EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
More for Them, Less for You
What would you say to a family financial adviser who suggested your wisest investment would be to liquidate your own retirement account and empty out your kids' college fund to buy your wealthy cousin a new Bentley? Would you go ahead and gamble with your life savings in hopes that your cousin would send you a big thank-you check, or would you hire a new financial adviser?
The current crop of Republicans vying for the presidential nomination are all champions of a reverse-Robin Hood methodology that calls for soaking the poor to give more lavish tax breaks to the rich, and calling it "job creation." Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, known as the most liberal of the GOP contenders, recently unveiled an economic plan that calls for cutting the top tax rate to 23%, cutting the US corporate tax rate to 25%, and completely eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes-- which would exclusive benefit obscenely rich investors like Warren Buffett. To pay for it, Huntsman's plan would raise taxes on seniors, veterans and working families with children. Rather than being dismissed as radical and/or cruel, this plan has been endorsed by the Wall Street Journal.
Not to be outdone, Michele Bachmann is toying with the idea of not just cutting the corporate tax rate, but eliminating corporate taxes altogether. Rick Perry says a 0% corporate tax rate will "get the economy working again." Sarah Palin is also jumping on the end-corporate-taxes bus. Mitt Romney insists corporations are people. All of President Obama's potential challengers are falling all over themselves to proclaim the biggest obstacles faced by America's private sector "job creators" are America's corporate income tax rate and federal regulations.
If that's the case, America's "job creators" aren't doing their job. While our marginal corporate tax rate of 35% is constantly criticized as one of the world's highest, corporate income taxes barely count for 1 percent of GDP, thanks to all the corporate gimmicks and loopholes in the US tax code. Corporations continue to hoard $800 billion in cash while jobs continue their flight out of the country. And instead of trickling down, all of the wealth has collected at the top. Since 2009, 88% of income growth went toward corporate profits, not more jobs and higher wages.
President Obama's highly-anticipated jobs plan comes just after a jobs report that showed every private sector job created was offset with lost public sector jobs. America's small business owners, the real job creators, say taxes and regulations have nothing to do with the slump in hiring -- rather, the continued loss of public sector jobs is taking money out of consumers' pockets, meaning less demand for small business owners who need customers before they can hire.
It shouldn't surprise American voters that the same presidential candidates chomping at the bit to deregulate corporations and cut taxes for the super-rich are themselves super-rich, or that leading GOP presidential hopefuls are also financed by billionaires who fight regulations tooth and nail. Their "jobs" agenda has nothing to do with creating jobs, but is rather intended to make them more attractive to wealthy donors who will be flooding the GOP field with cash this election season.
And while Obama's challengers continue to bemoan the burdensome environment for the private sector, those employers are actually growing jobs in line with normal expectations during a recovery. The real drag on hiring has been in the public sector, largely due to job-killing budget cuts, handed down by largely Republican administrations. Consumer demand creates jobs, not tax cuts. Republican governors naming a job-killing spending plan a "jobs budget" won't change the fact that their budgets will inevitably kill jobs.
Even in 1785, Thomas Jefferson knew a progressive tax was the most fair when he wrote, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” And today, lifetime registered Republican, corporate CEO and tax guru Henry Bloch of H&R Block says the idea of lowering taxes to create jobs is "baloney." Rather, a common-sense solution to pay for any jobs plan is taxing the same Wall Street bankers who created this mess. Taxing the trading of abstract financial instruments like derivatives and credit default swaps could generate $1.5 trillion in a decade. Though because such a proposal is likely to draw ire from the big banks, it seems unlikely any of the current candidates will talk up the idea.
In these dire economic times, Americans must not choose feeble-minded leaders who boast such a stupefying lack of knowledge on economic issues. The next time we go to the polls, let's pick financial advisers who actually want to see us do well, not sell our livelihoods and futures to the highest bidder.
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...


10 Comments so far
Show AllIf the rich and the wealthy in this country did not receive their tax breaks from the government then they would not be able to fulfill Thorstein Veblen's observation that he made in his classic work The Theory of the Leisure Class [1899] when he noted that:
"Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure."
"Not to be outdone, Michele Bachmann..."
Not to be outdone, Michele Bachmann?!!!
How about not to be outdone the entire Democratic Party ergo every single member of the elite club known as Congress?
How about not to be outdone Barack Obama?
I mean really.
NO ONE is your friend in Washington D.C unless you are a multimillionaire.
That is where everyone in this country's head needs to be.
We are a unrepresented populace and to keep on pretending that we are only plays into the chimerical constructs that the elite use to exploit us and extract our wealth from us.
Oh it's just the Republicans who do these things, is it?
Was I dreaming or did Obama and two houses of a Democrat-controlled Congress Jan 2009- Jan 2011 extend the Bush tax cuts while bailing out Wall St. spending billions on war after unconstitutional war and letting agencies like the USPS bleed dry?
Or as the head thief in the old Disney Tom Thumb cartoon said, "One for you and two for me." Barack Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in history. Michelle Bachmann would be better because when she says a truly crazy thing, most people will recognize it as crazy. When Obama says truly crazy things -- like war is peace and giving trillions to the rich creates jobs -- "progressives" ooh and ah over him as the three-dimensional chess player outwitting the right wing, when in fact the man has spent his entire career catering to the rich and stealing from the poor. We do live in a Sheriff of Nottingham society.
Wall Street Journal = WS Casino's Racing Form
"The next time we go to the polls, let's pick financial advisers who actually want to see us do well, not sell our livelihoods and futures to the highest bidder."
Financial advisers who won't sell out?
Maybe Jesus will come down again and save us
Direct democracy
"'Chomping' on the bit"? Did you mean "champing"? Captain Grammar will not allow the language to be degraded w/o a fight. [And save your outraged comments about how it's not the most important part of the essay. If you're too stupid to understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of the words that make up our thought processes (see Ludwig Wittgenstein) I refuse to engage you further. Suffice it to say, it's an obligation of everyone who enters the public forum]
!6th and 17th century english speakers were a little more free-wheeling with the language. Didn't seem to interfere with their (there they're) thought processes though (through tough thought). And how ungrammatical was that Shakespear guy (Shakspur?). Maybe his wescott under his waistcoat was two too many; too tight to. I guess they started getting all snooty by the 18th century, what with the tempting prospect of global empire bidding them to "partake of this forbidden fruit" (started forbidding gaelic and cymraeg at about that time too). This is kinda fun. Guess I'm too stupid to know better. Methinks ignorance is bliss however (or is that whatever?).
What about that Rick the Perry dog? Damn I really don't think this dog would really be man or woman's best friend. It's sad but true like Shakespearean plays often.
For some interesting grammar points and other terms mistakenly used see:
http://www.langston.com/English/
My favorite:
"It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs."
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News