Plutocracy Reborn

[What if...?]

This post looks familiar

Bill Moyers
LOL


global economy-the new reality

whining about the rich won't change that
'taxing the rich more won't bring back high paying jobs for undereducated Factory workers

Nor will taxing them less.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nor will taxing them less.

I think the burden should always be one those who want the government to take more wealth to justify it

not on those of us who are tired of being taxed more

all taxing the rich more does is give the dems an excuse to spend even more to buy votes

 

[mbig]

I think the burden should always be one those who want the government to take more wealth to justify it

not on those of us who are tired of being taxed more
....

EXcept..

You're NOT being taxed "more".. you're being Taxed LESS. Both in Income Tax Rates and Dividends/Capital Gains and Estate Taxes.
Divs and Cap Gains at near half their 10 yr ago rate.. and Income tax at about Half it's Rate through most of the 20th Century.

This at at time when the Govt Needs more.. no less.
The Burden SHOULD Be/Should have been on those like Bush who want to Cut taxes but Not spending.

 

[xpiher]

This interview is simply the latest proof that Rand Paul is a right wing wacko of the worst sort and disgraces the Senate every moment by his mere presence.

I don't think so. I think he suffers from the same problem his father used to suffer, which is not being clear in his statements. What he said is largely true. When you tax something to much, people stop buying, and when people stop buying, jobs start disappearing. However, he is very different from his father because he is much more influenced by Objectivism which is dangerous when applied by those with power to mask their intentions.

Liberals want to tax and spend more.
Libertarians want to tax and spend less.

That's really all we're talking about. Republicans aren't saying lowering taxes is an answer to the made up problems that liberals claim the nation is facing. They are both simply saying what they want to occur. Liberals - raise taxes and spend...libertarians, lower taxes and cut spending. Conservatives...I really don't know what those buggers want.

Conservative want to cut taxes and spend more for their projects. Anyways, the libertarians I know and talk to want to cut spending drastically and raise operative taxes nominally.

The new Plutocracy is supported by Republicans and inadvertently supported by many libertarians and all are justified in their misappropriation of thinkers such as Adam Smith, Hayek, and Friedman. The central economic question of our time, which has to be answered or we'll soon see a reemergence of revolutionary tendencies, is what creates the best economy. Is it the economy better served by CEOs getting millions in bonuses or is the system better served by those millions being split up between the lowest paid workers evenly? The answer should be clear, but as long as the evil maximum is the most esteemed value of society, it will not happen.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Say what you want about rates/effective rates.
The debate is MOOT if they aren't effectIVE of achieving their goal of a vibrant balanced society with a Large Middle Class. The Middle Class being what Made/Makes America.. America.

And there is NO debate Wealth Disparity is Growing.
Many Partisan Hacks on the Right feel people/middle/poor are getting Lazier. But there are easily identifiable variables that say otherwise.

Clearly the COLLAPSE of Top Marginal Rates among others (like 'Free Trade'), etc etc.
And of course the HALVING of Capital Gains/Dividends and busting of the Estate Tax by Bush was the coup de grâce.
Nonetheless the Kudlow/Hannity talking heads want MORE shifting of the Burden Down on the lower Incomes by dropping Cap Gains altogether.

However, this simply cannot go on-- not even at current/Already-won-Class-Warfare-by-the-rich-and-their-bought-congress.

Plutocracy Reborn

Past performance is no indicator of future gains.
Just looking at graphs from a narrow historical perspective, without analyzing the little details can lead you to folly.

 

[TurtleDude]

EXcept..

You're NOT being taxed "more".. you're being Taxed LESS. Both in Income Tax Rates and Dividends/Capital Gains and Estate Taxes.
Divs and Cap Gains at near half their 10 yr ago rate.. and Income tax at about Half it's Rate through most of the 20th Century.

This at at time when the Govt Needs more.. no less.
The Burden SHOULD Be/Should have been on those like Bush who want to Cut taxes but Not spending.

so as long as the government "needs" more the rich ought to pay more and more? and I want to cut spending-lots of spending

 

[haymarket]

so as long as the government "needs" more the rich ought to pay more and more? and I want to cut spending-lots of spending

Many of us want to cut lots of spending. That does not exclude fine tuning the other side of the balance sheet.

 

[mbig]

I think the burden should always be one those who want the government to take more wealth to justify it

not on those of us who are tired of being taxed more
....

EXcept..

You're NOT being taxed "more".. you're being Taxed LESS. Both in Income Tax Rates and Dividends/Capital Gains and Estate Taxes.
Divs and Cap Gains at near Half their 10 yr ago rate.. and Income tax at about Half it's Rate through most of the 20th Century.

This at at time when the Govt Needs more.. no less.
The Burden SHOULD Be/Should have been on those like Bush who want to Cut taxes but Not spending.

so as long as the government "needs" more the rich ought to pay more and more? and I want to cut spending-lots of spending

So there's no longer any disagreement.
The Rich are being Taxed LESS both in terms of the last Decade, and for the most part.. Century.

 

[TurtleDude]

So there's no longer any disagreement.
The Rich are being Taxed LESS both in terms of the last Decade, and for the most part.. Century.

the rich are carrying more of the income tax burden now as well. and they are being taxed more now than they were for say the first 150 years of the nation. and the rich get nothing for carrying more and more of the income tax burden do they?

this decade has been what-10 years-and the tax rates for the "rich" have been the same for 8 or so years

8 out of 10

Last decade? you are lying

 

[TurtleDude]

the lowest three quintiles (60%) of the population also is paying less of the income tax share than at anytime in the last several decades.

its time the slackers started paying their share and stopped whining about the rich who pay-no matter this week or 50 years ago-way too much

 

[haymarket]

the rich are carrying more of the income tax burden now as well. and they are being taxed more now than they were for say the first 150 years of the nation. and the rich get nothing for carrying more and more of the income tax burden do they?

It is beyond absurd to try to compare taxation today to taxation at a time when we were an isolated backwater upstart nation of 13 states in which 90% were farmers or small merchants serving farmers. When we go back to that status, let us all know and you may have a point.

And your personal greed is again showing through with this constant whine about "I don't get any more than anybody else" nonsense. Man up and learn for heavens sake that taxation is not going to costco and filling your cart and paying for only what you want. The whining is getting irritating. Your Continual Costco Confusion is preventing your from even starting to approach this subject with any sense of real world reality.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is beyond absurd to try to compare taxation today to taxation at a time when we were an isolated backwater upstart nation of 13 states in which 90% were farmers or small merchants serving farmers. When we go back to that status, let us all know and you may have a point.

And your personal greed is again showing through with this constant whine about "I don't get any more than anybody else" nonsense. Man up and learn for heavens sake that taxation is not going to costco and filling your cart and paying for only what you want. The whining is getting irritating. Your Continual Costco Confusion is preventing your from even starting to approach this subject with any sense of real world reality.

if you are unwilling to pay the same amount of taxes that I do then it is YOU who is greedy demanding I pay more when you don't

 

[mbig]

if you are unwilling to pay the same amount of taxes that I do then it is YOU who is greedy demanding I pay more when you don't

The Vast majority WOULD like to Make more AND pay more.
A problem everyone would like to have.

 

[haymarket]

When you are born on third base and your daddy owns the team, its not surprising when you cross home plate.

 

[obvious Child]

If you want to help the middle class and poor, tell the Fed to stop destroying the value of the dollar. That is the tax that is killing the middle and lower classes.

Is that actually true though? As I understand it, the middle class and poor are the primary workers in export oriented manufacturing. Reducing the value of the dollar should actually help them as it should increase business as their goods are less expensive compared to substitutes. If anything, the rich are getting screwed on a weak dollar as they are more likely to travel and hold large amounts of investments sensitive to currency fluctuations.

 

[mbig]

More from Moyers:

"another story... also from the Wall Street Journal. The reporter Ianthe Jeanne Dugan described how the private equity firm Blackstone Group swooped down on a travel reservation company in Colorado, bought it, Laid off 841 employees, and recouped its entire investment in just 7 months, one of the quickest returns on capital ever for such a deal. Blackstone made a killing while those workers were left to sift through the debris.
They sold their homes, took part-time jobs making sandwiches and coffee, and lost their health insurance.
[........]
That fall, Blackstone’s chief executive, Stephen Schwarzman, reportedly worth over $5 billion, rented a luxurious resort in Jamaica to celebrate the marriage of his son. According to the Guardian News, the Montego Bay facility alone cost $50,000, plus thousands more to sleep 130 guests. There were drinks on the beach, dancers and a steel band, marshmallows around the fire, and then, the following day, an opulent wedding banquet with champagne and a jazz band and fireworks display that alone cost $12,500. Earlier in the year Schwarzman had rented out the Park Avenue Armory in New York (near his 35-room apartment) to celebrate his 60th birthday at a cost of $3 million. So? It’s his money, isn’t it? Yes, but consider this: The stratospheric income of private-equity partners is taxed at only 15% – less than the rate paid, say, by a middle class family. When Congress considered raising the rate on their Midas-like compensation, the financial titans flooded Washington with armed mercenaries – armed, that is, with hard, cold cash – and brought the “debate” to an end faster than it had taken Schwartzman to fire 841 workers. The financial class had won another round in the exploitation of working people who, if they are lucky enough to have jobs, are paying a higher tax rate than the super-rich.

So the answer to the question: “Do the Rich Need the Rest of America?” is as stark as it is ominous: Many don’t. As they form their own financial culture increasingly separated from the fate of everyone else, it is “hardly surprising,” Frank and Lind concluded, “ that so many of them should be so hostile to paying taxes to support the infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of the American people.”

 

[TurtleDude]

The Vast majority WOULD like to Make more AND pay more.
A problem everyone would like to have.

what relevance is that. those of us who pay far more than our fair share of taxes are tired of paying more and more to keep dem voters happy

 

[xpiher]

Is that actually true though? As I understand it, the middle class and poor are the primary workers in export oriented manufacturing. Reducing the value of the dollar should actually help them as it should increase business as their goods are less expensive compared to substitutes. If anything, the rich are getting screwed on a weak dollar as they are more likely to travel and hold large amounts of investments sensitive to currency fluctuations.

The poor and middle class aren't, as a collective block, given as much of a chance for social promotion because they cannot save their way to fame so to speak. Not only that, they are hurt in the interim period before wages catch up to inflation, while the rich experience a huge windfall both in the short run, being the first to get money to spend before inflation hits, and in the long run from the cumulative gains made during all the inflationary times.

The only people helped by constant inflation are people with debt, and people are prompted to get more debt by the inflationary practices, or at the least not save, because the dollar will be worth more right now than it will be tomorrow. For the economy and society as a whole, this is just bad because all wealth and capital comes from some form of savings, whether is goods that are more durable and repaired or the accumulation of capital.

 

[TurtleDude]

More from Moyers:

The opinion of a far left hack like Moyers means nothing. what sort of expertise does this guy have? far less than say Ann Coulter who actually has prestigious honors degrees from top schools. Moyers has a masters in DIVINITY. (surprised that the left lionizes the man)

 

[xpiher]

The opinion of a far left hack like Moyers means nothing. what sort of expertise does this guy have? far less than say Ann Coulter who actually has prestigious honors degrees from top schools. Moyers has a masters in DIVINITY. (surprised that the left lionizes the man)

Please don't tell me you actually think Coulter is anything other than a corporatism shill.

 

[TurtleDude]

Please don't tell me you actually think Coulter is anything other than a corporatism shill.

No more or less a shill than Moyers but she is far better educated and on some issues she is clearly an expert.

 

[imagep]

No more or less a shill than Moyers but she is far better educated and on some issues she is clearly an expert.

I've never really believed in "experts".

Assuming that the definition of an expert is someone who knows a vast amount about a particular subject, then how is it possible that so many experts disagree so much about the same topic? I would presume that if they were really experts, they would all pretty much have the same knowlege about the topic, and thus would pretty much come to the same conclusions. So if they come to different conclusions, then they must posess different sets of knowlege, without a lot of overlap in those sets thus they are not actually as knowledgble as they would like us "non-experts" to believe.

Of course I'm not an expert of this subject, so what would I know.

 

[xpiher]

I've never really believed in "experts".

Assuming that the definition of an expert is someone who knows a vast amount about a particular subject, then how is it possible that so many experts disagree so much about the same topic? I would presume that if they were really experts, they would all pretty much have the same knowlege about the topic, and thus would pretty much come to the same conclusions. So if they come to different conclusions, then they must posess different sets of knowlege, without a lot of overlap in those sets thus they are not actually as knowledgble as they would like us "non-experts" to believe.

Of course I'm not an expert of this subject, so what would I know.

Personal bias can produce all kinds of results.

 

[TurtleDude]

I've never really believed in "experts".

Assuming that the definition of an expert is someone who knows a vast amount about a particular subject, then how is it possible that so many experts disagree so much about the same topic? I would presume that if they were really experts, they would all pretty much have the same knowlege about the topic, and thus would pretty much come to the same conclusions. So if they come to different conclusions, then they must posess different sets of knowlege, without a lot of overlap in those sets thus they are not actually as knowledgble as they would like us "non-experts" to believe.

Of course I'm not an expert of this subject, so what would I know.

there are two kinds of experts. objective experts who use their expertise to come to a conclusion and then there are experts who have an agenda and claim their expertise makes their position correct.

example-I have defended malpractice cases. I hire a doctor and tell him to come up with his opinion of whether there was malpractice or not. if he says yes, I tell my client to write a check. If he says no I try the case. However, I know that in some cases attorneys want a position defended.

or worse in politics. Krugman is an example of someone who has a position and uses his "expertise" to advance that position. same with some of the anti gun "scholars"

 

[mbig]

Past performance is no indicator of future gains.
Just looking at graphs from a narrow historical perspective, without analyzing the little details can lead you to folly.

Such as?

Logic and past performance are our best tools in this matter.
Posting Platitudes instead of specific objections is wasting bandwidth; tho not much.