tax deductibility of excessive pay, and eliminating double standards for stock option accounting. Closing these tax loopholes would generate $20 billion a year. (Read more about this in this recent report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Havens. Congress should prevent corporations from playing games by claiming expenses in the United States and profits in countries that don't collect taxes. According to the Government Accountability Office, two-thirds of US corporations paid no corporate income tax between 1998 and 2005. Closing this loophole would generate over $100 billion.
Government action should prioritize protecting ordinary people and the real productive economy, not further reward the superrich and the speculative sectors of the economy. A fair plan to the pay for the recovery is a good start.
135 Comments so far
Show AllLet us not forget this wealth gets trickled down,l know l feel trickled on.
Perhaps it is time to take another close and serious look at the Tobin tax - and of course get Wall Street under control.
Dafoe
Tax the speculator, an absurd idea, the speculator is the backbone of our country, the person who takes a chance and builds something where there was nothing so to speak. The people you want to tax are those who build something from nothing and sell this nothing as something, who overvalue their worth and their efforts. The financial institutions and big business are full of them They all vote GOP or Dem take your pick. These are the people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, souls like a boiled ham. Neither party will change anything economic to do so would be socialist or God Forbid communist and certainly not patriotic.
What's new? My suggestion is not to play their game.
I favor a tax on obscene profits from the filthy rich. My closet Maoist even likes the idea of a cap on individual income. However I do question the item which suggests bumping the capital gains tax back up to 35%. This affects everyone who sells a home, does it not, lumping people whose trophy wives require seven homes together with blokes like myself who have spent a big part of their lives slowly paying off mortgages? Wouldn't this have the result of further devaluing the real estate of working Americans?
We need to come to some national consensus about pigs. Our laws should openly discriminate against people to the extent that they succeed in making themselves fatter than any citizen has a right to be. It is no more unfair to penalize their immoderate appetites than to discourage junkies of any other sort and send the message that they are an embarrassment to the rest of us.
I agree with your main point. However, you are exempt from capital gains tax when you sell your primary residence.
Isn't that for only a certain amount and only if you invest in a new home?
No. There is no value limit nor any requirement that a new house is purchased. It is limited to primary residences, however, and there is also a time limit, e.g., once every five years (although I forget exactly what the time span is).
Thank God we still have socialism for the rich. How would they make the payments on their multi-million dollar mansions and Mercedes’ without a little helping hand from Joe Middle Class American Taxpayer. Like you, I often worry for the rich too.
The American Dream is failing because the American Dream has become the world's nightmare.
http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com
So long Dubya, we'll always have debt and Guantanamo
The above debaters acknowledge the probity, at some level, of both regulation and taxation.
The real question, and it has been all along, is the balance.
We are now obviously out of balance and the System is about to come crashing down, taking MOST of us down with it, and it sure as hell is NOT because us Liberals and Progressives, and even Libertarians, got our way.
A truly bankrupt government is about to bail out a criminally bankrupt "private" financial system. Paul Craig Roberts and others have been discussing this crisis for years. The global question is how long will the Dollar remain the Reserve Currency. One of Saddam's "crimes" almost never reported in the MSM was that he wanted to sell Iraqi oil using the Euro instead of the Dollar. (Iran also wants to set up an oil "bourse" that would undercut the Dollar.)
As for the Corporatist Free Market, whatever happened to P/E ratio as applied to derivatives. They look like interest piled on interest on nearly fictional (Chimerical) paper. The "value" of these transactions, globally, dwarfs the US federal budget. They "produce" nothing of value except for themselves. Not only should they be "allowed" to fail, they should be made to fail. They are parasites upon the Common Weal.
They were warned. And this crap was promoted (signed by Clinton) by BOTH "major" parties.
Truly, we are living in lunatic times. This SHOULD NOT have happened.
-30-
Good article.
We should tax wealth, not income, or at least tax savings instead of income (actually, savings are being taxed, it's called inflation and inflation as reported by CPI understates real inflation by 3% so your savings are deflating). The income tax was required by the Fed to ensure the government could make it's interest payments. The government needs to be funded, but the income tax was a concept that originated with Karl Marx and outlined in his Communist Manifesto. There are better ways.
For example corporate citizens do not pay tax on income, just profits (and only those booked in the US or brought in to the US from overseas). Those individual citizens having income but must borrow to live in tough years to make ends meet are just like corporations. When corporations operate at a loss they can carry the loss forward to reduce taxes in profit making years. They can also declare bankruptcy more easily, especially after the Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2005 endorsed by Joe Biden (he is also the leader of the war on Drugs that has given us 25% of the globes prison popultion with 5% of the population) which makes it harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy and protect their homes.
Also, for those who export their wealth or capital to avoid being taxed, they should pay an exit tax. JFK tried to implement a tax on capital exports before getting killed. It ended up passing anyways, but was gutted by allowing capital flight w/o tax through Canada.
When the income tax was created in 1913 (same year as the Fed), it was only for those making 5000 dollars a year. That is the equivalent of 125,000 per year today, and the bottom rate was 0.4% with a max rate of 5% for those making 10 million per year today.
Of course, in the same year they established the provision for Tax Exempt Foundations (that was a real bad year). The super rich pay no tax as a result.
Today, the individual citizen is discriminated against in favour of corporate citizens, some of whom are foreign owned, and who get bailed out if they are big enough. Equality for all citizens, corporate and individual. End discrimination and debt slavery.
"For example corporate citizens do not pay tax on income, just profits "
It's a very good point you make, but remember that individuals can deduct a capital loss from their income from salary or wages.
Yes, but if they spend all their income to make ends meet, they still pay tax on that income, less deductions. An analogy to corporate profits for the individual is savings. If someone is unable to save, or worse, must go into debt, they pay tax on their income, while corporations do not.
Say you have a TV that you buy. The corporate TV depreciates, and that is an expense that reduces their profit and tax. Your TV depreciates as well, but it does not lower your tax.
"An analogy to corporate profits for the individual is savings. If someone is unable to save, or worse, must go into debt, they pay tax on their income, while corporations do not."
"Say you have a TV that you buy. The corporate TV depreciates, and that is an expense that reduces their profit and tax. Your TV depreciates as well, but it does not lower your tax."
Agreed, while you can depreciate some things when you are sole proprietor. It is true, that a corporation as well as sole proprietorships and partnerships pay the government last, while the wage earner pays the government first.
"Individuals can deduct a capital loss from their income from salary or wages."
You bet. An individual corporation may. Not an individual human. If you want to define your 'capital loss' there may be more, otherwise...
There ar several points in this article that are merely to attach a binder to a decent, hardworking middle class slob's income while encouraging the non-labor income.
I'll continue this manana...
"You bet. An individual corporation may. Not an individual human. If you want to define your 'capital loss' there may be more, otherwise..."
Yes an individual can, it's extremely common, I've done it myself several times. You fill out Schedule D along with form 1040:
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Schedule+D
The wealthiest one percent own about half the total wealth of the country. So, drop a dollar into the economy, anywhere in the economy, and 50 cents will end up in the pockets of those richest one percent.
It is totally ASININE to give the dollar directly to those wealthiest one percent, since you get none of the circulation effects that stimulate the economy. Give that dollar to those at the bottom of the economy, say by raising minimum wage to around $15 per hour, and those wealthiest one percent will have to compete to gain their share of all those circulating dollars.
In the real world, the economy is trickle-up, not trickle down.
Go to:
http://www.inequality.org/
and click on "By the Numbers", page down to the pie charts showing the distribution of wealth and stock ownership.
The numbers are from 2004 - it's probably more skewed now.
In 2004, 1% of people had 34.3% of the wealth
9% of people had 36.9% of the wealth
90% of us shared the remaining 28.7% of the wealth
Stock ownership was even worse:
1% had 36.9% of stocks
9% had 41.9%
90% of us had the 21.3% left.
Yet, when the markets start to go down, everyone is supposed to panic.
Someone needs to do a poll. Here's the question:
The Fed has already shelled out about one trillion dollars of taxpayer money, and has promised "the financial industry" another trillion of taxpayer money, for a total of at least two trillion, officially.
That translates to approximately $16,000 PER TAXPAYER, not including interest.
If asked, would you willingly write a check for $16,000, right now, to "save" Wall Street corporations?
Cause ya just did...
"The Fed has already shelled out about one trillion dollars of taxpayer money, and has promised "the financial industry" another trillion of taxpayer money, for a total of at least two trillion, officially."
The FED writes a check. The treasury issues bonds to cover the check. Other countries and other wealthy entities buy the bonds. The taxpayers repay the bonds with interest. So the taxpayers are on the hook for two trillion dollars plus interest. See? Its a win win for everyone(dripping sarcasm).
-- EKATON --
Oh, and BTW, speculators create NO jobs with their wealth. They just hoarde it. There is no ivestment in the country, in factories, in industry at all. There is just looting of the American people. To hell with the speculators. Tax them to death and back again.
What do they do with their losses?
Silly boy - we the people pay.
Joe
Please explain to the group how.
Does trading "Structured Investment Vehicles" count as speculation? If so, yes the taxpayer covers the losses.
[Not an economist]
"Does trading "Structured Investment Vehicles" count as speculation?"
I think almost any transaction you can think of involves some speculation, but I thought we were talking mostly about commodities futures contracts.
"If so, yes the taxpayer covers the losses."
How so? I don't know the answer.
"[Not an economist]"
Nor I.
Well... Current events show the taxpayer bailing out bad speculation.
Naomi Klein's latest CD article seems clear on this.
"Current events show the taxpayer bailing out bad speculation."
Yes, and to be clear I don't support this.
Shut up and read the article and then you'll learn.
Please demonstrate *exactly* where in the article the issue of losses incurred by speculators is addressed. Please don't use swear words in your answer, they will only detract from your case, and you need to practice not swearing. Try for once to actually focus on the subject matter at hand. That would mean responding in a manner that is both intelligent and logical.
The speculator flips 100 houses and loses on the last few. As the price of houses goes down the buyers and the banks lose. In principle, all 100 houses could generate a loss but the speculator does not have to lose. Money has gone from the bank to the speculator. Does that make sense?..lizard
"The speculator flips 100 houses and loses on the last few."
If the housing speculator is "sole proprietor" then the loss or gain would be on every thing sold that year, as I understand it.
"As the price of houses goes down the buyers and the banks lose."
I agree there, if you mean the flippers, and remember the borrower and lender both made agreements on these deals on a case-by-case basis.
"In principle, all 100 houses could generate a loss but the speculator does not have to lose. Money has gone from the bank to the speculator. Does that make sense?"
No, sorry, it doesn't. A “speculator” filing 1040 would have to show gain or loss, and there is no payment in the event of a loss by the government. I admit I don't have any first hand experience doing this sort of thing.
He would have to show a gain if he profited from 98 houses and lost on two. I don't see the problem. Like any pyramid, you do really well and all that matters is what happens when it stops. If you got out at the right time, you keep the money and buy an island.lizard
"He would have to show a gain if he profited from 98 houses and lost on two. I don't see the problem."
It all depends on how much gain from the 98 versus the loss on the 2. It's two columns, gain or loss, and at the end of the year you show a net gain or loss accordingly.
Several things.
1st: The figure on CEO pay has been going around for MONTHS, if not years. If you haven't been paying attention, it's not my fault. Google CEO pay and I'm sure you will find it.
2nd: As to the economy when Jimmy Carter was President, blame that on Nixon and his escallation of the Viet Nam war. Carter was smart enough to know that we had to pay that back, and he did. It wasn't politically brilliant, but it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, Reagan used that as an excuse to go union busting, and turn the entire economy into the piece of trash we have now.
3rd: If you think that the rich are paying more in taxes than the rest of us, look it up. They own 98% of all the wealth in this country now and pay 48% of the taxes. Call THAT equitable? I don't. I call it a screwing of the humans in the country for the benefit of the few, the greedy, the selfish.
4th: Exxon did NOT pay $10.5 billion in taxes, they had $10.5 BILLION IN PROFIT last quarter. HUGE difference. It's a world record profit level, in ANY industry, and they didn't even bother to pay for the leases they owe the country for to begin with. Look into the recent scandal from the interior department in Denver and tell me that ANYTHING having to do with the oil bastards is fair and equitable or them even doing their share at all.
5th: I stand by my original statement. Reagan started this upside down crap about the economy will work if you just asuage the greed of the ultra rich, and everyone else will benefit from their largess. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that has been proven by even a quick look at the numbers ever since. You cannot starve the majority, give tax breaks to the rich and business, then run all the jobs off to foreign countries and expect things to work out. It NEVER has in the history of man, and it never will. The last time it was tried, we had October of 1929. And that time we weren't $10 TRILLION in debt. Now we are. and the republicans couldn't be happier. Only thing is, lots of us are smarter than they are, and our outlook isn't being tempered by greed. It's tempered by survival. And we KNOW it's the republicans who have done this to us.
6th: Learn some history and THEN tell me how well the Alzheimer's economy works. Tell me how well that 1929 thing worked for the country, and it's inhabitants. And then tell me what happens to a country that is essentially bankrupt and refuses to pay it's bills. You don't get it, do you? Reaganomics is a shell game, and all the shells are turned over. It's done. Cooked. No more water at the well. Cutting taxes every time you turn around gets you where we are now, with a crumbling infrastructure and no way to fix it. It gets you a workforce that has no jobs, no manufacturing sector to speak of, and larger exports of raw materials than of finished goods. Before Reagan, we were the world's largest creditor. Now we are it's largest debtor. It's completely unsustainable, and you just don't get that, do you?
7th: The price of being in an actual society is taxes. If you want to be able to drive on safe roads, cross safe bridges, go to decent schools, and have a chance at a future, you have to deal with that. If you want to run a company, taxes are just part of the cost of doing business. Always have been, or at least have been until the republicans screwed the rest of us so they could profit wildly. And now we all get to pay AGAIN so they can be bailed out in this "FREE MARKET", which is no such thing. In an actual free market, these companies would be allowed to fail, regardless of how large they are. This is welfare.
And like I asked, what part of the repubican party are you getting paid by? They are the ONLY people who are foolish enough to think that more of the same will fix anything. It is, in fact, the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
"Exxon did NOT pay $10.5 billion in taxes"
Correct, they paid 32 billion:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073109
" Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."
This site provides some other numbers:
http://www.prodromus.com/2008/08/01/exxonmobil-pays-world-record-32-billion-in-taxes-during-q2
Isn't the key to your quoted sentence, "Worldwide"? What did they pay to--compared to what they were subsidized by--the U.S. government?
Probably more importantly, Googling this, it seems evident that this Exxon tax thing is the result of a politically-motivated PR blitz by Exxon itself. You don't have any real information, and Exxon's PR statements are highly dubious, to say the very least. Sales taxes? Those are just the sales taxes it pays like you and I when we buy something. "Other taxes"? Please.
Since you are so fond of making highly dubious statements and then, when challenged, respond by asking us to "prove" our contentions, how 'bout we ask you to prove the initial bold statements you make? So have it. Prove to me that Exxon paid the U.S. government 32 billion in taxes. Oh, and you're going to have use something other than Exxon's PR statements (or media articles that slavishly rely upon them) to do it. Good luck!
Face it, Jake. You'll buy anything that anybody of alleged importance tells you. As considerate as you may be here, you're nothing but a rube who lacks all manner of critical thinking skills.
"What did they pay to--compared to what they were subsidized by--the U.S. government?"
I don't know, do you? If you are so interested, find out, and let us all know.
"Probably more importantly, Googling this, it seems evident that this Exxon tax thing is the result of a politically-motivated PR blitz by Exxon itself."
Appeal to motive denied.
"Exxon's PR statements are highly dubious,"
SEC filings are "dubious"?
"Prove to me that Exxon paid the U.S. government 32 billion in taxes."
First prove to me I ever said that in the first place. They paid 32 billion in taxes.
"critical thinking skills."
I refer to *your* use of an established logical fallacy above (Appeal to Motive) and your misreading of my statement to say that Exxon paid 32 billion to the US as proof that *you* are the one who heeds to brush up on critical thinking.
So you're going to tell me that Exxon is taxed at a 300% rate? Why don't I believe that? Hardly makes sense to be in business at all that way, does it? Sorry, but those numbers just don't add up.
No, their profit is net after taxes. The CNN reporter seems to understand that, as well as millions of stock holders, I don't know why you don't. The supporting data can be found in documents Exxon files with the SEC as well as their very public '08 Q2 report. A summary was contained in the second link I posted, perhaps you could explain what is wrong with those numbers.
It doesn't matter how much Exxon "paid" in taxes. Government has been subsidizing Big Oil for decades and the tax laws for the past 28 years have allowed them plenty of loopholes to get back their taxpayer money. Only a paid spokesman for Exxon would believe your nonsense.
I'll make us some popcorn while you get together a case that shows an accurate comparison between taxes paid by Exxon compared to "government subsidies" for the company. Remember to show your work. And no swear words allowed.
For those who want sources for executive compensation, may I suggest (drumroll) Googling "ceo pay". There are lots of sites and you can evaluate which seem trustworthy to you.
CEO pay rates vary, but you can look up the top execs in many companies on the website from the AFLCIO
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm
For example if you click on Lehman Brothers you will find that in 2007 the genius who led them (and us) to ruin, Richard S. Fuld, Chief Executive Officer raked in $34,382,036 in total compensation according to the SEC. According to the AFL-CIO's calculation method, this CEO raked in $22,052,273 in total 2007 compensation. (I find the difference puzzling, but in any case it's a lot of money for such a screw-up)
The AFLCIO website uses the term "raked in". "Earned" would be a mis-representation.
Joe
And tax every so-called 'American Company' with greater than 50% of their workforce overseas at a substantially higher rate as well, even if it means revoking their American Corporation status. What could that hurt? Apply that money to the bailout.
Under RICO, criminal organization's foreign bank accounts can be closed!
Thank you WJM. Excellent post, and better put than I could have done. Paul Krugman has been warning about this coming for at least four years (probably longer), and I remember thinking when Clinton betrayed the working class by signing the end of Glass-Steagall (among other betrayals of the working class) that we've had it. It's going to be 1929 all over again, and I've been saying so ever since. Well, maybe they can stave off a Great Depression by emptying our pockets. I don't know, but they certainly don't intend to empty the pockets of those who got us in this mess. Maybe they will empty our pockets and we will still have another Great Depression. There aren't too many Americans left who remember that time. I was born in 1942, but I certainly heard the horror stories from my parents. And there are some differences. And not all for the better. Truly I don't know what's coming.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
petertheok must be a middle aged fat boy loser sitting in his parent's home listening to Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz with delusions of grandeur. Businesses waste more taxpayer money lobbying and bribing pols to allow them to screw their workers and consumers to maximize their profits all the while paying far fewer taxes. I guess petertheok doesn't want to be reminded of that eeringly familiar term "welfare queen". And he doesn't want to face the fact that America's borrowing from China to pay for Halliburton's and Donald Trump's tax breaks.
Why bother with Peter and the Wolf? Don't let them occupy any space in your brain.
Joe
again, FJ, you are so severely misguided. if i told you that the top 1% pay a higher percentage of the total income taxes than they did before the bush tax custs, would you believe me?
You're the loser who is misguided and deluded into thinking tax cuts for the wealthy will make you super rich. What state do you live in anyway? I live in South Carolina and I can tell you things have gotten far worse thanks to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy elite and the Iraq war based on lies and distractions and as a result, year after year, critical state and local budgets have been facing major cuts.
" if i told you that the top 1% pay a higher percentage of the total income taxes than they did before the bush tax custs"
COMPLETELY FALSE. And here's the proof.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i15taxnumbers.htm
ok. now this is getting somewhere. i see where your name calling comes from at least. this article calls someone "stupid" in the title. nice website, fred.
other than that, it seems to confirm my assertion. the wealthy pay the taxes...even moreso than before. if you read it, you'd have known tht before you posted it.
so, after reading it, ask yourself this: "if i tax their income isn't it going to have a dreadful impact on the economy?" hint: your answer should be yes.
petertheok September 19th, 2008 3:17 pm
"so, after reading it, ask yourself this: "if i tax their income isn't it going to have a dreadful impact on the economy?" hint: your answer should be yes."
That would depend on whether or not their money is tied to job creation or investments that create jobs in the U.S. economy and the answer is no in many cases.
Lobo Gris
"other than that, it seems to confirm my assertion. the wealthy pay the taxes...even moreso than before. if you read it, you'd have known tht before you posted it. "
Apparently, you didn't even read the article or you might have taken the time to actually learn the truth. You're not even trying to learn. And then you wonder why the Republicans keep selling your sorry ass down the river?
"so, after reading it, ask yourself this: "if i tax their income isn't it going to have a dreadful impact on the economy?" hint: your answer should be yes."
You don't even know what you're talking about and yet you spout the same old Rush Limbaugh / Neil Boortz rightwing bullshit like a parrot. You're way out of touch with reality.
i'm kind of tired of you now, Fred. i'll try to refrain from asking you again to go read the article you posted. the article clearly did not like the way the numbers were presented, but it agreed with the numbers and did not refute them at all.
petertheok September 19th, 2008 3:53 pm
"i'm kind of tired of you now, Fred. i'll try to refrain from asking you again to go read the article you posted. the article clearly did not like the way the numbers were presented, but it agreed with the numbers and did not refute them at all."
You're trying, unsucessfully to spin it but you're wrong, the article definitely refutes your assertion.
Lobo Gris
Like I said, you're trying to sell some rightwing bullshit that you know is completely wrong. When you're done listening to Limbaugh and Boortz, grow up and learn the facts and reality. Thanks for admitting that you refuse to learn the truth and that the article I posted actually defeated your lies.
We the lesser evil seek to remain in cahoots with they the greater evil so that we may all retain our class privilege on the backs of the people. Therefore we the lesser evil shall restrain our protest to a whimpering "But it's irresponsible to shift the bill entirely to the next generation."
REAL progressives say: We should not tax the speculators. We should BAN THE SPECULATORS. And if you are interested in a comprehensive plan, progressives have that too. We're not only banning the speculators, we're banning the whole culture of corruption that fueled the rise of speculation in this second gilded age. It's easy enough. Just put the teeth back into the progressive era trustbuster laws and all the rest of the legislation that effectively disperses power to the people.
These Wall St. chimps have been speculating in everything, particularly commodities, in a regulatory vacuum created deliberately by the US vice president Darth Viper and his cronies. They started in 2001 when Darth Viper personally involved himself in the Houston Energy Cartel's attacks on California electric power consumers.
Darth Viper, the Imperial Chimp, and their cronies actively promoted the mega-speculation bonanza as part of their all-encompassing political assault on the left. Every greater evil policy proposal was enabled by the lesser evil and designed to wreak maximum destruction on the progressive way, the public interests, the public will.
Petertheok: Nice rehashing of republican talking points. Too bad it's mostly based in BS.
Look to history for a REAL understanding of how things actually work. For instance, when Reagan the Alzheimer's patient took office, business paid 36% of all taxes paid in this country, and we didn't see huge defaults, whole sectors of our economy failing, or massive job losses. Now, thanks to even more foolishness from W and crowd, business pays 8% of all taxes, with many huge corporations not paying a freaking dime. And who gets to make up that shortfall? Those of us who work, not invest. When those who don't actually work pay less in taxes than those who do, things are clearly fouled up. We who work pay 35%, those who invest pay 15%.
As to taxes keeping the rich from investing in the country, it's the lack of taxes that have made it possible for them to NOT invest in this country. THAT, my friend, is why our jobs have run off to Asia at a never before seen rate, not because we have been taxing those corporations too much.
As to the rich not buying things if they get taxed, more BS. If a rich man buys a watch, that is ONE watch. If 10,000 of US buy a watch, that is jobs for other people. ONE watch doesn't pay for anyone to live. And what is it that the rich tend to buy? New things? Nope, they buy old, collectible things that were frequently produced a hundred years ago. So once again, no jobs for anything new.
Taking all the money away from the majority to give it to those who already have more than they can spend in a lifetime is a no win situation for a country. The only people who gain in that situation are the few, the rich, the greedy.
When Reagan took over, the average CEO pay was 40 times more than the average worker in the same company. Now, the AVERAGE is 500+ times. Are you going to tell me that the CEOs are working 460 TIMES harder than they were? No, they are where the previous taxes those companies were paying went to. That is money that should be going into the public fund rather than going off to offshore tax havens in the possession of ONE person or family. We could have been fixing our roads, bridges, schools, museums, and other infrastructure rather than buying jets and yachts for ultra rich, greedy people.
You spout Reaganomics like it's something that hasn't been shown to be ultimately destructive of the country. What part of the republican party do you get paid by? No one else buys that crap anymore. The rich didn't trickle down anything on us, they took and took and took. They sent our jobs off to Asia, they ruined Mexico so that their people came here in droves, they have bankrupted the country in a way never seen before. We OWE $10 TRILLION to the rest of the world, and you want to keep spitting out such Alzheimer's induced BS like it means something? Grow up and wake up. It's that crap that has driven us to where we are.
Now we privatize the profit and socialize the debt. THAT is what Reaganomics really leads to, and why it needs to be run out of town on a rail like it deserves to be. We cannot allow such crap to be the way things are done anymore. And the thing that really gets to me is that I saw this happening over 25 years ago. When the Alzheimer boy started saying such drivel, I tried to warn people about it, and all I got for it was rudeness, name calling, and belittlement. NOW who's laughing?
Learn some history BEFORE you go telling such lies. And never rule out the selfishness of your fellow man. THAT is why re-regulation of industry and finance is required. TO not do so is nothing short of suicide on a national scale.
"When Reagan took over, the average CEO pay was 40 times more than the average worker in the same company. Now, the AVERAGE is 500+ times."
Do you have a source for this please?
"Are you going to tell me that the CEOs are working 460 TIMES harder than they were?"
You mean "12.5" times as hard. Not 460 times. 500/40 = 12.5.
"We OWE $10 TRILLION to the rest of the world, "
A bit more than 60% of GDP. Less than under the first half of clinton, and much less than post WWII. Tou have to look at debt in terms of GDP, and not as some big number not compared to anything else.
"Do you have a source for this please?"
Wow ! You'd "defend" a rightwing motherfucking liar but you can't handle the real truth, can you? Pathetic !
"A bit more than 60% of GDP. Less than under the first half of clinton, and much less than post WWII. Tou have to look at debt in terms of GDP, and not as some big number not compared to anything else."
GDP doesn't mean jack SHIT. You're trying to invent pie-in-the-sky BULLSHIT to cover up the reality. Debt is debt, dumb FUCK. Let's see you try talking to China about GDP when they kick your motherfucking ASS when they hit the FORECLOSURE SWITCH on this country.
It's none of my business but your potty mouth does nothing to bolster your argument and makes it only less likely for people to take you seriously.
Actually it doesn't make it less likely that people will take him seriously, because even with the "potty mouth" inclusions the posts are still intelligent and logical.
"Actually it doesn't make it less likely that people will take him seriously, because even with the "potty mouth" inclusions the posts are still intelligent and logical."
Challenge for you: Please provide your very best example of a post by "Fred" that is "intelligent and logical". Remember to show your work. That means be *very* specific.
Thanks. I don't like to cuss but sometimes I feel that I have no choice. Don't worry. jakenewton is probably just a paid shill for Wall $treet getting desperate that Main Street is beginning to wake up to the FRAUD that Corporate America is.
"I don't like to cuss but sometimes I feel that I have no choice."
99 out of 100 psychologists say that this is a sign that you know you don't have the ability to focus on the discussion and make your case using polite language. Knowing this makes you angry and petulant, and having no debate skills you can only lash out. This is common with those who lack the very basic maturity to be able to make an argument on it's own merits, and refrain from spewing potty mouth diarrhea. It must taste bad.
Neither does your "defending" of rightwing motherfuckers but keep it up because nobody's taking you seriously either. I love to cuss and if you don't like it, TOUGH. Blow it out your ASS !
"Wow ! You'd "defend" a rightwing motherfucking liar but you can't handle the real truth, can you? Pathetic !"
I didn't defend anyone. I asked for a source for what was stated as fact. How does that defend anyone?
"GDP doesn't mean jack SHIT. "
"Debt is debt, dumb FUCK."
Utter nonsense. Numbers mean nothing in isolation. Numbers help us see things as they compare to other things. In fact, anyone who takes first year economics learns about national debt as it compares to GDP. You are just ignorant of this fact, but at least now you know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Be sure to look at the second graph, which shows exactly what I stated earlier.
ok, now who's argument has degraded to a pure rant?
petertheok, thank you for admitting what a pathetic rightwing lunatic you are who desperately tries to sell some Raygunomic bullshit only to realize that there are some people who don't buy it. Since you have nothing useful to talk about, look elsewhere for selling your rightwing bullshit.
you've just proven my previous point.
Thanks for proving that you're a pathological liar, petertheok. When you get laid off, maybe then you can sit down and take the time to learn what a brain-damaged rightwing zombie you've made yourself. You're just scared that Raygunomics has peaked just like oil and have nothing of your own to counter that fact.
i haven't even read farther than the first paragaph of this yet, but i will.
i'm just thrown off by anyone who would want to hold up the economy that jimmy carter left us as the measuring stick for what it should be like.
you can't be serious. it certainly puts into doubt every thing i'm about to read from you.
Raygun screwed up the economy big time and so has the current president even more than Raygun. You sound like a big fat loser sitting in your parent's home listening to Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz with delusions of grandeur. Money doesn't come from the sky. Thanks to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate elite, America's infrastructure languished big time for the past 28 years. And the reckless war spending kept it that way. Apparently, you're too scared to learn the truth which is why you're just trying to spew desperate rightwing bullshit like the loser you are.
i think you are repeating yourself, but anyway, all this name calling and irrelevance is getting a little old, fred. can you make a rational argument? if not i'm going to ignore you.
"i think you are repeating yourself,
"but anyway, all this name calling and irrelevance is getting a little old, fred."
It sure beats your desperate attempts to try to bully others with your rightwing bullshit which you obviously are finding out the hard way, motherfucker. This ain't your Faux Noise or CNN. Go back to your rightwing la-la-land where you belong. You're wasting your time trying to sell bullshit and it ain't working.
"can you make a rational argument?"
Gee, I already did but you can't handle it so I see you're choking and falling apart. Like I said, you're wasting your time trying to sell bullshit and it ain't working.
" if not i'm going to ignore you."
You're already ignoring reality given your out of touch rightwing lunacy so get lost, loser.
FrederickJohnson,
I don't take back my prior response to you, I would just like to reframe it. I've read your postings since the one I responded to and I see you are managing just fine without any contributions from me. KUDOS :) If petertheok keeps showing up here, he's just a masochistic Repug getting his jollies from your thrashing.
This is a pretty good article, but it is predicated on having an honest or forthright government in place in order to do all of these things. Since we lack that, we need to turn the analysis upside-down somehow, and start asking what each of us -- Joe Sixpacks on the street -- can do. And I am NOT talking about sending what little money you have to some new political cause. I'm talking about organizing, acting, buying habits, barter economy, whatever we need to do.
Ideally, of course, we'd have a progressive taxation system coupled with a progressive governing system. Those who have the most wealth -- or who can do the most damage -- are taxed the most and governed (regulated) the most.
I'm not in favor of hard-coded points as presented in this article. Rather, we need some sort of continuous curve equation -- high school mathematics. The only question is how steep to make the curve.
My reaction to the six proposals"
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
I would add RICO prosecutions and siezure of money, houses, cars, jewelry if anyone acted outside SEC rules or other laws. Of course the regulations have been gutted, so there may be few grounds. But it is worth a look.
People like this have no internal moral compass. They behave on a crocodilian punishment reward level.
Joe
It seems that the Republicans have finally killed all the rules and regulations that FDR put in place to pull America out of the Great Depression.
While we're changing tax schemes, I would significantly tax those US corporations who outsource to foreign countries... and I would eliminate off-shore tax havens for US corporations. If they want to be US corporations, then they should shoulder some fair responsibility for being so. Don't like fair US corporate taxes? Love it or leave the country.
Free trade as it is practiced, is decimating this country.
another article that ignores the most very basic macro and micro economic principles.
i've said it many times around here lately, and i'll say it again. even when it sounds like the most emotionally complelling action, it'll have a very real and often very detrimental effect.
can you beleive this clown, suggesting that the following actions are sane from an economic perspective?
1) increased taxes on investment - would have an obvious reduction in investment levels, therefore jobs, new technologies, etc. and he wants two of them, transaction taxes and captial gains tax increases
2) increased taxes on those who spend the most - almost every dollar spent by some rich guy contributes to the jobs we have. cut off the spicket and it'll dry up. guaranteed.
3) increased double-taxation of income in the death penalty. remember the poor lady who loses her family farm becasue she can't pay the inheritance tax? nuff said.
4) increased corporate taxes - again an assault on the working class. how can one think that taking potential dollars out of the free market and putting them in gov't beurocracy is a legitimate argument is beyond me. direct result: lost jobs. increased prices. good idea?
i guess the legitimate perspectives are skewed by the i'll-feel-better-if-someone-else-hurts attitude around here
Sir Petertheok: you are involved way above your level. You don't understand economics. For example, if you tax the rich guy and he spends less the economy doesn't grind to a halt. The money collected in taxes from him will be spent by the government. The issue is the velocity of money and where and how it is spent. You don't know your stuff and would do best to not talk about it this way. Limit yourself to broad opinions..................lizard
You wrote: "increased taxes on investment - would have an obvious reduction in investment levels, therefore jobs, new technologies, etc. and he wants two of them, transaction taxes and captial gains tax increases"
No more than taxes on income have an "obvious reduction" on work levels, therefore jobs, new technologies, etc. This is a bullshit attempt to leverage the dependence of workers on employers under capitalism to protect capitalists. This is argument by duress. Instead, why don't we eliminate entirely workers' dependence on employers by turning ownership of all public corporations over to the employees, depriving your argument of any force.
You wrote: "increased taxes on those who spend the most - almost every dollar spent by some rich guy contributes to the jobs we have. cut off the spicket and it'll dry up. guaranteed."
My god, how much do you get paid to write this drivel? You are asking us to save the rich to save ourselves? This is feudalism you are describing, you understand that, right? In fact, the employing class depends on *us*, not the other way around. Where do you think their profits come from? You think they materialize out of the air? No, it comes from workers, who actually work to make products and create wealth. Capitalists merely appropriate a portion of that wealth and do so without working to create or produce any wealth. In short, they steal from the rest of us.
You wrote: "increased double-taxation of income in the death penalty. remember the poor lady who loses her family farm becasue she can't pay the inheritance tax? nuff said."
You're a riot, man. There is no poor lady who loses her family farm because she can't pay the inheritance tax. And even if there were, we can always give her an exemption.
You wrote: "increased corporate taxes - again an assault on the working class. how can one think that taking potential dollars out of the free market and putting them in gov't beurocracy is a legitimate argument is beyond me. direct result: lost jobs. increased prices. good idea?"
Your advocacy of absolute dependence on the ruling class is disgusting and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. But, then, you have a lot to gain from this dependency, don't you? Or are you just a hired gun? Or maybe you are just a poor, deluded slob. I have little patience for any of it.
"2) increased taxes on those who spend the most - almost every dollar spent by some rich guy contributes to the jobs we have. cut off the spicket and it'll dry up. guaranteed."
That rich guy is going to buy that expensive watch and that expensive car and all of that other expensive stuff no matter how much he is taxed.
please don't ignore economic facts and spout this rediculous falsehood. every single dollar taken is one that is not spent or invested. no one puts it under their mattress anymore.
And I stand by my comment that if Rich Person pays more in tax he's STILL going to buy the expensive watch and car and other expensive stuff. So it's a win-win.
and don't forget that the more we tax US businesses, their investment dollars (and others') will divert immediately to other economies, exacerbating the lost-job result.
Pure political bullshit. Big Business wastes more money lobbying and bribing pols than they'll ever bother paying in taxes. You're a pathalogical liar.
FrederickJohnson, in my first 2 days here (of many) i have yet to see anything of value come from you. do you know how much Exxonn Mobile pays in taxes per second? pure drivel.
As much as it gets back through price gouging and government subsidizations since Big Oil gets back all the money it pays in taxes anyway. Nice try but Exxon does not require welfare handouts nor does it deserve that.
FJ: I enjoyed your earlier posts on the subject but stop badgering Peter, the Not-So-Great. He's been drinking the neo-con cool-aid way too long!
BTW, Exxon-Mobil and all the oilies do get "welfare handouts" in the form of a tax credit. Read this from "Who Needs a Tax Credit?" Aug. 22, 2008 in http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com/
"The oil and gas industry was provided a $17 billion tax credit from 2007-2011 in the latest energy bill passed last December. That's $3.4 billion in tax credits for each of five years. Last February, Exxon-Mobil announced $40.6 billion in net profits for 2007, the most in American corporate history, beating their own record set in 2006. By the way, $40.6 billion is $4.6 million an hour for a year. Profits of the five biggest international oil companies have tripled since 2002."*
* Sources:
"Exxon Mobil's Profit in 2007 Tops $40 Billion" Washington Post, Feb 2, 2008
"Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?" Business Week, May 2, 2008