Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Attack of the 1-Percenters
Here’s a truism: The wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good.
According to government figures, 1-percenters’ share of America’s total income is the highest it’s been since 1929, and their tax rates are the lowest they’ve faced in two decades. Through bonuses, many 1-percenters will profit from the $23 trillion in bailout largesse the Treasury Department now says could be headed to financial firms. And, most of them benefit from IRS decisions to reduce millionaire audits and collect zero taxes from the majority of major corporations.
But what really makes the ultrawealthy so fortunate, what truly separates this moment from a run-of-the-mill Gilded Age, is the unprecedented protection the 1-percenters have bought for themselves on the most pressing issues.
To review: With 22,000 Americans dying each year because they lack health insurance, Congress is considering universal health care legislation financed by a surcharge on income above $280,000—that is, a levy almost exclusively on 1-percenters. This surtax would graze just 5 percent of small businesses and would recoup only part of the $700 billion the 1-percenters received from the Bush tax cuts. In fact, it is so minuscule, those making $1 million annually would pay just $9,000 more in taxes every year—or nine-tenths of 1 percent of their 12-month haul.
Nonetheless, the 1-percenters have deployed an army to destroy the initiative before it makes progress.
The foot soldiers are the Land Rover Liberals. These Democratic lawmakers secure their lefty labels by wearing pink-ribbon lapel pins and supporting good causes like abortion rights. However, being affluent and/or from affluent districts, they routinely drive their luxury cars over middle-class economic interests. Hence, this week’s letter from Boulder, Colo., dot-com tycoon Rep. Jared Polis, D, and other Land Rover Liberals calling for the surtax’s death.
Echoing that demand are the Corrupt Cowboys—those like Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who come from the heartland’s culturally conservative and economically impoverished locales. These cavalrymen in both parties quietly build insurmountable campaign war chests as the biggest corporate fundraisers in Congress. At the same time, they publicly preen as jes’ folks, make twangy references to “voters back home,” and now promise to kill the health care surtax because they say that’s what their communities want. Cash payoffs made, re-elections purchased, the absurd story somehow goes that because blue-collar constituents in Flyover America like guns and love Jesus, they must also reflexively adore politicians who defend 1-percenters’ bounty.
That fantastical fairly tale, of course, couldn’t exist without the Millionaire Media—the elite journalists and opinion-mongers who represent corporate media conglomerates and/or are themselves extremely wealthy. Ignoring all the data about inequality, they legitimize the assertions of the 1-percenters’ first two battalions, while actually claiming America’s fat cats are unfairly persecuted.
For example, Washington Post editors deride surtax proponents for allegedly believing “the rich alone can fund government.” Likewise, Wall Street Journal correspondent Jonathan Weisman wonders why the surtax “soak(s) the rich” by unduly “lumping all of the problems of the finances of the United States on 1 percent of (its) households?” And most brazenly, NBC’s Meredith Vieira asks President Obama why the surtax is intent on “punishing the rich.”
For his part, Obama has responded with characteristic coolness—and a powerful counterstrike. “No, it’s not punishing the rich,” he said. “If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community.”
If any volley can thwart this latest attack of the 1-percenters, it is that simple idea.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
96 Comments so far
Show AllThe "simple idea" of community responsibility for others is actually the principle of a communist society articulated by Marx: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Obama's statement, if carried into practice, could indeed be a heavy volley of an idea opposing the greed of the 1 percenter, but even communism as it has existed in Russia, China or even the Israeli kibbutz, has never overcome the tendency of the 1 percenters to get everything they could and hold onto it for dear life. Especially in a country like ours whose polity is so dominated by the political influence of the 1 percenters, we can almost guarantee that the flowery communal "rhetoric" that Obama articulates at the end of this article will remain "just" rhetoric as he "caves" once again when the Chamber of Onepercent Commerce demands something like the deletion of card check from the EFCA.
If progressive taxation is "communistic" then regressive taxation is fascistic.
Communal responsibility has been a feature of many cultures and religions throughout history. Taxation has been a feature of every political entity for the same period. Likening a tax increase to communism is absurd.
q
quickstepper: What gives, do you imagine I'm condemning progressive taxation because it is "communist?" To the very contrary, this is the great human truth articulated in Marx's statement of an ideal human society. I recognize with you that progressive taxation has been done "throughout history" and I applaud that history and want to see it extended as our world hopefully grows more humane. Maybe I erred in using a word that is so over-freighted with emotion from an obsessively "anti-communist" world but I like Obama's statement very much (however skeptical I am of its implementation). So let's not fight about it, we are both ardent supporters of progressive taxation (I am at least) and fighters against regressive taxes (in Florida they call them "fees" for every desirable human activity under the sun).
Some people just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. That's one thing that frustrates me to no end about the progressive community. They are so disputative. It's like they look for something minute to pounce on. I got your points and they are well taken. I also admire your mature and civil response to quickstepper, who can try the patience of a saint. I give you props for handling it so well, because quickstepper is one of those posters that bring out the very worst in me.
winningticket: Aye lad (or lassie), we progressives are a disputatious lot, are we not? Reminds me of other situations of groups of people who are out of the "mainstream" of thought in their societies but who have a hard time in articulating an agreement alternative to the dominant ways they are protesting. John Knox, in his book Enthusiasm, about the development of revivalism in 16th and 17th century England, including the formation of the Methodist Church, said that when an organizing meeting for the church was held, the delegates would arrive in one carriage and depart in two. Maybe it goes with the territory called Radical, and all things considered, I'd still rather live in this territory than the one called Men's Wednesday Night Bible Discussion Group.
Seeing progressive taxation as a singular characteristic of a system which abolishes private property and distributes economic goods equally demands an overly simplified view of communism.
It's like saying the main idea of baseball is to wear a cap.
q
TAX THE RICH
FEED THE POOR
TAX THE RICH
'TIL THEY'RE RICH NO MORE
Marx: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
One-percenters: "from each according to his vulnerability, to each according to his greed."
Oh, that sums up the one-percent philosohpy in a nutshell!
Where can I obtain the e-mail address of a "punished millionaire" so that I can send him/her my Social Security check? It could be used to create a job or fuel a Rolls Royce.
Darn, if you can fuel a Rolls Royce with your SS check, lets send them mine and you can send yours to me!
If we have to force the rich to give an extra 5%, that is not as President Obama says, "Being part of the community." That is a tax. It might even be the right thing to do, I don't know, but to spin it and not call it a tax like Obama is doing is being deceptive.
Please show us where Obama stated that he is not increasing taxes. And by the way, a tax increase is not a new tax as your post implies.
q
Call it a contribution. People in the military are putting their lives on the line for the community but the 1% have no responsibility to the "community"
Call it a tax. I'm one of those "rich" they talk about, and I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind seeing the money wasted the way it is today. My willingness to pay taxes doesn't make me a communist, though. I don't care to see what I worked so hard to earn taken away by people who didn't have the prevision to work hard in school and then bust thier guts the way I did.
fdoleza
While I agree that wasted taxes a real problem, lets hold up on that "I worked so hard to earn taken away by people who didn't have the prevision to work hard in school and then bust their guts the way I did."
Many people bust their butt's in school but simply don't have the breaks others do, so they don't make as much money as some. Perhaps someone made a ton of bucks but their wife had a bad illness or a child had it and they lost everything. Happens every day.
Many of the men that have fought and died to maintain the country we have never got rich, but without them you couldn't have made your money. Without the less fortunate working for you or buying what you or your company sold, you wouldn't have to worry about it.
None of us exist in a vacuum and if we are not all in this together as one country and one people your money won't matter anyway. It is up to all of us that have been more fortunate to help those less fortunate...do you not agree? And if one lazy slob gets helped as we help a hundred others....would you begrudge the taxes you pay?
If we make more we are obligated to pay more, everyone being paid the same is Socialism, everything for the rich is Feudalistic. So I bet you'd rather be an American and share success as we should do and have done.
Dear Henry:
As I said, I don't mind paying taxes. As a matter of fact, I support estate taxes, and a progressive income tax. I do not support government waste. And it galls me to see some posters in these sites uttering communist non-sense. Equal is as equal does, and it doesn't make sense to build a society using Marxist principles. If we were to do so, we would end up where everybody else who tried it ended: poverty driven by economic inefficiency and lazy behavior fueled by lack of incentives to work and think hard.
I guess my problem is that I'm too pragmatic and too old to get on the bandwagon du jour. For example, I see the unabated illegal alien immigration as a serious threat to the working poor in America. It's a simple mechanism, the more unskilled labor is supplied at the bottom, the lower the market wages. So I've always been surprised to see the so called "progressives" advocate open borders, when that puts a knife on the back of the American working poor. As for people like me? It helps us. I get to hire cheaper gardeners, waiters, and construction workers.
If we were sensible and wanted to help people elsewhere, it makes a lot more sense to help Mexicans build train tracks and super highways from southern mexico towards the USA. This would allow them to raise agricultural products and manufactured goods and have quick cheap access to markets. Did you notice how wealth in Mexico is distributed so unevenly, with the South being a lot poorer than the North? It's caused by the lack of transportation infrastructure.
And please don't get me talking about our silly imperial wars or aid to Israel. I don't think we've got involved in a single war or conflict in the last 60 years that was worth fighting for, and aid to Israel is downright criminal. Now, that's a good place to start cutting the federal budget.
Regards
Dear fdoleza
Then we are in agreement and have some similar thoughts. Those that make more pay more.
Marxism and Socialist societies have been, are now and always will be failures. They are built on fallacious notions. But there are some good ideas there too.
"I see the unabated illegal alien immigration as a serious threat to the working poor in America. It's a simple mechanism, the more unskilled labor is supplied at the bottom, the lower the market wages. So I've always been surprised to see the so called "progressives" advocate open borders, when that puts a knife on the back of the American working poor."
This is something that baffles me and confuses me to no end. What you say is exactly correct. I have had some spirited conversations with people that say they are "Progressives" and even some liberals defending illegal immigration. They say they are the working man's friend, they claim to want to help the poor, then they turn right around and advocate taking the very thing these peoplke need most (job's) away from them. They even advocate taking medical care away from these folks kids to give it to illegal immigrants. They want to spend money on projects and clinics to help the same people and then advocate using that money to support the illegals instead. I truly do not understand the thought process that delivers this kind of nonsenseical thinking.
"I don't think we've got involved in a single war or conflict in the last 60 years that was worth fighting for"
Here we agree again.
"I guess my problem is that I'm too pragmatic and too old to get on the bandwagon du jour"
All I can say is, if anyone here doesn't think pragmatically they are whistling in the dark. The days of depending on what our parents built and left us are over. The ability to live on Tic is gone too.
No society can have an equality of outcome, thats self evident. But ours must maintain and strengthen the equality of opportunity, we have made great strides in our lifetime, but there is still a distance to go....at least its downhill now.
But we must always take care of the least among us, right? Without that you have no society worth saving.
Thanks for your considered answer.
Best Regards
You wrote: "Marxism and Socialist societies have been, are now and always will be failures. They are built on fallacious notions..."
I believe that we have covered this ground before, where I argued that it would be technically much more difficult to implement socialism successfully but that the rewards could be much greater, akin to the contrast between the difficult-to-control hot air balloon (capitalism) and the airplane (socialism). I think the key is to maximize the extent to which there is accountability -- one is rewarded on the basis of one's net contribution.
Capitalist systems have inherent flaws in that investors get rewarded for sitting on their duffs and that money tends to accumulate in the hands of a few, leading inevitably to the creation of powerful monied groups who then assert significant influence over the government, the media, and the general society. Of course the conscientious implement regulations and taxes that attempt to preclude the worst outcomes, but the wealthy and sophisticated create ever more sophisticated techniques to avoid taxes and regulations, with the government bureaucrats always following them and creating new regulations to plug the new holes. This continues indefinitely and the system becomes more and more complicated until it resembles a Rube Goldberg machine.
Accountable socialism is the appropriate goal of the left. Too many on the left fail to recognize that human behavior is composed of feedback loops, where behavior that is rewarded tends to increase in frequency while that which is not rewarded decreases (there are natural rewards for certain behaviors, so they will occur frequently regardless of whether society rewards them). Rewards and punishments are necessary for the development of widespread healthy behavior patterns. Such rewards and punishments could be accomplished in a number of ways, but generally in a civilized society economic means are used. Socialist societies could experiment with different levels of rewards to continually better approximate the optimal level.
A socialist implementation could be set up as democratic or as nondemocratic. In the US, and especially among US progressives, only a democratic implementation would be acceptable. But there are innumerable forms that a democratic system might take. I do not think experimentation would be available here, so the choice would probably just come down to hunches and taste.
I believe the greatest challenge would be coming to an agreement on how to evaluate policies. Capitalists like to use GDP or employment levels, or even the stock market, as indicators of the success of various policies. Socialists would not be using such indicators, and would have to choose the indicators to consider. There are obvious indicators such as the extent of hunger, homelessness, suicide incidence among the healthy, and infant mortality, longevity, and others could be included, such as some indicators of the physical health of the population and, to the extent there would be agreement on validity, some indicators of mental health and happiness. There could also be consideration of sustainability of practices and the impact on future generations, including the impact on the probability of long-term human survival. As the system was implemented, the list of indicators would evolve.
"I believe that we have covered this ground before"
We have indeed and you are a great advocate. I have come to the opinion that in principal, real capitalism (not the present form) is much the same as your "Accountable socialism" with a few differences of course.
I would also not argue that our Republic and our Democratic form of government could be improved on. If it was perfect we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"Too many on the left fail to recognize that human behavior is composed of feedback loops, where behavior that is rewarded tends to increase in frequency while that which is not rewarded decreases (there are natural rewards for certain behaviors, so they will occur frequently regardless of whether society rewards them). Rewards and punishments are necessary for the development of widespread healthy behavior patterns. Such rewards and punishments could be accomplished in a number of ways, but generally in a civilized society economic means are used."
You speak the truth here. Far too many expect that if you simply have the power to decree something or to divide everything up it will just be hunky dorey. Far from the truth that you just wrote.
There is no way (historically or that I can see) to guarantee equality of outcome. Which most Socialists argue is their goal. Almost all socialist societies that I know of end in Dictatorship. The first danger. Or they collapse from their inherent weakness, the inability to produce. The second danger.
Social democracies like Europes can function well for a while, but usually end as they are doing now, cutting benefits because they cannot pay for them. And those are also usually in small countries, with small populations....and usually homogeneous populations. Those models won't work here.
But I believe what we are talking about might. Regulated capitalism with oversight to produce goods and services efficiently, but a socialist policy for the human side of the economy. I'd measure it with jobs. Without a real job (not make work or assigned) its hard for men and women to have freedom or respect. GDP would follow., so would the stock market. Am I making any sense to you here?
I'd include research into real energy sources to replace carbon based energy. Not the silly buffonery being presented now. People conserve when you show them its in their best interest. Many leftist's seem to have trouble with the idea that many people are not nearly as stupid as they say they are nor do they respond well to bullies.
I'm not as clear as you, but I hope you are getting my drift.....or am I just drifting! (lol)
"Without a real job (not make work or assigned) its hard for men and women to have freedom or respect."
I believe that for any individual to experience much happiness or joy in life the individual must be significantly involved in some activity that produces continual rewards (positive feedback loops involving the individual's brain), with such activity possibly falling within the meaning of "job" and possibly not. What is necessary is the development of models of activity or "jobs" that are to be promoted because they improve the common welfare, as determined by the expected effect on such indicators as those I described (such expectations subject to change based on new data).
Of course it is a long distance from here to a socialist government, and the distance appears to grow by the year. What disturbs me is that I cannot see how a socialist movement could succeed unless the great majority of people in the society share the same values, and I believe that values in the US are diverging, not coming together. The 20th Century, when the great majority of Americans were Christians or held Judeo-Christian values, offered an opportunity to implement a socialist system with such values. That window is now closed. And far too many progressives appear to assume that atheists and agnostics will likely have similar values, which is patently false even for atheists/agnostics who are anti-corporate or anti-capitalist. There are far too many issues regarding social organization that cannot be answered in any satisfactory manner by science and which traditionally have been answered by religions, particularly religions uniformly adopted, usually with the uniformity having been achieved through centuries of flowing blood.
I am not optimistic about the prospects for socialism, for avoiding fascism or a dystopian future, or even for human survival through the 21st Century.
I cannot dispute you till the last paragraph.
I believe that indeed tenents and forms of Socialism (not the ersatz version being pushed by this bunch in the White House and this corrupt Congress) will be incorporated into our government at every level.
We will certainly avoid fascism as long as we remain an armed citizenry. Many on the left like to make fun of the "rednecks, etc....but our founding fathers were wise enough to know this. Hard for Nationalist dictatorships to rule folks that shoot back.
We must be a nation but bounded by the States. The Feds have too much power now.
We will survive abnd thrive going forward. Adapt and change is the greatest power humans have. There will be no widespread poverty in our country unless we allow it and we will not. All the Climate BS is exactly that, go back and you'll find the same bunch yelling about We're running out of oil, Ozone holes, Ice Age, Global Warming, etc ad infinitum. Truth is the climate is changing as it always does, but they do have things right in areas. Conservation, sharing more resources, renewable energy......all important but being slowed by the bullies trying to scare people into obeying their vision.
The religions will sort themselves out. They nop longer have the hold they once did. But God help the bozo's that try to impose nihilism on them.
I am very optimistic now, even more so since Obma has been exposed so early. I hope you see vast improvements over the next year. Improvements that will change the way you see the future....and feel about it.
Peace my friend.
I would like to add to my above comment the clarification that I am an anti-corporate agnostic, and have been since my teens, and that most of my friends during my life have been anti-corporate agnostics or atheists. However, I have found that those agnostic/atheists I met who did not have Catholic, Episcopalian, or Jewish parents often did not have values similar to mine. And I find that the variance in values in the US population of agnostics/atheists is much greater than it was 30 years ago.
Certtainly nothing amiss about being anti-corporate! The further the management gets from the owners and workers the worse it tends to be.
"And I find that the variance in values in the US population of agnostics/atheists is much greater than it was 30 years ago."
I would suggest to you that the reason for that is simply the greater number today than 30 years ago. And there are at least 40 million legal immigrants into our country that added to that number and with different backgrounds.
"There is no way (historically or that I can see) to guarantee equality of outcome. Which most Socialists argue is their goal. Almost all socialist societies that I know of end in Dictatorship. The first danger."
The goal of socialists is not to GUARANTEE equality. It is to STRIVE for a more equal society.
As for the claim that socialist societies end in dictatorship, one could make the same of many capitalist societies.
China is demonstrating clearly that there is NO link between capitalism and democracy. China is a capitalistic despotism.
The Gulf Arab countries, and emirates, demonstrate that there is no link between capitalism and democracy. Dubai, for example, is very much a capitalistic emirate. It is no democracy. And Dubai is considered one of the more liberal democratic emirates / countries in the middle east.
The Latin American dictatorships allied with and propped up by the US in the past, demonstrate that there is no link between capitalism and democracy. In fact, let's look at what is happening in Honduras now. Who staged the coup, hmm? The socialists? Emmm, no. Who are the supporters of the coup, hmm?
India has flirted with both socialism and capitalism. It flirted with socialism for decades. It still is a democracy.
The Capitalism Uber Alles types such as Lawrence Summers fear democracy, they support totalitarian regimes of elite "experts" who will tell the rest of the world how to live. Similarly, authoritarian East Asian leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore, are cheerleaders of capitalism, and scorn socialism and democracy and individual liberties. In fact, Lee of Singapore, has long derided India's democracy, and has long claimed that India's democracy is what has held it back.
The claim that capitalism is linked with democracy is FALSE. A MYTH.
Neither socialism nor capitalism lead to dictatorships. Neither socialism nor capitalism lead to democracy and civil liberties. Concentration of power leads to dictatorships. Restrictions on concentration of power lead to democracy and civil liberties.
"Or they collapse from their inherent weakness, the inability to produce. The second danger."
More Reaganomics. Another supply sider. You can produce as much as you want, if there is no demand for your products, you are wasting your time and resources. The US can produce as many cars it wants, no one wants to buy US cars.
Something that Japan, and many of the East Asian economies are starting to realise. Which is why they are trying to find ways to stimulate internal demand in their (Asian) markets, and not have to rely so much on supplying goods and services to the US and European markets.
"Social democracies like Europes can function well for a while, but usually end as they are doing now, cutting benefits because they cannot pay for them. And those are also usually in small countries, with small populations....and usually homogeneous populations. Those models won't work here."
In many cases they are having problems paying for them, BECAUSE they foolishly got seduced by the American model, and tried to follow it. They are having problems because they looked at the US, got stars in their eyes, and tried to emulate the US. A mistake they are beginning to realise. France and Germany are both examples of this.
Also, none of France, nor Germany are small countries with small populations. Nor are they homogeneous, especially not France.
Furthermore, you conveniently do not mention that the US is paying for its system essentially via loans from the rest of the world. It works fine, as long as the rest of the world is willing to trade goods and services for American paper.
"Without a real job (not make work or assigned) its hard for men and women to have freedom or respect. GDP would follow., so would the stock market. Am I making any sense to you here?"
Is being in the military a "real" job? Why? What useful goods and services result from bombing civilians? Who gets to define what is a "real" job? You?
"If we were sensible and wanted to help people elsewhere, it makes a lot more sense to help Mexicans build train tracks and super highways from southern mexico towards the USA."
No mention of the outrageous interest that 3rd world countries like Mexico are burdened by because the IMF (an arm of the Chicago boys style shock-economics) went in and made them an offer they couldn't refuse?
And another thing, I don't care how old you are, smart you are, or rich you are - you got that way because of the sweat and toil of millions of others (and often by being lucky enough to be born into the right family). I'm so fucking sick of hearing rich people boast of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps when it was actually all of our bootstraps that helped them (YOU) up! Including that of immigrants, legal and non.
Money does that to people. Makes them forgetful and ungrateful. And arrogant.
Well, the key here is what is "economic inefficiency and lazy behavior fueled by lack of incentives to work and think hard."
Consider that the US by FAR outspends the rest of the world on the military. Consider that the military takes up about HALF the federal budget.
If the military budget were cut by half, reduced from 50% of the federal budget to 25%, think of all the inefficiency and waste that would be eliminated.
withdrawn
Lets say, for argiuing, that everyone is born talented and bright, and studied hard in school like you. Wouldn't there be a terrible glut of brain surgeons, aerospace engineers, or top executives like you (thereby, per market forces, causing pay to plumment for these occupations? Doesn't SOMEONE have to dig the ditches, dump the garbage, and mop the floors? Isn't this hard work too? Shouldn't such unpleasant work that nobody really wants to do be compensated at least as hignly as "prestigous" work?, Better yet, shouldnt we structure the workplace so nobody gets stuck doing th unplesant and unempoering work all the time?
These are real, not rhetorical questions.
Is it the assumption that if you don't make a lot of money, then you aren't working hard? What if every person you came across today that you might label a "loser" would have worked hard in school and busted their guts. Who would do all the little things that make your life so comfortable? It's too bad that Americans don't really know how to strike. Because in other countries, everyone knows how valuable the garbage collectors, the teachers, and the workers are because they can - and have - shut the place down.
I know that most of what I consume was made by people who didn't make very much money for what they did, and most of what I pay for it goes to the 1- percenters. In fact, most of it goes to "profits" for investors who didn't do anything other than try to make a fast back through casino capitalism.
Does it help to think of it as an exploitation fee rather than a tax? In a finite world, when 1% are getting such a disproportionate share of the pie, we need to think about that. What would we say -- all of us here on CD, if we had to redesign a system from scratch that would be sustainable and workable, how would we divide that pie? What would get rewarded and what wouldn't?
The people in the military are "putting their lives on the line" for the greed of the 1-percenters, nothing more.
True, Brian. But, their real motivation as individuals is gang loyalty first, and their own greed second. (Even if most don't get paid a lot, it is a tremendous amount more than their net contribution, which is negative.)
The "know nothings" are out my friend.
This country was modeled on the Roman Slave Republic before the Gracchi brothers by kiddie raping richfilth slave owners (and their insurers and lawyers) here in the colonies because they believed that such a society would give THEM the power, wealth, and private law that normally resided in a King. We were "meat" for their machine then. We are meat for their machine now. And of course, however squalid, debased and degraded the white majority becomes it will always kiss the whip and despise any society based on Inclusion. This is a Slave Empire. Was designed to be a Slave Empire. And when the choice was on the table waay back in the mid/late 60's in very meaningful ways, the white majority, when faced with demands for Inclusion, turned it's back on those demands and ran into the arms of RMN and Raygun - and here we are - and they still think it was a good choice...that's why they are doomed as a people, as a nation, and as a slave empire.
And what has happened in history to all of the oppressors ?
Revolution.
Will the 1% be able to escape this fate ?
Where to hide ? Hire Blackwater types ? 99 to 1 is pretty poor odds.
Jack up that tax rate-it's time to democratize economic pain.
Poet
Roll back the Reagan tax-cuts. Put a tax surcharge on the 1% until there are as few billionaires as there were under Eisenhower. There were five of them, worldwide. Help the 1% to become citizens again.
A great idea as Thom Hartmann suggested in his article a few days ago. Things are better for everyone when those who derive the greatest benefit from a system pay their fair share to maintain that system.
q
If it takes a village, or "collective sacrifice" as the POTUS says, then why have just 1% pay for the whole encilada. Why not insist that we all contribute something. Why would any of you leave you health care in the financial hands of the 1% who are certainly not looking out for you. If you contribute to the plan you own a piece. If you don't and leave it up to 1% of the population chances are you will never recieve one iota of medical care. What are you people thinking? WTF are you all idiots?
". . . then why have just 1% pay for the whole encilada. (sic)"
Please show us where anyone suggested having one per cent pay for everything.
q
Re paleomarc July 24th, 2009 11:00 am, who asks
"...why have just 1% pay for the whole encilada (sic)."
Think of progressive taxation as a kind of water meter. Those who benefit (or consume) the most, in fairness, ought to pay the most.
Agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Or another response could be:
If you tax everyone at the same rate it will disproportionaltely impact the poor person, because he/she who must spend nearly all his/her pay on necessities. But a wealthy person only needs to spend a tiny fraction of their income on necessities. So simple fairness dictates that higher incomes pay taxes at a higher rate, becasue with so much wealth concentrated in the top 1% it o maximizes revenue while impacting the fewest poeple. Remember, the purpose of a democracy is to maximizing the welfare and happiness of the greatest number of people.
The argument is that is it counterproductive to tax the rich at a higher rate, because it reduces the amount of money for investment and the porchase of expensive consumer items that help the manufactiring sector. But studies have shown that performance of an economy is much more sensitive to taxes on lower incomes than higher incomes. For every $1 of reduced taxes on lower or middle income, up to several dollars is added to the GDP. A $1 tax break on high incomes creates less than a dollar in increased GDP - a negative return!
Your screed here is the only one that reads like it was written by a "F"'n idiot.
If you think that this one is bad, see his post below at 1:01 PM.
q
Having this much of a scarce commodity has a name: HOARDING. These 1%'ers are not saints, they are criminals.
We've contributed quite a bit since last August, as have our children and grandchildren..... wake up you wonk.
The question I would ask is:
What percentage of that 1% obtained their money as part of the predatory fraud scheme that took place on Wall Street and specifically in the financial sector.....essentially, the people who took part in the "financial innovation" schemes that took down the global economy while they themselves became multi-millionaires and billionaires in the process.
Investors were bilked in the $TRILLIONS by these fraudsters while Bernie Madoff was the only slime to get put into the slammer.
Meanwhile, taxpayers in the U.S. and elsewhere are not only paying for the losses of the fraud that took place, but as the media has warned us, the "financial" players on Wall Street are gearing-up again to anoint themselves with $$$Billions more in bonuses while job losses mount and the economy continues to tank.
Of course, we must extend our thanks to Congress for allowing the banks to increase credit card interest rates so their buddies at the banks could realize their annual bonuses and divert some of those profits toward campaign contributions while they continue to rip-off financially devastated citizens. Congress has given us ample reason to become skeptics of a system that appears to work only for them and their wealthy contributors.
Tax the predators - not the people who actually earn their money!
Nice comment.
Frankly I've never understood why a good idea from Marx should not be as good an idea as one from our founding fathers. As long as its a good idea and works to give people freedom and safety....who cares where it came from.
Progressive taxation is as American as apple pie. If you make more you should pay more. You make that money within a framework provided by all citizens and for that benefit you owe a civic responsibility.
Aside from that, peoples civic duty is fulfilled in many different ways, some people serve in the military, some as police, fireman, teachers. Some work with the poor. volunteer to help others in their community less fortunate. Ther's a lady of 72 that shows up to work on our Habitat Houses. She works in 100 degree heat all day, she has a modest pension and SS. Doesn't live in as good a house as some she helps build. She does it because she says thats the best way she can help others (and she handles a nail gun pretty darn good)
So if you make a lot of money you pay more in taxes than she does. Thats your civic duty.
So why would anyone question raising taxes back to where they were a few years ago? The tax rate under Clinton didn't slow the economy.
It's getting even harder to tell a liberal from a conservative when it comes to litmus testing them on who'll give up their taxpayer funded luxuries to help the working class. The out of control tax cutting is being funded by borrowed money from China and Japan and whatever other big nation we're borrowing from. Add to it, the public services that our critical to our nation's well being are being seriously deprived. Most people who scream for more tax cutting aren't even trying to pay attention to the finer details.
At some point, you'll have to pay your taxes and that could and will trickle down to state and local levels. Even on the state and local elections, it's always a contest about who will be best for not raising taxes and/or who will cut the most taxes and then after the election more budget woos followed by fudging the numbers to keep those anti-tax zealots "happy". Yep, the wealthiest couldn't have it any better with us clueless dingbats falling for it every time !