This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Santelli's 'Tax-The-Wealth, Not-The-Income' Plan

Tyler Durden's picture




 

With the varied interests of constituents very much in mind, finding a compromise over taxation will be worse than Sisyphean in nature we suspect. CNBC's Rick Santelli offers a strawman, that gets around Norquist's 'pledge' and perhaps provides cover for both parties. The Chicagoan recognizes that what seems like a high-salary to some is very much not to others and suggests instead of focusing on the income, we should focus on the wealth. This is not the first time such a proposition was suggested (as we noted 14 months ago that 'muddle-through' was over and "we are confident, that one way or another, sooner or later, it will be implemented. Namely a one-time wealth tax: in other words, instead of stealth inflation, the government will be forced to proceed with over transfer of wealth") Strawman or not, the fact that Santelli is discussing it (and demurs on whether he has been contacted) means it is on the table...

 

The Pledge...

The Strawman...

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:40 | 2964962 spastic_colon
spastic_colon's picture

o/t kevin must be back from vacation....ctrl/p very evident today

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:11 | 2965128 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

What wealth?  My boat sank!!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:37 | 2965308 redpill
redpill's picture

If you want to tax wealth, repeal the 16th amendment and the income tax and institute a consumption tax on new retail goods and services.  Wealthy people always buy new.  The poor can avoid tax altogether by buying second hand.  It would also encourage savings, which is necessary for *actual* economic growth (not borrow n' pretend).  The money would come flooding back into the country since there would be no advantage in hiding it offshore anymore.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:57 | 2965419 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Yes. Yes. Yes!!!! We furnished two rooms in our house all with furniture and lighting we bought at auction. The rooms look great and we spent a fraction of what we would have spent buying new. We were able to buy great brands like Duncan Phyfe for our dining room at reduced costs, and the stuff was barely if ever used. We're not poor by any metric, but hell, it gave us some leverage on buying things brand new, like durable goods.

After Sandy we drove people to the local Goodwill to buy clothes and things they lost in the hurricane. I would love to see stores like that be given a tax advantage and screw Wal Mart into the ground.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:01 | 2965441 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Now thats more like it...

First sensible post out of you yet...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:07 | 2965475 adr
adr's picture

Taxing consumption is not the answer. If it was the VATs in Europe would have led to incredible growth. How are you supposed to grow an economy through the production of goods if nobody can afford to buy anything new?

The issue is that wealth without labor is taxed far below the rate of earned income. We need to follow Andew Mellon's lead and tax capital gains at a far higher rate. We also need to reduce credit massivley and increase interest rates.

Without access to credit you will curb unnessesary spending and over consumption.

Capitalism, especially free market capitalism, requires the production of goods to work. Or are we going to draw lines on what gets taxed, hybrids and electric cars won't get taxed, but gas models will. Or is it that any car under $20k isn't taxed but luxury models are?

IN any case we already have a sales tax. {f you want to encourage the used and resale market, get rid of taxes on used products. Does a used car really needto be taxed on it's value every time it is sold?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:30 | 2965589 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Just remove the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income from the tax code.  Boehner wants a simpler, fairer tax code.  There's a fruit nearly on the ground.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:41 | 2965641 Thisson
Thisson's picture

I agree, and favoring one kind of income over another is just more central planning.  As is setting interest rates.  Let the market determine the allocations between present consumption and future gains.  Let the market determine whether it is more efficient to add more labor or more capital to the mix of inputs used to produce goods.

No more central planning.  No more economic calculation problem.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:53 | 2966037 kito
kito's picture

Please don't equate a faux conservative like Boner with simple or fair.......please can the fairyland partistan heroics.....Boner will continue to work in unison with the dems in stripping the citizens clean......that much is assured....

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:11 | 2965754 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

A VAT is not a consumption tax. It is exactly what it says it is: a value-added tax. It is a tax that is taken at every step in the value chain.

A sales tax is a consumption tax, as it is only paid by the final consumer. You are correct in that "we" already have a sales tax, but that tax is collected at the state and local levels. There is no federal sales tax; consequently, there is room to add that.

Consumption taxes are in fact fully compatible with a free society; income taxes on the other hand are not at all compatible with freedom. You can control how much consumption tax you pay by controlling your own consumption of taxed goods; unfortunately you cannot freely control how much income tax you pay. That is taken from you by force, whether you like it or not, and the only way to avoid it is to utterly impoverish yourself.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:03 | 2966068 Nels
Nels's picture

A VAT is not a consumption tax. It is exactly what it says it is: a value-added tax. It is a tax that is taken at every step in the value chain.

Eh, it's just a difference in mechanism, not a difference in what is taxed.  Buy nothing and you pay neither sales tax nor VAT.  The more you buy the more VAT and/or sales tax you pay.  Whether I consume something as the 'end-user' or it's consumed in making some end product is of little or no distinction.   The VAT is just more pervasive.

Sales tax and VAT are both consumption taxes, they just measure consumption at different points.  The sales tax does it only at retail, the VAT does it all along the production chain to be sure and capture all consumption that might be hidden in the production chain.

It's about as much difference as arguing whether U3 or U6 is the appropriate unemployment measurement.  The folks being measured don't give a damn in which slot they are, they are still out of work no matter how it's measured.

If the next book I buy carries 10% of tax, do I really give a damn if it's labeled as sales tax or VAT?  Does that really make any difference to the final cost?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 23:36 | 2967067 redpill
redpill's picture

The extremely critical point you miss is that with a VAT the tax is hidden in the price of the good (much like corporate and payroll tax today), whereas a single point-of-sale consumption tax is transparent; the payer knows exactly how much tax they have paid. If you do not realize how important that is, you haven't thought about it enough.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 01:46 | 2967257 MSimon
MSimon's picture

Also VAT requires a LOT of paperwork. It keeps the little guy from troubling the big guys.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:01 | 2966463 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

   Capitalism, especially free market capitalism, requires the production of goods to work.

Don't be ridiculous.  Banks are capitalist institutions.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 22:08 | 2966917 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Banks came into existance to facilitate the production of goods.  They have taken on a life of their own and finance seems to exist regardless of the production of goods.  (Is a CDS a good or a service?)  It would be interesting to see how long financial activity would continue if the production of goods was totally stopped everywhere.  Methinks finance folks would keep on buying and selling financial products to each other for quite some time.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 22:40 | 2966973 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    Banks came into existance to facilitate the production of goods.

No, they didn't.  They came into existence to pay for the survival expenses of the folks who had discovered the power that came from the ability to "create money."  Just like all the other business-models out there.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 20:23 | 2966679 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

VAT is not the same as a sales tax, as I understand it. Sales tax is a one time thing at point of final sale, that is to the actual person who would consume the product or service. VAT taxes production at each level. It is a hidden tax for the most part to the consumer and allows the government more slight of hand. Taxes need to be on consumption and transparent, to prevent the constant and ever growing theft we see daily. Taxing income takes incentive from production, where consumption tax incentives savings, the one thing we need for a stable economy. Sales tax already discriminates to product or service. tobacco, fuel, booze, homes and cars are all taxed differently. In texas we do not tax unprepared food to simulate a progressive tax. And we have sales tax systems already in place in most states so no need for more government employees and we can get rid of the IRS. No tax on business either. Sales tax taxes imports the same as domestic so we have a more level playing field with our competitors. While many corporations have maniplulated laws to minimize their taxes, most smaller businesses end up paying it in full. We have to get savings back, jobs back and our country back. A fair taxing system plays a roll in all of that and the beauty of a sales tax it is transparent, so the fairness is much less a subjective idea as to opposed to the way it is now, where everyone "assumes" that they are getting a raw deal because all they hear are accusations against everyone else yet tax records are largely private.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:12 | 2966101 jamezelle
jamezelle's picture

The government should not be used as a tool to "screw X business into the ground". 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 18:04 | 2966281 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

How about producing something of value instead of taxing someone else's work?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:30 | 2965919 venturen
venturen's picture

Ha, Ha really how many "new" things does buffet, the rockfellers buy. The consumption tax is dumb! A flat tax with no decustion across the board Income, cap gains, every year....regardless if you cash out of your capital gain...would do the trick. But the actual wealth don't want that. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 20:03 | 2966626 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

AMEN!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:43 | 2965346 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

A tax on wealth is a prime way to reduce the record wealth inequality facing the world.  Most of that wealth was stolen, so it makes sense for it to be taken back.  But for it to go from the hands of oligarchs into the hands of gov't officials?  That is no solution at all.   The wealth should go back where it came from, to all the people of the world (who aren't psychopaths).

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:10 | 2966098 Nels
Nels's picture

Yet another idiot being misdirected by the bullfighters red cape.  The wealth that you worry about isn't going to be visible to any tax man.  All that stolen wealth is in the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, etc.   It won't be taxed.

What will be taxed is your parent's 401K.  The only great pile of money visible to the tax man belongs to the middle class and their 401Ks.

The 'all the people of the world' who aren't psychopaths, are kleptomaniacs?  They think they deserve part of what their neighbors worked for, but they did not?

What wealth came from the slash and burn farmers around the world, that they deserve more from the rest of us?

Psychopaths or kleptocrats, is that really our only choice for leaders?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:47 | 2965370 Publicus
Publicus's picture

It's simple really. Repeal all tax and fees. Have Ben print to fund the governement. And when there is too much money, issue an asset tax on the super rich and then just cancel the money.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:41 | 2964965 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes... a wealth tax is very stimulative, it forces productive use of assets and punishes those that will not use their means to better themselves or society....

I do tip my cap to Santelli...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:53 | 2965013 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

So I am a bad citizen for saving for my retirement and my kids college education?  They will count those savings as "wealth" and take it from me.  Real nice.  Typical parasite.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:55 | 2965027 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

Yes you are a terrorist sorry.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:12 | 2965139 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Good luck taxing portfolios of cash (outside of the banking industry) and metals in the bottom of the lake.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:55 | 2965408 Jean Valjean
Jean Valjean's picture

Yes, but the easiest, most direct way to tax the vampire wealth, rather than the productive sources can be explained in a single word: jubilee.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:15 | 2965797 falak pema
falak pema's picture

jubilees only occur for Queens like Victoria Britannicus  and they celebrate empire not dissolution of imperial oligarchs; the latter only occurs in revolution; dirty business for sure, as jubilees are never open to plebes; its that simple. So they tend to take the other route.

Are you proposing that the Oligarchs of US Senate and WS proclaim, like in the sermon of Jeu de la Paume, we hand our lolly back to the people to nullify the public debt???

Now that would be a jubilee like no other.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:02 | 2965069 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Rick "we gotta eat here" Santelli? (that's what he said on air and without teleprompmpting after the failure of MF Global. Goes to show you how little money for trading there ever is.) I'm not sure why Illinois is complaining when they have a beautiful high yield debt vehicle in the form of a nuclear utility. I'm sure he can get all the leverage he wants if he wants to slam that thing into oblivion.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:24 | 2965220 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Flakmeister is one of Obama's legion of the 400% uptick in our disability rolls. Don't read too much into whatever he posts.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:39 | 2965323 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Jealous are we?

Remember who said what... Rick Santelli said it, you know, the patron  Saint of The Holy Tea Bag...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:42 | 2965341 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Why would I be jealous of your disabilities?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:36 | 2965302 nugjuice
nugjuice's picture

I'm sorry but there are two things we have to acknowledge:

A) That there are a certain basket of people who have disproportionately benefited from the past decade of bleeding the American people dry: namely the heads of corporations, banks, and politicians.

B) That the people who have sucked money out of the system through loopholes (money printing, handouts, etc) should be the ones who have to help the economy grow again.

I'm not sure people who have worked hard their whole life and saved for retirement/kids' education are the ones he is targeting but I could be wrong. I am all for a wealth tax on people with excess of, say, $20 million (just arbitrary number) as the odds are they unfairly benefited from the insiders' game that has been going on for years. There WILL be business owners who worked hard and came by their money honestly in that group of people and it's unfortunate, as I am all for a free market society where the sky is the limit. But I don't see any other (easy) way to punish the people who have been punishing us.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:43 | 2965348 viahj
viahj's picture

image how much Faceplant stock Zuck will have to sell (and pay capital gains on) just to raise the cash to pay the wealth tax on his vast mountain of Faceplant stock wealth....wha, wait....I think I just blew a circuit.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:56 | 2965410 fuu
fuu's picture

Or you are in the running to replace Timmah or The Beard.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:58 | 2965426 Jean Valjean
Jean Valjean's picture

See my post above. I have the answer to both your concerns: debt jubilee

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:16 | 2966112 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

It's looking more like this is going to be in play in the next few years.  

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:26 | 2965567 ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

I'm just imagining the amount of cap gains taxes eleiminated due to the suckers selling Faceplant...

 

Bet they didn't budget for that in Kalifornia...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:56 | 2965414 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

The money the gov't takes in is one problem (i.e. who they take it from), but how they waste, I mean, spend it, is another one entirely.  Personally I would like to see the wealth taken from the elite by way of debt jubilee, the 1% lose their ass, the 99% in debt serfdom are set free.  And gov't doesn't get a piece of the action (other than also getting to start with a clean slate).

 

What people will do once given a clean slate, well, that is up to them.  But you know that some will max out their credit cards, and try to get as uber-leveraged as possible.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:08 | 2965483 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

hyperinflation = debt jubilee

don't worry it will be here soon

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:33 | 2966167 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Debt jubilee is bullshit too.  Most people are debt slaves because they made themselves debt slaves of their own free will.  They just had to have the new truck with 4 snowmobiles and 4 jets skis and a boat and a motorhome and all the fancy stuff.  And they bought it all on credit and now they can't afford it.  Well BOOHOO.  All of these homeowners who took out big mortgages with adjustable rate mortgages and then couldn't afford the payment when the rates went up--I dont feel sorry for them one bit.  Pay attention in school and learn how an amortization schedule works and dont be such a dupe and the bankers can't take advantage of you.

Debt jubilees are nothing more than exactly why we are having the problems in this country that we have.  There is NO MORAL HAZARD anymore.  Not for the rich or the poor.  The responsible people are the ones who get the shaft then.  Otherwise, you better announce the jubilee is coming so I can max my credit out too right before it happens.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:11 | 2966491 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

   Most people are debt slaves because they made themselves debt slaves of their own free will.  They just had to have the new truck with 4 snowmobiles and 4 jets skis and a boat and a motorhome and all the fancy stuff.  And they bought it all on credit and now they can't afford it.

Bullshit.

"Most people" have never HAD a new truck and 4 snowmachines and 4 jet skis and a boat and a motorhome.  "Most people" are working shitty low-wage jobs so they can pay for shitty cable teevee to watch on shitty big-screens while drinking shitty beer.

You're talking about maybe 25% of the population, tops.  The working class idiots who cheered the destruction of their infrastructure and tax-base and social contract because they'd somehow convinced themselves they were on their way to the BIG-TIME because the housing bubble permitted them to buy a new truck and 4 snowmachines and 4 jet skis and a boat and a motorhome...

The Clintons, Sarah Palin, David Axelrod, Chris Mathews, and Bill O'Reilly are examples of the people YOU mean.  

Not one of them has a damn thing in common with "most people."

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 20:02 | 2966622 Itch
Itch's picture

Rip the face off anyone with over $50mm in redundant assets, lets face it they will never use it and its just sucking interest from the rest of us. The game is over, time for the money to go back in the box motherfuckers, but dont worry, we'll let you'll play again if you’re nice.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:01 | 2965055 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

I have a much, much, much better-- infinitely better-- idea:

Cut government spending 20% across the board while guaranteeding that a balanced budget guarantee will go into effect by 2014, and reduce the Internal Revenue Code to a 3 page pamphlet, with the new and complete taxation consisting of a postcard filled out showing net income earned, multipled by 15%, with a sum line showing that amount. Period. The End.

No one can possibly complain about a flat tax system (except tax attorneys, accountants & government employees) where it takes 3 minutes or less to do you income taxes (even Timmmay could get it correct).

20% ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

MANDATORY BALANCED BUDGET BY 2014.

ZERO NEW TAXES IN ANY FORM.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:08 | 2965102 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Stop talking all smart and logical and shit.  Sheep don't like to hear the truth. 

I wholeheartedly agree.  The tax code is nothing more than a conduit for the political class to buy votes.  Take that away, and maybe they would start voting for whats best  for the country instead of what is best for their political career.  Sadly, we won't get a 20% reduction in the rate of growth of spending, much less an actual 20% cut in spending.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:14 | 2965147 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

15%?!?!?!  That would raise my federal taxes by 30%!  I'll pass, but thanks for asking.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:22 | 2965208 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Fine, 8%.

Warren Buffett's secretary will no longer pay a higher % of her income in taxes than Charlie "Suck It Up, Taxpayers" Munger.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:14 | 2965798 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I like the way you think, but a 95% cut of federal spending sounds much better to me.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:33 | 2965279 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I benefit from the complexity of the tax code, but I would love nothing more than to be out of a job because the tax code was so simple even a caveman could follow it.  When that day comes, I'll find something more productive to do... 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:15 | 2966507 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Hey, if you know: I've been wondering if the whole "you must file" concept isn't unconstitutional by virtue of the Fifth Amendment.

Since I have no way at all to know whether I'm complying with Federal law when I fill out a tax form (ok, ok, assume for a moment I filled out a tax form), I could be testifying against myself when I sign my name to it.

Has that been tested in court already?

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 00:21 | 2967130 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Look at it this way.  If you have the right not to incriminate yourself.  And this right extends to your tax documents.  And these tax documents are necessary to prove you committed a crime, e.g. tax fraud.  Then how could the state ever prove its case against you when you exercise this right?

Needless to say, your tax documents will be punitively used against you all day.  This is a good start: http://witnesses.uslegal.com/duty-to-testify/protected-privilege/  Long story short, the privilege would only apply to you speaking about your tax records or being forced to draft documents after the fact...  for the reason stated above (complete inability to ever prosecute).  The state is often retarded, but not that dumb. 

You need to assume that every which way possible to avoid taxes has already been tried.  Sometimes the big boys need to run a test case through, most of the time they wait and let the IRS figure out the loophole.  There are still a few glaring loopholes for the plebs (sec. 179, mileage deduction, etc.), but most of the doors have been welded shut.

 

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 13:36 | 2967804 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Yup, I definitely assume it's all been tried, just like to check on the specifics when I see folks who know better than me. 

I'll stick with the simple approach for now and just remain as poor as shit.

Thanks, BTW!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:39 | 2965321 nugjuice
nugjuice's picture

A 20% cut in discretionary govt spending is a drop in the bucket of our problems and would solve nothing.

The problem is mandatory govt spending and the second you tell people you're taking away their social security and medicare the the second people label you a traitor and a thief.

While what you say sounds nice and dandy, and I'm all for making it simpler, I'm afraid the spending the govt actually has a choice over is a pittance compared to the real elephant(s) in the room.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:27 | 2965572 Calculated_Risk
Calculated_Risk's picture

Flat tax is still invasive to privacy and people that don't work, or work under the table get off. National sales tax (fixed forever), no income tax.

If you wanna be a pimp and buy 24" rims, go ahead. If we want to save,  we shouldn't be punished from the .gov for it by filing my private info,

and be the only one getting stiffed.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:32 | 2965932 venturen
venturen's picture

And what lobbyist would be paying off your representatives for this plan?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:01 | 2965066 MiltonFriedmans...
MiltonFriedmansNightmare's picture

Tax the truly wealthy?

This agression will not stand, man.....

Off with his head, or better yet, his johnson. You are about to enter a world of pain Santelli, a world of pain.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:15 | 2965160 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

Wealth over $50 million - 10%
wealth over $100 million - 20%
wealth over &1 billion - 30%

The buffett tax plan! Sorry warren

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:27 | 2965244 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

But Warren would only have $35 billion left. How will he survive

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:01 | 2966064 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

I have to believe that Warren would recover quickly.  And the government and the sheep would go right back into debt.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:38 | 2965310 Catullus
Catullus's picture

Capital flight. You lose

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:17 | 2966513 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Can't happen.  There's no other economy that's NEAR big enough to soak up all that fleeing capital.  That's why the USA is still the top of the heap, and why the USD isn't going to collapse before any of the other major currencies.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 04:05 | 2967367 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Sorry, there are PLENTY of countries that can easily absorb that magnitude of capital inflow, especialy right now. Just think what a "mass migration" of real, useful capital would do for economies of "certain European countries", and of course there's Asia.

However, the rapid movement of very significant amounts of capital out of the USA would certainly send quite THE signal to the World Markets that there was someting VERY wrong with the US System, and if you don't think China would immediately capitalise on this you must be sleepwalking, knowing full well that in the opposite situation, the USA would be demanding "first dibs" on such a useful bounty.

No mater how it's spun - any large scale migration of capital out of ANY country, is NEVER good for that countries image (financially), and since trading is more on perception (or should we say missplaced optimism) than hard data these days, you know the rest of that story, don't you??

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 13:44 | 2967844 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

     Sorry, there are PLENTY of countries that can easily absorb that magnitude of capital inflow, especialy right now. Just think what a "mass migration" of real, useful capital would do for economies of "certain European countries", and of course there's Asia.

OK.  What would it do in your mind?

Seems to me it would help the governments of those countries maintain a failing economic model for awhile.  If all the rich folks in the USA emigrated to various countries in Europe tomorrow, they could help fund those countries welfare-states for some period of time--say a decade or two.  (I think you'd have to be sleepwalking to buy into the possibility that there'd be a mass-exodus of wealthy Americans to CHINA, but hey, you can make that case if you like.)

What does that CHANGE?  It just (potentially) alters the order in which the fiat currencies fail.

But the USA still controls the dominant *military* power.  If the US dollar BEGINS to fail before the Euro or the Renminbi, doncha think some other forces would start to come into play?

(I don't agree with you about the ability of other economies to absorb the wealth currently priced in dollars, but absent any data, there's no point in quibbling that.)

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:16 | 2965520 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

Think...where do the wealthy get the cash to pay that tax?...they SELL stuff!

What asset class do you want to see crater? 

With all that selling we will see prices of assets drop along with decreases in taxes on those assets. So in the end do we really get more tax revenue?

The solution is to let nature take it's course. Keep printing to hyperinflation. All debts will be paid with old 100 billion dollar notes that will be found in the trash cans of the nation when the new 100 trillion dollar notes are printed. I do believe this is the actual plan by those few in DC who understand what is really happening.

If I had the timing right I'd load up on debt now. Since I do not have that information....well I just sit with my thumb up my butt like everyone else.

Ain't central planning great?!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:27 | 2965576 ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

Oh I think Warren could stand a little more pain than that after all the spouting off at the mouth he has done the last four years.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:01 | 2965067 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Flak, you really and truly are a paragon of the death cult.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:41 | 2965332 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Don't you have some research to do on Endocrine Disruptors?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:46 | 2965367 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I'm sure you would jack off to such thoughts.  Anything that causes death and destruction seems to get you off.

Why don't you go punch a baby and leave the rest of us alone?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:56 | 2965416 fuu
fuu's picture

<popcorn>

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:15 | 2965161 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Bring in a 90% death tax on any amount over $1,000,000. Include Trusts. No exemptions. Problem solved!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:27 | 2965240 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Not quite.  That is just step one.  Step two includes the systematic hunting down and killing of all "rich" people.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:17 | 2965530 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Step 2 doesn't follow from step 1 where this has been done. Look at the UK. It's been a great way of removing unproductive family fortunes from society and spreading the wealth around. They certainly felt that massive accumulation of wealth by the Lords etc wasn't good for the country as a whole.The second and third generation generally squander daddy's legacy anyway so you're only speeding that along. The second generation may even be more productive if they have to work for a living. 

Also dis-incentivises the accumulation of great wealth - a lot of which is accumulated illegally. Perhaps society would be better off overall if people knew only so much could be passed on down the line.

Would America as a society be better off if the Kennedy's lost their bootlegging fortune on the death of Joe? Even if the Waltons lost most of their's on the death of Sam? It's hard to argue that the kids have been a deep well of inovation and entrepreneurial vigour.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:33 | 2965936 catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

I'm neither for or against this plan. I've often tried to think it through as well, but what happens to Wal-Mart and their employees when Walton dies?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:18 | 2966126 DosZap
DosZap's picture

I'm neither for or against this plan. I've often tried to think it through as well, but what happens to Wal-Mart and their employees when Walton dies?

 

R U Serious?, or been in a Coma?.

Sam has been dead for years.

His Board now runs the theft n' steal program at all of the WalMurts, and Sammy's.

They LOVE cheap crap, and they love to not pay vendors for 6mos after due dates.They set the prices their willing to pay,or YOU do not get to be a vendor/supplier.

Also, the Head Dik just gave uber millions to Unca Bammy.

Can u think of any other reason to NOT buy one thing from this evil conglomerate?.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:29 | 2966148 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The is the insidious brilliance of REAL WEALTH.

The system you see is setup as one as one giant game of THREE CARD MONTE.

The sheeple love to believe that if they just turn "that" card over they will find the money card,

when in fact all they will do is sharpen the sheep shears.  

IT'S A CON.

Don't believe me- go implement your system and bump off the Duke of Buccleuch- 

his estate won't pay, but yours most certainly will. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:22 | 2966521 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You don't get it...the American government was created SPECIFICALLY to protect those "unproductive" family fortunes of the early founders.

If a government was conceived for the purpose of benefiting the majority of the citizens, it would *deliberately* grant the poor political power, because there are always far more po'folk than rich ones.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:29 | 2965582 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

and always eat what you kill...nothing like a little class envy to get the plebes riled up!!!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:50 | 2965680 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Class envy has nothing to do with it. I would say that most fortunes have been accumulated through luck or gaming the system. I know that's how the wealthiest families in NZ did. it. 

The richest guy, Graham Hart, made his initial pile by buying an under-priced State business that was sold off. He then levered that fortune up a couple of times by doing a few other deals. Now you can argue that he is entitled to that wealth as he saw the opportunity and had the balls to take it. But his kids cetainly didn't. And that money originally belonged to all taxpayers of New Zealand in the first place so why shouldn't we all get it back when he dies.

Look at our wealthiest family, the Todds. They made their fortune by owning a car assembly plant when car imports were tightly regulated. Only unassembled cars were allowed to be imported and the assembly in NZ created a lot of jobs. The problem was that the cost of a new car in NZ was twice that of one built and assembled in Japan. So their fortune was totally paid for by the New Zealand consumer being forced to buy their overpriced cars.

Now good on Todd senior (along with the misguided policies of the Government of the day) for screwing the rest of us  but should his family reap the benefits of this for generations to come. From speaking to an ex-wife of one of the kids all they do is sit around playing computer games anyway. Everyone would be better off if they lost the bulk of it when Todd senior died.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:52 | 2965686 grunk
grunk's picture

The Feds are looking to seize the land from land rich, cash poor farmers.

This is the perfect mechanism.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:09 | 2965752 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Don't sieze it from the poor farmers. Wait until they die and they won't mind so much.

Here's some interesting numbers courtesy of RT:

While many millionaires got poorer in the last year, billionaires did just fine, overcoming market and economic turmoil.

The number of people with at least $30 million in their pockets grew to 187,380, while their total wealth fell 1.8 percent to $25.8 trillion – a sum bigger than the combined size of the U.S. and Chinese economies, the Wealth-X research company said in a report on Monday.

At the same time billionaires became even richer. Their number grew 9.4 percent to 2,160 people with the combined wealth of $6.2 trillion, according to the Singapore-based firm that provides intelligence on the ultra-rich to banks, fundraisers and luxury retailers

http://rt.com/business/news/report-wealth-trillion-325/ 

Wait till they die and take it back. They might have earnt it but their kids certainly didn't.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:35 | 2965947 catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

And what about entities that don't die, like public corporations that will just suck up everything at auction when it's given to the government as the tax?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:52 | 2965687 Oppressed In Ca...
Oppressed In California's picture

I hear this kind of BS from the CPUSA

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:42 | 2964967 Catullus
Catullus's picture

What income taxes tax production? It's not true. Comcast-owned MSNBC told me so!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:42 | 2964972 gmak
gmak's picture

Great Idea!  Tax wealth, not income.  Many have been saying that for some time (including me). The wealth transfer has happened without corresponding increase in CONTRIBUTION to GDP by the wealthier classes.  Take some back, and PAY DOWN THE D*MN DEBT so that everyone benefits.  

 

Then stop spending money you don't have at gov't levels.  Reduce taxes. Encourage Saving. AND GET OUT OF THE WAY OF ENTREPRENEURS!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:58 | 2965044 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

"Then stop spending money you don't have at gov't levels."

Thats the whole problem in a nutshell.  There is NEVER ENOUGH spending, EVER.  Someone always has something that they think is important to spend money on.  I want the president to tell me exactly how much money will be enough.  Is it 5 trillion?  6?  7?  No matter what level of spending there is, government always wants to spend more.

We could balance the budget today, raise taxes 1.2 trillion and be in balance.  But that will never happen.  They would raise taxes by 1.2 trillion and increase spending by another trillion, and tell us how great everything is because they lowered the DEFICIT by 200 billion.  But then we would still have a trillion dollar deficit.  Would we be better off?  No.

They will raise taxes today, and any spending cuts will happen in so called out years, meaning they will never happen.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:07 | 2965060 akak
akak's picture

When it comes to taxation, governments firmly stand with the old MTV slogan: "Too much is never enough".

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:55 | 2965407 machineh
machineh's picture

Militarizing space could take all the wealth on the planet ... and STILL not be enough.

Taxing wealth is for gov lovers ... those kindly folks who want to fund THEIR projects with a gun to YOUR head.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:10 | 2965117 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Actually the far larger problem if you are the President (who thinks in those terms, right?) is "if all the money I tax goes to servicing the debt how am I as President providing the benefit I wish to confer on my sheeple?" and the answer of course unless you allow pricing power to rise "you are in fact creating negative equity at the Government level." needless to say no sane capitalist wants to pour money into something that has negative equity...well, yes Rick. "taxes are going higher." Perhaps MUCH higher.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:50 | 2965382 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The problem with taxing wealth is that wealth, in and of itself, does not necessarily provide any benefit (especially pecuniary) to the owner [aside from being taxed twice on the same assets].  What you have to do is treat all income equally...  do not engage in separate categories for everything...  this creates loopholes and unintended consequences (although very much intended by the folks actually drafting the law).  Then, whenever that wealth generates income, it is taxed to the extent of income.  You avoid double taxation this way...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:31 | 2965598 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

gmac

don't worry...there won't be any ENTREPRENEURS! when they see that wealth will be taxed

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:44 | 2964976 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

Eisner v Macomber

States can do it, feds can't

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:44 | 2965991 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Eisner v Macomber

 States can do it, feds can't

 

Dude,WHERE have U Beeeeeeeeeeeen?.

The feds can DO whatever the hell HE says they can.Matter of fact, check your MM Accts,IRA's & 401k's, likely would be deducted w/out ANY notice.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:44 | 2964978 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

A tax by any other name (or contrivance) is still a tax.

<Time to load up on conditioner for all those split hairs.>

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:49 | 2964982 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

YAY now come the tax increases! Hey as long as Wall St billionaires who really run the country never have to pay a dime, we're all good. Damn peasants stop lollygaggin around get back on those oars and ROW dammit!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:22 | 2965214 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Exactly.  This whole economic fiasco could have been avoided if the peasants had rowed faster!

This must be severely distressing to the central planners.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:54 | 2965697 Thisson
Thisson's picture

Row well and Live, #41!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:06 | 2965751 John Law Lives
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:46 | 2964984 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

There's no way they can tax enough, especially in the light of day.  If they did, the ponzi would be fully uncovered, and would be plain for all to see the unsustainability.  There'd be an armed, or financial insurrection almost immediately.  The only way forward is to print in ever greater orders of magnitude until the system explodes, or they default/devalue (but that would require honesty).  Bernank will increase asset purchases by the end of the year.  It's about to get real.  

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:33 | 2965602 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

Sgt

who let you in on the obvious secret?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:47 | 2964988 CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

Taking away people's already-taxed property, rather than their income really scares me. Sure 1% on the wealthiest doesn't sound bad, but where will it lead? Eventually they will just vote to take away everything owned by the top 49% and give it to the bottom 51%.

Which countries tax wealth today and how is it working? And what is wealth? What if you own a farm and can't afford to pay 1% or 2% or 5% of it a year.

Once you own property, the gvt should not be able to take it away without compensation.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:54 | 2965021 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

They simply can't and won't.  Washington is owned by Goldman and lobbyists, neither would support that.  The only path forward is to inflate, period.  They will inflate until the system flies apart.  The moment they started QE, that became inevitable.  They are trapped in an inflationary spiral.  They simply do not have a choice, but to print.  To refuse to print will bring down the entire system, and the lie would be exposed, unleashing the freshly understanding masses to the most egregious crime of fraud and theft in a century, blood of bankers, and government officials would fill the streets.  No, that is not an option.  They will inflate.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:19 | 2965535 e.blair
e.blair's picture

"Eventually they will just vote to take away everything owned by the top 49% and give it to the bottom 51%."

A slippery slope argument?  Is that the best you got?  Pretty weak.

"Once you own property, the gvt should not be able to take it away without compensation."

So is that like the 7 families that carved up Hawaii and still to this day own most of the land?  Is their property off limits? 

Who pays you to post such drivel?

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:21 | 2965850 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

For me, it's my little house I built and paid for (I thought) and yet can never seem to stop more due bills for same appearing in my mailbox.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:41 | 2965978 catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

It's not as weak as you might think when you consider that income tax was supposed to only affect the top 1%. They had to get it passed as a constitutional amendment first. Once that was done, it was all down hill. Quite a slippery slope indeed.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 18:14 | 2966324 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

TPTB just called, they want their useful idiot back.

If you're going to throw down the "Land Barron" card in this farce of a shell game,

Why don't you at least propose a tax system that might actually recapture some of those 7 seven "families" lands?

Since these lands have all been long since transferred to the immortal Kamehameha Schools, Castle & Cooke Inc., Dole Foods, Alexander & Baldwin Inc, Maui Land & Pineapple, etc.

Parker, Grove, Campbell, Murdock, et al are just long dead names on painted on shells.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:31 | 2965595 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Once you own property, the gvt should not be able to take it away without compensation.

Well, it'll take a constitutional amendment to be able to do so...  I see it day in, day out...  uncle sam has to pay fair market value for what it takes from you.  This is the law...  and there are plenty of places where you are, yes, even where you are, where you can legally enforce this requirement.  Sorry, but you're full of shit.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 20:02 | 2966621 nufio
nufio's picture

whats wrong with 70 yr leases like they have in china? I seriously think thats a good system.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 04:29 | 2967382 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Well, it'll take a constitutional amendment to be able to do so...

Or an Executive Order. Remember, under the present Constitution this is Obama's last term, so he's really not that concerned with "the little people" now that he's comfortable for the next 4 years.

If it suits TPTB (and this includes the Government, which is nowadays their "Enforcement Arm) to steal your property, you better believe they have the means to do just that.

"The Law is to benefit the Lawyers"

Remember Obama's background . . . . . .

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:48 | 2964993 PUD
PUD's picture

CHATTLE...NUFF SAID

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:55 | 2965703 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

The extent to which sheep will voluntarily subject themselves to servitude is frightening.
Forget wealth tax...I predict "living wages" will once again be proposed.  It's coming.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 00:40 | 2967164 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The problem isn't that government is screwing up, it's that it can't do anything right except cease to exist. And it certainly won't agree to that.

Government works as it was meant to. Always has.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:49 | 2964998 Scribbles
Scribbles's picture

Are you guys bonkers?

Taxing wealth appeals to you?  That's PURE conviscation without even the pretense of a tax.  When the wealth tax is at 80% and we're all calling each other "comrade," remember what you posted in here.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:00 | 2965054 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

It's what they did to the European lords a few hundred years ago. Sucked to be them, too (although they seem to have landed on their feet).

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:02 | 2965073 Water Is Wet
Water Is Wet's picture

Are you saying Dimon's, Mozilo's, Blankfein's, Summer's, Buffett's, Munger's, Romney's, etc., etc., etc., wealth should not be confiscated?  The Attorney General has turned a blind eye to prosecution of fraud.  A wealth tax on everything over $50 or $100 million should work.  $100 million would still cover retirement and college education too.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:29 | 2965252 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

I'm on board for 100% confiscation of bankers wealth and jail cells with no vaseline

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:11 | 2965495 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Okay. No vaseline is just way over the top. Plus, you gave me bad visual images.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:32 | 2965276 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

A tax on Buffet, Munger and Blankfein, very funny.  Instead of taxing them, our government bailed them out with taxpayer money -don't you remember?

This tax on the 1% will never happen.  Instead they will tax those in the middle and upper middle classes, increasing the divide between the 1% and 99%, and giving even more power to the ruling class.  They will no doubt levy higher capital gains taxes on that same group, killing the retirement funds of private sector employees who no longer have pensions.  

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:16 | 2966115 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"A tax on Buffet, Munger and Blankfein, very funny.  Instead of taxing them, our government bailed them out with taxpayer money -don't you remember?"

LOL.  Stop keeping it real already.  Leave Santelli his little wet dream, won't you?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:37 | 2965309 Scribbles
Scribbles's picture

Lemme jog your memory....

the income tax was supposed to be only on the very wealthy when they unrolled that.  The IDEA of supporting a new form of tax is hilarious.  Good thing Obama didn't run against Trotsky - from the sound of it, he would have lost.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:43 | 2965353 tmosley
tmosley's picture

How about prosecuting the fraud rather than stealing from everyone in the same class, whether or not they got their money from fraud.

I wonder if you realize that your brilliant plan would only tax 56 people?  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_in_the_US_have_a_net_worth_ove...

I wonder how many jobs would disappear because of such an action?  I sure as shit wouldn't stick around for more than the few days it would take to arrange to move my wealth out of the country, and I'm no-where near that level.  But just as surely as the income tax started out as a tax on the ultra-rich, it will eventually be applied to EVERYONE.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:32 | 2966536 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Prosecuting fraud sounds cool if you're not familiar with how the legal system here works.  See--the problem is, if I rip off $750 million bucks through fraud, I can *afford* adequate legal protection to prevent anyone from convicting me of any crimes.

This is how Capitalism trumps law, every time.  Those with access to sufficient money can afford to buy *anything* they need.  One thing they occasionally need is the service of folks who keep them out of prison.

The government can't afford to outbid the defendants--thus prosecution will ALWAYS tend to be a losing proposition.

And that's not even to get into the fact that putting folks in prison (or whatever) doesn't recoup any of the ill-gotten gains....

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:06 | 2965095 bidaskspread
bidaskspread's picture

It depends on your demographics. I am in my 30's, do I want to bust my hump because the generation before was completely irresponsible and enjoyed the benefits of the constant spending without thinking through the consequences; Hell No. Do I want to have to work as a slave because the generation before over promised to each other senior age benefits and agreed that I would pay it without my consent, Hell no. So decide , benefit cuts or taxing the nest egg; I don't want to cover you for your bad decisions.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:32 | 2965277 Scribbles
Scribbles's picture

No, you'll still get it in the a**.

Why are they looking for new taxes? To pay SSA and Medicare and other welfare.  It's more transfer from you to the elite "democratic voter class"

Let the whole thing go bust.  It's a yoke off my neck, far as I'm concerned.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:29 | 2965586 bidaskspread
bidaskspread's picture

It's already bust but the older population wants to keep it since they promised each other it on my behalf. I say if they want to keep let them pay for it. I don't want it, a better investment then SS and medicare would be tossing gold bars down a wishing well; at least you know that you'll likely never get what you wished for.I don't care if it's wealth/income/value added taxes that covers it as long as the people "who want it and agree to it" pay for it.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:21 | 2965543 MiltonFriedmans...
MiltonFriedmansNightmare's picture

Yeah, but you're the exception, a 30 year old with a brain...in short supply in the USSA.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:06 | 2965098 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

Please tell me how taxing income is not PURE confiscation.

Same difference.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:22 | 2965550 e.blair
e.blair's picture

Time for Zero Hedgers including Tyler to lay their cards on the table.  Are you interested in fighting oligarchy, or are you going to be knee jerk defenders of the Horatio Alger mythology?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:48 | 2966012 tmosley
tmosley's picture

That's the falsest false choice I think I have ever seen.

You can't work your way to the top because the America that Horatio Alger wrote about is long, long gone.  Oligarchs rule in non-capitalist societies, not capitalist ones.  Having the veneer of a free market doesn't make it a free market.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 19:35 | 2966547 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Um...dude, "the America that Horatio Alger wrote about" was FICTIONAL.  Those were WORKS OF FICTION. 

It's no more "long gone" than Middle Earth is.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:32 | 2965599 ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

The Fifth Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

I am still lost as to what the just compensation might be....wealth is still private property, right?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:01 | 2965715 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

Not if government bureaucrats think it can potentially be of some public benefit.

If you think I am joking or exaggerating, you haven't read the Supreme Court's 2005 decision, Kelo v. City of New London.

What is "just compensation" in the eyes of a salivating bureaucrat?  Probably not what you would think it is.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 17:19 | 2966130 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The Fifth Amendment?  That's a singing group, right?  Age of Aquarius and so forth?  Black people, I think.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:49 | 2964999 Tsunami Wave
Tsunami Wave's picture

There is a time for everything.. high taxes.. low taxes, but I hate income taxes. That and Grover Norquist's pledge he tries to make everyone sign.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:05 | 2965092 MiltonFriedmans...
MiltonFriedmansNightmare's picture

There is a time for everything, including fascism, and it's time has arrived.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:53 | 2965012 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I suggest that a trial of this idea be run in California, since they need money desperately. Tax wealth over $5 million at 95% unless the money is invested in something productive. The trick would be to properly define 'productive' so owners of businesses that they actually participate in would not be forced to dilute said ownership. I still remember what happened to the Miami Dolphins when Joe Robbie died; his family had to sell out to pay the death taxes. Although never having been a Dolphins fan, I found it disgusting that the government should have the power to destroy. I would, however, be filled with glee to see all those Hollywood socialists given a financial enema.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:35 | 2965292 CommunityStandard
CommunityStandard's picture

Hollywood would just raise salaries, and therefore raise movie ticket prices.  California's misfortune would be spread out across the country (at least for those who go see movies).

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 04:37 | 2967384 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Positive outlook for those profiting from media piracy then??

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:59 | 2965435 SimplePrinciple
SimplePrinciple's picture

And I assume "productive" would be anything green or in support of unions?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:53 | 2965016 bidaskspread
bidaskspread's picture

Get ready baby boomers; the piper is starting to play.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:59 | 2965049 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Fat lady sipping some herbal honey tea lubin' up those vocal chords getting ready to SING!

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:11 | 2965134 haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

You got it pal. Funny how this board goes on and on about the build up of margin and credit and borrowing from the future. Everyone's on board with that one. Then when it comes time to remind people of the consequences of exponential borrowing, they shutter and blame. Thanks for showing me there's sanity.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:05 | 2965023 falak pema
falak pema's picture

"socialism" comes to the USA.

Back to FDR and more fiscal revenues, you can't get away from it. Will the state shrink in expenditure to reduce the debts and deficits? And will the US export more and import less? 

As far as debt is concerned, by increasing taxes  you run into the "greek" or euro conundrum : as taxes rise, the GDP shrinks and debt as proportion of GDP rises, and conventional tax revenues fall proportionally with GDP. We are back to square one, or worse! You need an export dyanmo to kick start the economy on solid basis. 

To compare with China : China exports 25% GDP and imports 20%...Not USA...that is the OTHER problem of USA : how do you turn the trade balance around?

The US HAS to export more, like EUrozone, or it will decline in riches if it continues to import more than it exports.

Simple as that. Having said that I am all for taxing the plutocrats as Santelli proposes; as they do not invest productively and speculate from Caymans. They deserve to pay more as they are corporate tax dodgers, and their rent/revenues are not comparable with those of true entrepreneurs.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:57 | 2965025 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I am in agreement with Flakmeister go the first time to a certain extent, but not for the same reason. The majority of the rich funded and supported Obama. Obama took 8 out of the 10 of the wealthiest counties in the country. If he ran on raising taxes and they are stupid enough to support him then I say tax the fucking shit out of them.

Of course it won't work because they will have to sell productive assets in order to meat the tax requirement , therefore driving down asset value but hey they wanted it.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:59 | 2965052 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Obama will cut off the mortgage tax deduction for anyone making over a million dollars. They will pay off their mortgage with this years bonus. The rich will find a way around all of this. Or they will move or set up corporations in Nevada. It's all bullshit.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:02 | 2965075 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Oh I agree. This all just irritates the hell out of me though. Everybody in this country it seems has gone insane.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:08 | 2965103 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

This whole mess has made me so jaded.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:46 | 2965365 RSloane
RSloane's picture

I'm right there with you Fonzi. I think a lot of us are.

How you doing? Power back and supplies restored?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:14 | 2965509 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I am good thanks. Everytime I get too caught up with this stuff I get hit in the head with a toy by my 3 year old who is stamping her feet and yelling "PLAY WITH ME". She keeps me grounded. Thanks for asking. I hope all is well by you. Nice job with the auction. My wife loves picking up good stuff on the cheap. She would appreciate that post more than me.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!