This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Will "Tax the Rich" Solve Our Deficit/Spending Crisis?

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith from OfTwoMinds,

Will "Tax the Rich" Solve Our Deficit/Spending Crisis?   (December 28, 2011)

If we look at tax revenues and income in a practical way, we find "tax the rich" will not close the widening $1.5 trillion gap between Federal revenues and spending.

Clearly, $1.5 trillion annual Federal deficits to fund the Status Quo--fully 10% of the nation's GDP--is unsustainable. Eventually, the ad hoc "solutions" currently being pushed by the Federal Reserve--zero interest rates to keep borrowing costs artificially low and money-printing operations that buy Treasury debt--will encounter political and/or market pressures which will limit the marginal effectiveness of these interventions, and the real cost of these historically unprecedented deficits will trigger a host of unintended consequences--all negative.

Everyone knows there are only two ways to bring deficits back to sustainable levels: skim more tax revenues from the national income or cut spending on the massive Status Quo programs of Defense/National Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. The rest of the Federal programs so reviled by various constituencies are a relative drop in the bucket.

Everyone with a stake in the Status Quo Federal spending--and that is certainly in excess of 100 million residents of the U.S.--is vocally in favor of "taxing the rich" as the "obvious and just solution" to the widening gap between revenues and spending.

If there is one stance that can gather non-partisan support, it's "tax the rich." More knowledgeable observers refine this to "tax the super-rich," as the majority of the wealth and income of the top 1% is actually held by the top 1/10th of 1%.

We can break this idea down into two basic parts: the ethical case and the revenue case. Ethically, at least in a democracy, the idea that everyone with substantial wealth and income should pay at least as much (as a percentage of income) as wage-earning citizens is compelling.

Various studies have found that the extremely wealthy pay about 17% of their income in Federal taxes, which is less than half of what we self-employed people pay (15.6% self-employment + 25% Federal tax on all income above about $34,000 = 40.6%).

The merely well-off--typically professionals, managers and small business owners--pay the majority of Federal taxes, with the very wealthy paying a substantial share as well. Roughly half of all those filing tax returns pay no Federal tax other than the employees' 7.65% FICA (Social Security) tax.

In the larger scheme of things, the bottom 60% of the workforce pays relatively little of the total Federal tax revenues. (Check U.S. Census records or search my site for sources that break down the sources of Federal tax revenues.)

In other words, the "rich"--or those who the average person considers "rich"--already pay most of the Federal taxes.

How much additional tax could be raised were the super-wealthy to pay the same 40% rate that we self-employed people pay? It is tempting to estimate that another $1 trillion or so could be raised from the super-wealthy, largely from non-wage (unearned) income.

I have addressed this yawning gap between spending and revenues in the past, for example:

The Promises That Cannot Be Kept (July 6, 2011)

As noted in the above entry (the TrimTabs chart), Americans' after-tax income is around $5.3 trillion and $900 billion in income from "other sources." Additional taxes would of course come from current after tax-income. It's difficult to sort out all the various measures of income; the BEA, for example, includes "government transfers" as personal income--though those transfers come from tax revenues.

Including government transfers and arcane categories such as "inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)", the BEA counts $12 trillion in earned income. But if strip out transfers and inventory adjustments etc., that number drops to around $8.4 trillion. (Two Americas: The Gap Between the Top 5% and the Bottom 95% Widens August 18, 2010)

Total Federal tax revenues are about $630 billion from Social Security taxes and $1.5 trillion from Federal income taxes, or a total of $2.1 trillion. To Fix Social Security, First Ask Why It Is Deep in the Red (January 18, 2011).

There are local and state taxes, too, of course, which leaves the $6.2 trillion in after-tax income noted earlier. Since the top 10% collect roughly half the income, we can guesstimate that the top 10% receives about $3 trillion. To balance the current budget, they would need to pay 50% of their after-tax income ($1.5 trillion)--on top of the substantial taxes they already pay. (maybe the top 1/10th of 1% pay 17%, but the merely wealthy pay much higher rates on earned income.)

Add this up and you get tax rates of around 65% on the top 10% (25% total income rate plus 50% of the remaining income).

We then have to ask whether these rates would ever be collected.

There are a number of factors that affect actual tax collections from theoretical calculations. One is that Congress is a collection of wealthy people who are seeking to increase their power while minimizing their taxes and those paid by their cronies and contributors. As long as this is the case, then the tax code will continue to be thousands of pages long with exclusions, taxbreaks and exemptions for the politically connected wealthy.

Another is that studies have found Federal tax collections have historically topped out around 21% of total income. Above that level, people make choices that reduce their tax burdens.

Just as a thought experiment, put yourself in the shoes of someone with $20 million in assets and an income of $1 million. First off, you have a tax attorney who works the complex tax code to put as much of your income as possible in lower-rate income--for example, long-term capital gains.

Wealthy individuals shelter their income and assets with corporations, which have many more options in terms of shifting income.

Secondly, you have overseas accounts, assets and options. Let's say you are ethical, and pay your legal taxes without resorting to questionable tax havens. Let's stipulate that you are just like any other taxpayer--you feel no obligation to pay more than your legal share.

International agreements mean that income need only be declared and taxes paid on it in one jurisdiction. So income declared in Switzerland is exempt from taxes in the U.S., as taxes have already been paid in Switzerland.

Though I am not that knowledgeable about tax law, anecdotally it seems total tax rates in Switzerland are around 25%. If rates in the U.S. were jacked to 50% or higher, then very wealthy individuals will shift income to places like Switzerland and pay the lower tax rates there--perfectly legally. They would also liquidate assets in states which attempted to raise taxes on real property or enterprises, and shift those assets to lower-tax states or nations.

This would not be perceived as "tax avoidance," but as rational money management. In this sense, the super-wealthy are simply doing what every household does--attempt to lower taxes by whatever legal means are available. The means available to those with income and assets that can be shifted around are simply more capacious.

In practical terms, collecting another $1.5 trillion annually is problematic on multiple levels. Practically speaking, it might be wise to align total U.S. tax burdens with those of Switzerland and similar developed-world tax havens, for those essentially set the top rate that very wealthy individuals will pay.

Such a system would flatten taxation rates and very likely increase total tax collections. But it is simply not practical to think that the Federal government can skim 45% of the nation's $8.4 trillion in income to fund the bloated, corrupt and inefficient $3.7 trillion Federal budget.

How about those soaring corporate profits? If we taxed 100% of the $1.5 trillion corporate profits, then we could close the $1.5 trillion budget deficit. But then Wall Street would have nothing to support those sky-high stock valuations.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:52 | 2019394 Mercury
Mercury's picture


For one thing, if the government gets bailed out with more tax revenue they'll just spend more (if nothing terrible happens, why would they change their behavior?).

A lot of rich guy, tax-free income comes from muni bonds (which I see no discussion of here).  Tax that all of the sudden things are costlier for state/local government.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:54 | 2019462 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Come on.  This whole spend into oblivion thing was orchestrated by the oligarchs, starting with their puppet Ronald Reagan, to funnel money to the wealthy.  It is no coincidence that the very wealthy and the large corporations pay real tax rates that are at multi-generational lows even as government spending increases.  The idea is to convince the sheeple that they are the problem, not the oligarchs.  Too much spending on social programs and all.   Of course it can't be fixed now by simply taxing the rich.  That was the whole plan.  The real question is not whether taxing the rich will solve our spending crisis.  The question is why we are all dumb enough to let the Red and Blue Teams continue to rape the middle class and keep the spoils.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:04 | 2019505 T-roll
T-roll's picture

The question is do we default now on our own terms or do we turn into Greece and have the terms of our default dictated by foreigners?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:19 | 2019770 economics1996
economics1996's picture


To review, the max. tax collection point is about 28.6% (Laffer) and anything above that will create tax avoidance behavior, as ZHers probably know very well.

Tax collections above 25% of the GDP (we are at 45.4%) is counterproductive and will result in slow economic growth.

Around 22% of the GDP (Fed, state, local), 11% of the GDP for the federal government is optimal, is where the government should be taxing and consuming.  

If the politicians were honest they would cut federal taxes to a flat 17% rate or a 23% Fair Tax, and gradually lower the taxes as expenditures are reduced to 11% of GDP.

Kill the Federal Reserve.  

Set spending caps based on GDP consumption of not more than 11% at the federal level, and start private medical and retirement savings accounts.

Let the states and local government do the social engineering, as intended by the constitution.

It’s not complex. 


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:57 | 2020453 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



Anyone who references the Laffer Curve is an idiot.  Even Laffer, himself, has admitted that over the past 3 decades there is no evidence to back it up.  In truth, it's pure right-wing, propaganda BULLSHIT leftover from the Reagan era, designed to fool the 99% into believing tax cuts for the 1% are for the betterment of our economy. 

You know what I think?  If you increase my pay by 25%, I'll produce higher quality widgets with a smile on my face for my bosses, which, in turn, will increase sales for my bosses.  If you simply pay me more, my boss will sell more widgets and tax revenues will increase.  Therefore, the key to solving our debt crisis is to mandate that all wages under $200K/year are increased by 25%.  I'll include some math equations and some geometry so that everyone will think it's legit. 

If you think the Laffer Curve has credibility, perhaps you can tell me how the Bush tax cuts over the past decade have increased government revenue and/or jobs?

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:37 | 2020531 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Anyone writing "anyone who references or thinks..." is an idiot.  Your notion of your own behavior is various economic circumstances provides additional evidence to support this.  "Anyone who" has run a business in the real world can testify that the law of diminishing returns didn't magically skip over tax rates.  Regardless of your misguided notions of superior performance soley as a result of higher pay, the much more likely scenario is- someone raises US taxes too high, I'll shutter the shop that provides your job, fire your ass, redomicile overseas, and hire a Chinese wage slave  to make a superior product at a lower price, you can then collect your 99 weeks with a smile on your face.

The Laffer Curve's credibility has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, since the Bush tax cuts were never designed or intended to maximize the revenue to the Treasury.  The Bush tax cuts were a Keynesian knee jerk reaction to 9/11 economic train wreck, and as usual in Washington the notion of "we'll fix it later" is snakeoil  for the masses since even absent DC gridlock the legislative process for an extension or renewal is far smoother than the process for an overhaul.  

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 19:16 | 2020593 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"I'll shutter the shop that provides your job, fire your ass, redomicile overseas, and hire a Chinese wage slave  to make a superior product at a lower price...."

Your threat has been the American model for some 30 plus years.   I can understand why the oligarch class would support it, because it centralizes wealth at the top and makes slaves of the former middle class.    If you are all about the Lord and Serf system, this is the best way to achieve it.  But small business owners are slowly starting to figure out that the model doesn't work so well for them.  Assuming that most small businesses serve their local communities, the average Joe is no longer able to afford their services in the "suck it and get paid less or I leave" economy that you advocate.  They shop at Walmart, not at your small business.   If you are a restaurant, they eat in.  If you are a carwash, they do without.  If you are an insurance agency, they do without.  If you are a movie theater, they stay home.  If you are a realtor, you can't sell houses because no one can afford to buy them even when the sellers are willing to take a loss.  This is what is crushing our economy.  The trickle down theory has proven to a big lie that works only for the biggest players.  Sending jobs overseas to reduce retail cost coupled with easy credit temporarily created a false wealth effect for the average guy, but the chickens are coming home to roost.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 19:55 | 2020651 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

On the expense side the US regulations are actually far worse than the labor.

On the revenue side the multinationals who can both afford by buy their own tax loopholes and then establish separate overseas manufacturing subsidiaries for their big box shops can offer products in the marketplace that anyone without that scale can't compete with, so riight out of the starting gate the average business owner is screwed and stretched both ways.

There is a fixed amount revenue from any given sales volume.

Babies who want a price for their services that the marketplace won't support don't get any sympathy from me, especially when they turn around with their paychecks which are 1) guaranteed and 2) serve as basis for potential future unemployment benefits and then they patronize Apple, Google, Nike, Amazon, and the rest of the agents of economic doom who domestically kill off the small market participants and then buy their own 3rd world wage slaves.  In the long run they kill their own markets, but in the short run make a fortune for shareholders.

I moved from the US to Switzerland so it's not I actually have a problem paying someone a higher salary for the same amount of work, but when anyone feels entitled to more, irrespective of what's coming in the door, then they need to be shown the door. 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:10 | 2020665 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"On the expense side the US regulations are actually far worse than the labor."

Clean air, safe workplace rules, the legal system, general infrastructure etc all have a price.  What is amazing is that the multinationals have figured out how to get all of the benefit of the socialist polices of the U.S. and the West in general, while paying little or none of the cost.  The best example is the oil industry.  They get the benefit of the socialized U.S. military that not only protects the worldwide distribution system, but that also opens up vast new oil fields for them (see Iraq).  The thanks to the average taxpayer who makes all that possible for the majors?  Your quote above, e.g, "go get stuffed if you don't like it.  Pay more, get paid less, and like it."


In a world where only the biggest money talks and thus the oligarchs make the rules, the middle class will eventually die out.  You obviously believe you are immune from or directly benefit from the effects of the system as it is currently constructed.  Hopefully for your sake you are right.  I believe that most people who support the system have simply been progandized into believing what the oligarchs want them to believe.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:40 | 2020714 economics1996
economics1996's picture

You want to save the middle class?  Cut corporate taxes to zero and eliminate the Federal Reserve.  Figure it out how that would do it, if you can.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:58 | 2020726 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm with you on the Fed, but what possible long-term benefit could flow from zero corporate tax rates?   Large corporations pay less now as a percentage of income than they have in generations, and it's not helping the middle class.  What other than untested ideologicial theory do you have to support the idea that eliminating corporate tax would benefit anyone but the top?  And under what theory is there a benefit in corporations getting something for nothing (they benefit from our socialized schools, roads, courts, military, police, etc)?   Won't corporations make bad decisions for the rest of us if they are not paying for the infrastructure that they need to exist?  

Fri, 12/30/2011 - 06:42 | 2021175 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

notice how the "ethical" argument above that the rich (at 18% tax rate) should pay the same as high end wage earners (40%) kind of fades away into talk of congressional corruption and other countries' policies?

we should tax the rich but we just "can't".  they are too rich to tax.  kind of like too big to fail. 

Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:05 | 2021523 WatchnSee
WatchnSee's picture

You are either completely ignorant or intentionally naive. In either case, you exemplify the current US public education system.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 21:36 | 2020745 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I am not immune, I have literally started a year with x dollars in the bank, put in 3000 hours at the office, and ended the year with no deposits (income or dividend) and less all my living expenses.  As an exercise- I looked into unemployment between giving up on the US and restarting overseas, and it turns out- even though I paid 15% FICA for years on top of the upper tax brackets some people are so eager to raise- I wasn't eligible for unemployment benefits. 


I also do a lot a business in dirt poor countries where even globalist wage slave jobs would be a big a step up, so when I see people with jobs who complain that they get less than those who deal with the big picture everyday, and yet look at their pay in a vacuum or microcosm while continuing to support the very people and instructions which in the big picture are destroying their future, I think that they are probably already getting more than their fair share, especially since the ultimate ambition of the globalists/NWO/big green movement is PARITY, and not by bring the dirt poor up, but showing the spoiled 1st world brats what dirt poor really is.    


The big beneficiaries of the Iraq invasion were the military supply manufacturers and PMCs and not the oil majors, unless you are talking about the Russian and Chinese oil majors- although in the last major round of concessions some of the prospects were such shitty deals that the Chinese weren't even throwing out a low-ball joke bid on them.  There was an incident on Capitol Hill before the war where some neo-clown (Wolfowitz I think) blew an amazing amount of smoke up some enormous Congressional asses about  paying for the invasion of Iraq with oil revenues, but as far as I know no one senior in the oil industry was dumb enough to believe anything he was shoveling.  As a basic international law thing the US would have had to either annex Iraq (which it didn’t have a UN mandate for) or actually declare war on them as basis for seeking reparations at the end of a war, and regardless- since the next 30+ billion dollars in oil profits was earmarked for Kuwait under the UNCC claims process – this was simply never going to happen, especially since Carlyle was trying to get GoK to park several billion of those dollars in a Carlyle fund at the time.  Of course it is possible that the management on the military side of the military-industrial complex is actually dumb enough not to realize that there are actually whole bodies of law and treaties that deal ownership of mineral rights and obligations in armed conflict and that the US itself (which even has a veto on the UN Security Council) had already “spent” that oil money paying Iraq’s bill for the last war...    

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:38 | 2020713 economics1996
economics1996's picture

You got it.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:36 | 2020709 economics1996
economics1996's picture

The best way to deal with foreign competitors is;

1.  Cheap energy, drill.

2.  Stable dollar, gold.

3.  Low or no corporate taxes.

4.  Tort reform, limited liability.

5.  One set of regulations for all 50 states.

You see where labor cost is on the list?  Maybe 6th.  Blaming the rich and WalMart is beyond stupid.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 22:55 | 2020844 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture




Anyone writing "anyone who references or thinks..." is an idiot......

On an internet forum, when a person references something, they are writing it.  

Therefore, in this example, referencing (a) = writing (b).

If (a) = idiot, and if a = b, then (b) must also = idiot.  By the commutative laws of mathematics, I've just proven that you've called yourself an idiot.

It's very difficult for me to take you seriously if you call yourself an idiot straight out of the starting gate.  

But I shall look past that for the moment....

No one is saying that the law of diminishing returns does not apply to taxes.  Yes, indeed, if you tax me enough, I'll just stop working.  You're trying argue a point that I wasn't making.  In fact, I think you're trying to oversimplify the argument to make it appear ridiculous because you cannot defend the REAL argument:  does the reduction in taxes create more government revenue?  Is there any historical precedent to give the Laffer Curve merit?

This has been the CORNERSTONE of Republican ideology for decades.... cut taxes on the rich, and not only will the wealth trickle down, but government revenues will, conversely, increase - it's almost like Jesus turning red ink into black.  Therefore, deficits supposedly don't matter. Well, as it turns out - like virtually all the other Republican lies - it's all BULLSHIT.  Even Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003-05 devotes an entire section of his 2007 best selling textbook to debunking this nonsense.*  That's the point being discussed, which you didn't address, at all. Instead of discussing the credibility of the Laffer Curve, you diverted the conversation into the ridiculous.  And I would argue that you did it because the Laffer Curve is, indeed, indefensible.  

.......the Bush tax cuts were never designed or intended to maximize the revenue to the Treasury......

Unfortunately, that's BULLSHIT, which can be proven wrong by Bush's own quotes, as well as quotes from other leading Republicans.

In 2002, during a meeting with cabinet members, George Bush said:  "Well, we have a deficit because tax revenues are down. Make no mistake about it, the tax relief package that we passed -- that should be permanent, by the way -- has helped the economy, and that the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package." 

Then, he repeated it again in 2006 at a speech in New Hampshire:  "One of the interesting things that I hope you realize when it comes to cutting taxes is this tax relief not only has helped our economy, but it's helped the federal budget.    

Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said in March 2003: "The entire package the president does believe will lead to growth, which will over time grow the economy, create additional revenues for the federal government, and pay for itself."

John McCain said in 2006:  "Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues."

In June 2010, John Boehner said, "We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment and more people paying taxes."

Etc. Etc. Etc....the examples are endless.  It's very clear that our Republican leaders have a much different opinion about the Bush tax cuts than you assert. Republican tax cuts for the 1% get sold to the American people the same way, every single time. 


Fri, 12/30/2011 - 08:11 | 2021208 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

You believe what people on TV say- that's funny, in a Beavis & Butthead sort of way...

I guess the Iraq oil revenues were also going to pay for the invasion of Iraq?  Or NiggerCare is going to "bend the cost curve" and "if you like your current insurance you can keep it"?  You really shouldn’t believe what you see or hear on TV, it's just as full of BS as the internet.

When the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were being sheparded through the legislature, the primary concern of that side of the pigpen (and TPTB behind them) was "How do we prevent W. from becoming another 1-termer just like his daddy?"  Everything else is noise and sheeple feed.  The ideological and tactical reflexive response of one side to higher taxes, or another side to lower spending, on any given issue is ever present, and a basic part of the political process.  The public fascination with process is a diversion from any discussion of the actual aims and ambitions of any legislative acts, and is always welcome by the TPTB, because they sure as hell don't want anyone publically discussing or debating their bigger issues.

You make cheap ad-hominem attacks, decry an admittedly cheap ad-hominem attack against you, and then proceed to make more, all while reeking of intellectual snobbery.  Here's some simple logic for you- since you admit there is a diminishing return on tax collections beyond a certain rate point, and if at the opposite end of the spectrum you think a 5% income tax rate is going to yield more than a 0.5% income tax rate, then, by definition, you have a bell curve distribution- i.e. a Laffer Curve, you can debate the size, shape, and position of it all you want, but it exists.

You should really pull your head out of your partisan ass and smell the stench of corruption on that pervades every corner of Washington DC, otherwise, you will eventually and inevitably be reduced to nothing more than a global wage slave of TPTB, if you aren't already, which is most definitely their longer term desire.   

Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:50 | 2021610 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



NiggerCare?  So you really ARE a redneck, and I guarantee you vote Republican because of it.  Damn NIGGER in the White House! Isn't amazing how SO MANY of the right-wingers in America are racist rednecks at heart?  There's only three types of Republican voters:  the 1%, the totally clueless who have been properly conditioned by the Murdoch Propaganda Machine, and racist, bigoted freaks from the American backwaters.  Which category do you fit?  My guess is you're a 1%'er, originally from the American backwaters.  Am I right?  

So your defense is basically that the Republicans were just LYING to everyone about the Laffer Curve?  And that the tax cuts were just a sneaky ploy to ensure that W wasn't a one term president?  Well, then, I FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU, YOU IDIOT!  Going back to Reagan, none of the tax cuts have ever been about increasing revenue.  Ever!  It's all just bullshit to take money away from the middle class and place it directly into the pockets of the rich, while LYING to the middle class while their pockets get picked.  

Virtually EVERYTHING can be plotted into a bell curve if you don't care about the size and shape, you moron.  The question is, does this particular bell curve have any credibility whatsoever for cutting taxes on the rich?  The answer is NO!  And that's been my point from the beginning. The Laffer Curve - as used by Republicans - is a JOKE!

Lastly, I'm not partisan.  I fucking hate the democrats, too, but not for the same reasons that everyone else here does....  you know, because they try to help the poor and downtrodden, and those with "alternative" lifestyles.  In your parlance, that's NIGGERS AND FAGGOTS. I just happen to think the hypocrisy of the Republicans runs deeper, is more comical and more pathetic.  I also happen to think the Republicans are vastly more despicable than Democrats - like NiggerCare, for instance.    

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:42 | 2021793 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

You are a little name calling partisan tool, and you have no idea what I believe because you apparently see the world through your brown shirt party propaganda issued theater glasses.  

Either your little childish sensitivities or well trained dog reflexes kick in when your hear or see a certain word that you have been trained to respond in a certain way to.  Pavlov would be proud.  

No, it’s not NiggerCare because Obama is nigger, although he certainly behaves like the loyal house nigger of the big banking houses.  No, it's NiggerCare because its treats Americans like chattel, and herds them into a system not fit for a nigger, much less a freeman, all while relying on those very Americans to demonstrate either the passivity or stupidity of a nigger to allow its implementation.  

I've confronted and fought far more sadistic and blood thirsty racists than self proclaimed civil rights shucktsters like John Lewis ever have or will- and while I won't give him or his sell-out contemporaries the time of day, I still break bread with the few left of those they drove out of the movement because they were too radical (i.e. those who wouldn't sell out those they led to the man). 

As for tax rates- it is exactly the middle, lower, and lower-upper classes that benefit from reductions in tax rates.  The top of the top don't care what the nominal rate is, or who it hurts, because it will never touch them.  Warren Buttfuck is a great example.  Taxes can nominally go to 90% and he won't pay 1% more of his wealth in taxes to the IRS.  The Macmillans can arrange another expatriation holiday in the unlikely event they ever run out of cash after the first one, which is exactly the only time the exercise ever increased revenue despite both parties dragging out the maneuver whenever their other paymasters need to top off the USD accounts.  Justice for the 99% is achieved through closing the loopholes, not adjusting marginal rates, Obama himself has said as much, but he relies on his loyal dogs to be dumb as niggers and forget that he once spoke the truth...

By the way, you are being presumptive about not only my political affiliation, but also my race.  I am far too mixed blooded to ever fit in with those you seem to associate me with, even though by Society of the Cincinnati standards- I am a direct descendant of one of Virginia founding families.  If you saw my sister, you might think I’m a nigger, but the world is confusing when you’ve been conditioned to only see or accept things in certain ways.  Perhaps I should adjust my avatar for the PC fools- since by their own BS rules, and even absent the freedom of speech, I can call anyone anything I damn well please, and if you have a problem with that then you are an insensitive racist…


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:28 | 2020698 economics1996
economics1996's picture

When Bush cut taxes in 2003 revenues increased 40.1% over the next four years.  The problem was the spending.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 22:49 | 2020862 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



I'm glad you posted that because it exemplifies the STUPIDITY of the those who buy into this right-wing BULLSHIT.  You're cherry picking your dates. The Bush tax cuts haven't expired yet, so why stop at 2007?  

The surge in government revenues during those cherry-picked dates had NOTHING to do with Bush's tax cuts.  NOTHING.  It came from an entire nation converting their houses into ATM machines, coupled with encouragement from Alan Greenspan and George Bush.  "Go shopping!"  "Option ARM's are fine!"

Your IDIOCY is exactly why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity, et al, and the entire Republican party can maintain any semblance of credibility after the monstrosity of the Bush administration and several decades of pure Republican hypocrisy.  

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi   

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:08 | 2019940 Woodyg
Woodyg's picture

I think you mean Goldman Sachs don't you?

GS = homegrown terrorists

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:11 | 2019510 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives [and all oligarch supporters including most Democrats and Republicans] to create or increase existing budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:23 | 2019795 economics1996
economics1996's picture

There is no starving, if you look at table 1-3 on the link you can see the inverse relationship between federal consumption of the GDP and tax collections.

Economists call it "crowding out."  ZHers call it the banksters.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:52 | 2019879 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The "starve the beast" theory did not work.  Stockman has since admitted that it was wrong.   But the large deficits are blamed entirely on the poor and the "socialists," nonetheless.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:06 | 2019512 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Yeah, if only we gave Carter four more years...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:10 | 2019525 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ronnie grew the military industrial complex and the overall budget deficit much more than the peanut eating clown.  Pointing out that Carter was an idiot does not render Regan a hero.   Wake up and smell the red team/blue team bullshit.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:33 | 2019607 Mercury
Mercury's picture

I don't know about the industrial part.

Team Red/Blue is bullshit mostly because they're both pro- big government and pro- direct beneficiaries of big government.  Soon the only difference between the "conservative" party and the "liberal" will be (as is more or less the case in the UK now) that the former wants the VAT to b 22% and the later 23%.

If you recognize the problems for society inherent in the mere existance of mega-corporations and TBTF banks it's a bit of a leap of faith to think that things will be much less pernicious with TBTF, mega-government.  We can chicken-and-egg this all day but I think its reasonable to assert that if government were not so big, there wouldn't be so much to buy.

Once upon a time we had oligarchs who tried to limit the size and scope of government because they recognized this.  They even put it in writing.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:35 | 2019616 eureka
eureka's picture

CHS - bla bla bla - CHS always ends up confusing both himself and his readers, babbling a little in all directions.

The issue is simple: yes, of course the very rich should always pay a higher percentage in taxes - for one simple reason:  a person who makes $20,000 per year, which IS the US median household income per person, will after a net tax rate of 20% have a $16,000 disposable post tax income - whereas a person who makes $20,000,000 i.e. TWENTY MILLION USD per year, will after a net tax rate of 15% (capital gains tax) have a  $17,000,000 i.e. SEVENTY MILLION USD post tax disposable income.

The gap in disposable net income is the qualifier for whether a nation is A) civilized, that is to say equitable and unified through principles of unity or B) in-equitable, that is to say divided between a ruthlessly manipulative elite of "haves" who skillfully leverage their fiat "incomes" by market and political manipulations - and - an uneducated mass of empoverished, unemployed and or minimum paid service/servant workers, who's sole chance of survival is catering to and servicing the whims of the very rich/very manipulative.

Stop whining, Peter Schiff et al, about your taxation percentage rates - you very rich do not pay those rates anyway, but off-shore all your hedged profits - just like every single major US corporation.

The Tax Rate Percentage "debate" is a cover up for the fact that the very rich pay next to nothing in taxes. Whatever relevance then, does the debate of percentage rates have? None, except being another diversion and manipulation - tripple sided theatrics for the masses.

Zero Hedge, Bitchez - means exactly that, zero hedge - i.e. zero bullshit.

The very rich fuck everybody on earth and there are only two ways to control them:  A) tax them very progressively and remove all their loopholes - or B) kill them - which makes progressive taxation look very benevolent, doesn't it?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:49 | 2019650 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Just so you know, the kill all the rich people strategy doesn't have a very good track record (in world history) in terms of generating long range, positive outcomes for society as a whole.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:01 | 2019714 Vergeltung
Vergeltung's picture

don't distract the simpleton with facts or a keen historical insight. he's on a roll.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:00 | 2020135 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



He said very Rich..

anyone who has more than one 100,000 sq ft home.. that they spend less than 1 month a year in.. who has no job and lives on a 100+ year old trust.. who has multiple Gulfstream’s with 5,000+ miles ranges.. sister ships... in case one breaks down.. are not necessary to the economy.


he might be a littel worng.. but he is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more right in the over all than matters with the lil bit of wrong.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:54 | 2020112 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Yes, but one must have the exterminator in occasionally anyway. 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:06 | 2020154 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



I Love You Man!

Merry Christmas to You and Yours!

and a Happy New Year filled with eating those Lucky Sperm Club Rich Fuckers who dont do shit!

We will easily be able to pay off the debt once we confiscate thier Trusts!!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 19:45 | 2020636 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours as well, JW.  I don't believe that confiscating the trust funds of social parasites will save us now, but at least it will drag them down with the rest of us, as is only fair. 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:03 | 2020147 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture




Just so you know, the kill all the rich people strategy doesn't have a very good track record (in world history) in terms of generating long range, positive outcomes for society as a whole.

It will be so enjoyable that I am willing to struggle thru with any of the problems that may arise from dispatching the lucky sperm club to hell where they almost certainly belong!


Trust fund babies are of no real consequence to the World or the betterment of the World or betterment to mankind.


Eat the Rich! And anyone who sides with them!!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 21:22 | 2020749 Blankman
Blankman's picture

Mercury -


Worked great for the Polish when the Germans killed off their rich and intelligent during WWII - Katyn.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:50 | 2019666 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

I have a question for you, and I'm not ripping you when I ask this but who will create the jobs in your world? Most jobs in our society are generated by small to medium-sized businesses. Starting a small business or trying to grow an existing small business into a larger one takes a lot of work, a lot of long-hour days and personal sacrifice. Why do people bother? Either they love what they do a lot or because there is a chance to make money. With your "very progressive" tax policy, you've taken away the profit motive.

So my question is: who is going to create and give you a job in this brave new world of yours?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:05 | 2019730 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

Although I am for zero taxes, the history of this country would not prove your theory.


More jobs of worth and greater standard of living was accomplished under the more progressive rates you decry. There are many other factors but that is not in dispute.


There is of course the fact that if you started and ran something in a brave world sort of  way, yeah sure, that did produce jobs and profits you would realize that the progressive tax rates are a joke.

The games are endless, you just need better lawyers.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:36 | 2019827 Mercury
Mercury's picture

But tax rates today (as opposed to say, the 1950's) apply more to gross rather than net income. No one actually paid 90% when the top bracket was 90%. So, not apples-to-apples.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:36 | 2020054 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

There have been more than a few loopholes patched since then ;)

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:20 | 2019782 Goatboy
Goatboy's picture

Taken away profit motive by leaving millions and billions of dollars intact? And they complain and still have options to refuse? Could a single mom refuse her "job" (slave position more likely) just because she doesnt have any motive to do it? I dont think so.. she is forced to work whatever is available or starve. Its a huge difference when you are up against the wall of fewer options and literal starvation. and you all forget that and constantly blabber about jooobs.

And most people dont need jobs but income (as can be seen by observing people living of their wealth through sweat and tears of others). Job is relatively modern concept akin to modern slavery. You are just conditioned to think otherwise. Slaveowners were too.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:40 | 2020272 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

What reality are you in? What single Mom is starving??? The single Mom's I know in the real world get free housing(not good housing, but free), free food, free utilities and some spending money. I really don't know what fucking world you're living in.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:31 | 2019814 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The current "productive class" Red Team talking point you are repeating is nothing more than a repackaging of supply side a.k.a. trickle down economics, which the Red Team knows will no longer sell.  The fundamental message is:  give the wealthy more/tax them less, and they will create jobs and the wealth will trickle down and we'll all be better off.  We've been doing it now for more than thirty years.  It doesn't work.  

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:33 | 2019820 economics1996
economics1996's picture

Hes a communist, Uncle Joe will pass out the jobs.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:58 | 2020126 eureka
eureka's picture

Elvis Dog - Look at the Scandinavian countries. There's your model. Lot's of education and R&D, little to no wealth re-distribution from the working/middle class to the rich (as in the US & UK, the USUKs, my term).

Knowledge and current/upgraded skillsets form the basis for high tech industries. Putting public revenues (taxes collected) back into the economy via education and R&D and intelligent infrastructure (that is to say cost effective transportation systems, which are cheaper per capita than private/individual transportation) - all adds up to create the foundation for lots of future oriented jobs.

Denmark, for example, excells in software language development for mass transit, and has the world's largest and or near largest future and R&D  oriented companies within transportation (Maersk), energy (Vestas), cognitiion promoting toys (Lego), pharmaceuticals, genetics, enzymes (Novo Nordisk), as well as optimized self-sufficient and massively food exporting agricultural system (cheeses, butter, bacon, cookies. It's capital, Copenhagen, has been generating a third of it's electricity from windmills placed in the sound between Denmark and Sweden for the past two decades. Add to those industries Danish design, furniture and architecture and you begin to see complete 360 sector coverage. 

My main point is this: if a nations core, large companies cover all essential industries - and you fuel and sustain all the essential sectors with R&D implementation and then market your specialized national products to the world, you at the same time create the need for all the smaller support and supply businesses, which creates all the jobs and job types a nation needs. US has done the opposite: outsourced all manufacturing,  off-shored all profits, socialized all private corporate losses to taxpayers AND built a megalomanic military machine - and it is all financed with money borrowed from China and OPEC - under the guise of "free enterprise" and "cheap" Chinese "consumer goods" to the US masses.

The US is now paying the price - and will increasingly so - for its glorification of its hyper rich elite (who runs it) and its pride of it military apparatus, who is the one and only reason the USD is still the World Reserve Currency, which is the only reason ANYONE is still buying US Treasuries and USD.

US'ians MUST dismantle their Elite's Empire - or die with it - because IT, and no other force on earth, is exactly what is killing the US working and unemployed masses - and with them, within the next two years, the evil elite and their beloved super-tool - the US Empire itself.

Tax the very rich progressively - or continue to be fucked by them. That is your choice.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:18 | 2020184 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Nice, well-reasoned response. Thanks.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:02 | 2020457 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Yea look at the Scandanavian countries.

Avg living space 450 sq ft

Avg living space in USA 850 sq ft

Avg Cars owned=1/2

Avg cars owned in the US-1 1/2

Avg price of petrol $6.10/gal

AVg price of petrol in the US $3.55gal.

Number of indispensable items to the human race-ZERO




The US should dismantle it's elite empire like Sweden did and watch it flee like Sweden did.

Must take an awful lot of practice to keep promoting epic fail governance.

For every Denmark there are currently 10 Portugals-but keep clinging to the idiotic epic fail notions of big centralized goverment. There ain't a fukking thing that comes from Europe that any human needs to survive in the world.  Now go try and exist a day without product borne in the US-without being a delusional moron.

Highest survival rates for the top 12 forms of cancer? Europe or US?

80% of the top 20 grossing drugs in the world? Europe or US?

The technology that runs the most complicated creations besides man on earth? Europe or US?

I could go on for five days here, but it gets tiresome pointing out the earth is round under every idiotic wah wah wah Eureka post.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 22:01 | 2020778 eureka
eureka's picture

XP - you list no specific US benefits to mankind - only hints - except of course for US centralized government - which indeed IS the largest on earth and VERY busy playing cop of the world on behalf of US corporations, oxymoronically so in return for their out-sourced production/jobs, off-shoredprofits/tax-evasion and general anti-national i.e. anti-US behavior. 

XP - you clearly love US corporations - and measure your country's and your own worth vicariously, i.e. by looking up to the possessions of the very rich and anti-US behaving corporations, who are US only in name.

Do mention the essential specific products that US so generously and supremely provides the world.... -come to think of it the biggest US exports are: chemicals, war/weapons & bankster derivatives - there, fixed it for you.

You can keep Monsanto - and for that matter Windows 7 and all of Microsofts other miserable, monopoly and garbage software - and for that matter every stinking taxed-evaded I-Product coming out of Apple - though I have to admit I love MacBook Air I do hate Apple software (it's like kindergarden crap) and it's all made in China for slave wages and Apple sits on USD 82 BILLION and pays near zero US taxes.

So babble away - I'll take European foods, clothing, design, furnishings, art, cars and entertainment over US dittos any day.

How many US'ians will join you in your rejection of European goods.... - well, for one thing, most certainly NO ONE with any kind of pocket money; everything US'ians always wanted and buy every day for pleasure and status comes from Europe - and you know it.

Cheers - in good ol' anglo ale!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:20 | 2020499 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Sorry, the US' middle and lower classes have been fucked by three things - the enormous costs of the non-productive parts of government (endless red tape, minimum wage laws, war on drugs, outsized military, miltary adventures), financialisation of its economy, and Triffin's Dilemma - that is to say, you cannot have the world's reserve currency AND not run a trade deficit. Think about it - how do you flood the world with USDs if you're not buying more goods from foreigners than you are selling to them?

Denmark and Sweden do not have these handicaps. They also have a relatively homogenous population of people who grew up with a work ethic. How long this will be the case given their immigration policies and the perverse incentives of socialism, is unclear. What we do know, however, is that Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe until it adopted laissez faire policies in the 19th century. The socialists only really started implemating socialism in the 1960's and since the 70's Sweden has been slowly dropping down the world's wealth league tables. Socialism doesn't work, and neither does central planning. How many examples from history do we need?

Would it be good if the top 0.1% paid as much tax as the rest of us? Yes. Would it plug the budget deficit? No.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:16 | 2020679 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The United States has been socialist by any definition since the 1930's, and has dome amazingly well.   Socialized schools.  Socialized police.  Socialized court system.  Socialized roads.  Socialized space program.  Socialized park system.  Socialized general infrastructure.  Socialized medicine for many.  Socialized military.   Progressive tax rate (less so now than during our heydey).  Etc.  Name a country that has no such socialized tendencies that has a vibrant middle class today.

Sat, 12/31/2011 - 11:18 | 2023538 BigJim
BigJim's picture

You've got the causation exactly backwards. As the private sector creates more and more wealth, government expands and sucks off more and more value. We can see this in the increasing proportion of govenment spending wrt the rest of the economy.

The thirties was a disaster for all the countries that embraced socialism - Germany, Italy, the US and the Soviet Union. And yes, 'National socialism' has more in common with socialism that free market capitalism, in that it embraces collectivism and central planning, and overwhelming state control of supposedly private enterprise

WWII purged most of the socialism from the aforementioned countries (with the exception of the USSR, sadly) and their economies boomed. In the US Truman revoked most of FDR's disastrous command-and-control and the economy boomed. Of course... having most of the rest of the indistrialised world in tatters help the US somewhat also.

I'm not an anarchist, so I advocate a coercive monopolist to prevent and punish force and fraud. However, I believe that once the State expands beyond a certain point it no longer facilitates the suppression of predation and becomes a predator itself - a massive, predominant predator with all the powers of the State to facilitate its parasitism.

Here's a question for you, LetThemEatRand: do you believe there should be limits to the State's size, dominance, and intrusiveness? If so, at what point (roughly) does that occur? Are we there yet?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 14:16 | 2033260 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Off the hip, I`d shoot at above 10 %. And that`s a long shot before taxing becomes robbing.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:01 | 2020142 Pay Day Today
Pay Day Today's picture

"With your "very progressive" tax policy, you've taken away the profit motive."

Nope. Because most people I know would still prefer to be a business owner earning $1M pa taxed at 50%, leaving $500K disposable. Rather than earn $50K taxed at 30% as a wage serf, leaving just $35K in disposable income.

$500K vs $35K. Is that enough of a "profit motive" for most, don't you think.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:20 | 2020193 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

We had different expectations on what "highly progressive tax rates" meant. I was thinking more along the lines of 1970's England where I believe the top marginal tax rate reached 92%.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:57 | 2020324 Pay Day Today
Pay Day Today's picture

Top marginal US income tax rate in 1960 was 91%. But it came in at a threshold which meant that anyone paying even a single dollar at that rate was already fabulously wealthy.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:32 | 2019816 economics1996
economics1996's picture

Eurika You are an idiot.  

If you want to get at the rich let the fucking banks fail.  Adopt a flat tax.  Eliminate the corporate tax.  This would increase competition, lowering market shares, lowering profits, lowering prices for the peasants, increasing jobs, increasing purchasing power.

Ignorant fucks like you make me long for the days of Franco who he lined up the communist and shot them in the back of the head.  

Stupid fuck.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:55 | 2019901 Goatboy
Goatboy's picture

Could fossil fuels sustain all that prosperity? :D

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:56 | 2020455 boattrash
boattrash's picture

Fossil fuels have done just that for about 100yrs now.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:16 | 2019971 oddjob
oddjob's picture

If you want to get at the rich let the fucking banks fail.

Too late, in 2008 Goldman et al should have been forced to dilute existing welfare recipients they call partners.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:09 | 2020165 eureka
eureka's picture

eco 1996 - you and your US EMpire will be poor and dea capitalist idealists within the next two years.

Enjoy your delusions of capitalism "purity" - unregulated capitalism has always lead to crony capitalism.

Your aversion to regulation and progressive taxes reveals your allegiance to the Cult of Pseudo Individualism - that is to say "individualism" which identifies and individual by identifying the mass of objects he/she owns.

You - as all Libertarians - are in denial of the fact that history has never produced a "pure" capitalist system - and neglect to describe exactly what mechanisms you favor to keep the most greedy bastards from usurping all power through corruption. The US is mightily corrupt and all "its" power is with its elite.

Worshipping the elite is for pure cocksuckers who dream of joining it by serving it. You may be one such sucker.

Never the less, you may just be dumb. I actually favor Ron Paul and Libertarianism - for the US - but reserve the right for EU, Europe, Scandinavia and any other nation or region who so wishes, to have other structural models - including a mix of public-private joint ventures, private corporations and co-ops. Such mixed system and complexity may however be too much to handle for purists, who prefer the whole bending to their model.

That said, as you should be able to see, you are pretty much wrong about every assumption you just made.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:25 | 2020396 economics1996
economics1996's picture

The USA was less than 5% federal government from 1789 to 1913.  Some would say laissez faire.  Franco had the right idea.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:25 | 2020015 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

The bigger government gets the greater the disparity between the rich and the rest of us. 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:31 | 2020038 chubbar
chubbar's picture

Does someone who makes 20K/yr pay taxes? I didn't think so but am willing to be corrected, anyone?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:05 | 2020152 mdwagner
mdwagner's picture

This is hard to figure out because the only taxes that exist are income taxes, right?  When speeding tickets go from $75 to $300 and there's no forgiveness or warning for going 5 mph over the limit, that's not taxes either.  It's also not taxes when registering your car on a yearly basis costs hundreds of dollars.  Or when you have to pay your cell phone bill or if you choose to smoke cigarettes or drink beer...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:01 | 2020469 boattrash
boattrash's picture

chub, Yes, in a form of inflation, brought to you by the Federal Reserve and Congress, we all get the shaft.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:11 | 2020169 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Yeah , "fuck the rich". Leave your socialist drivel to your
drowning continent, moron.

Sorry, you probably can`t , cause you are paid for it.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:46 | 2020435 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Just take all $12trillion the top 1% in America control and send everyone else a check for $4000.

That would make all the difference in the world.

Just ask any old big government promoting-bankrupt most of the free world redistributionist imbecile.

Same guy will undoubtedly point out no connection between the Reagan tax cuts and the worldwide proliferation of the computer chip.

Same jackass will unquestionably buy silver, vote Ron Paul and cry about their own royalty like existence till the world ends.

The ultimate bitchez. I hear they are going to put down their Krispy Kremes, Starbucks Lattes, turn off their 50" flat screens  and get their fat asses off the couch to revolt? Ya right.

Live in the top 1% of mankind and the top 1/100000th of 1% of all historical mankind and yet still cry about not getting to that next 1/2 of 1%-just could not make up this incredibly pathetic de evolution of the human race if one tried.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:09 | 2019528 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



Great commentary, once again.

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:44 | 2019649 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 It is DISCRETIONARY (above basic necessities) income which ought be taxed.

Having the wealthy pay a fair (which means much higher) share of their discretionary income is only one part of a needed package of reforms. Others include curtailing the global Pentagon, and eliminating the handouts (back door and other) to financial and corporate tycoons.

Obviously, merely "taxing" some of the income whilst continuing upward concentration of wealth and political power by way of war profiteering and banking scams would fix nothing.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 19:06 | 2020586 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

Of course it can't be fixed now by simply taxing the rich.  The real question is not whether taxing the rich will solve our spending crisis.  The question is why we are all dumb enough to let the Red and Blue Teams continue to rape the middle class and keep the spoils.


Can't be fixed now - or ever?  Is the core problem the unrepayable debt or the dispersion of wealth distribution?  They aren't the same thing.  Why taxing anyone more - irrespective of wealth strata - is expected to resolve the unrestrained spending is a mystery to me.  Unchecked vote-buying through unsustainable, redistributive policies is the root evil in my view.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:20 | 2019785 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

There is just a serious shortcoming in the inflation tax.
Get inflation going and interest rates up accordingly and you can tax savers on artificial "profit" on the interest they are supposed to have earned , make sure real inflation stays far higher as always. That worked for decades. But as of now, as you can`t pay any interest no more on your debts , you can`t double charge tax payers no more. What to do next ? Bail yourself out , your warmongering banker caste will have an off-the-shelf solution for you...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:38 | 2020428 Return2Sanity
Return2Sanity's picture

I think the whole "tax the rich" meme is a red herring. We need to be looking at how particular people get rich and thinking about whether we want a system that rewards those behaviors. We might decide that the way Steve Jobs got rich provided a lot of benefits for us as a society, but Jon Corzine's way not so much. So, the real discussion should be what changes could we make that will reward people for working towards the long-term prosperity of our society?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:36 | 2019402 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Sure, but only if you know what the riches are. And who is really rich. 

Declared wealth is a fraction of true wealth.

And it hides behind a million regulatory capture loopholes. Just more hand-waving in the wind.



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:48 | 2019435 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

This crisis was caused by GREED. When a person earns over $10 mil, the rest should be given to the government for the good of society. If people just stepped up to the plate and gave more money to their governments, there would be far more peace and prosperity in the world. People can't be trusted to give money to the poor, so we need to trust the government instead. Politicians are elected because they are more trustworthy than average and can be expected to spend our money wisely and morally, whereas citizens cannot.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:02 | 2019494 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

You're my favorite troller MDB ;-)

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:02 | 2019498 Bearster
Bearster's picture

Do you mean to outlaw very high productivity entirely?  Or just to come in with your gang to loot the efforts of the ultra productive?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:13 | 2019547 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Jamie Dimon would be even more productive if he earned a little more.   That, like all things that benefit the uber-wealthy, is self-evident.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 22:23 | 2020814 eureka
eureka's picture

eat rand - you got it - the people who red-arrow you clearly are wanna-be rich.

I never cease to wonder how wanna-be-rcih'ies fawn over the rich... and their own wet dreams of becoming rich  - the submissivenes is unbelievable.

Perhaps they do not know that the very rich aren't so because of talent and sweat, but rather singularly because of sheer ahression, ruthlessness and allegiance to their own financial supremacy - i.e. leverage and manipulation drives them. It is not up for debate - it is science fact: rich people show less empathy AND have zero logic when assessing the cause of their own wealth; they litterally ascribe it to superior intelligence.

Such are the delusions of self-flattery. The very rich and their executive class would fail most classes in philosophy, rhetoric, logic etc  - they and their executives can barely speak.

You don't need to be intelligent to get very rich, just ruthless and manipulative. Worship that at your intellectual and spiritual perril. They do. That's why their family lives and relationships mostly fail misserably. And so does their general, national and global empathy with mankind. Fuck them - as they fuck everyone.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:20 | 2019573 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

You are simply fear mongering by painting an image of thugs with guns. The reality is that this only happens to trouble makers who refuse to give money to the government after REPEATED WARNINGS. Most good law-abiding citizens never face physical violence since they understand that they must obey orders for the public good.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:24 | 2019585 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"A key witness was Greenspan, who had recently served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and was undoubtedly the most respected business economist in the United States. He was the first Republican to articulate what came to be called "starve the beast" theory.

Said Greenspan to the committee, "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

Citing Greenspan's testimony, conservative columnist George Will endorsed Kemp-Roth and STB in a column on July 27, 1978. "The focus of the fight to restrain government has shifted from limiting government spending to limiting government receipts," he reported."



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:51 | 2019673 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

LMAO - you are on quite a roll today.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:38 | 2019834 economics1996
economics1996's picture

MDB, Alan Greenspan lowered the Fed funds rate to 1% AFTER the 2001 recession was over fueling the housing boom.  Ben Bernanke lowered the Fed Funds rate to 0% AFTER the 2007-9 recession was "over."

One of these days you might ask yourself where did the bad guys get the cash from?


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:09 | 2020485 boattrash
boattrash's picture

MDB=Mixed-up Delusional Bastard....He was brought here from The People's Cube

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:07 | 2019742 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

"ultra productive" - well I say loot them as they are criminals in the most part.


We will live with the coll damage for the good of you "ultras".



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:41 | 2019634 karp4cy
karp4cy's picture

The Star Trek universe ignores a great deal of human nature.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:55 | 2019689 Bullish Bear
Bullish Bear's picture

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This has to be a bit. It's impossible to have this opinion and still be able to function.

If income above your arbitrary $10MM was taxed at 100%, then nobody would be trying to earn more than that.


"People can't be trusted to give money to the poor, so we need to trust the government instead. Politicians are elected because they are more trustworthy than average and can be expected to spend our money wisely and morally, whereas citizens cannot." What made up country do you live in?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:22 | 2020207 Pay Day Today
Pay Day Today's picture

"If income above your arbitrary $10MM was taxed at 100%, then nobody would be trying to earn more than that."

Firstly, net net, this would probably be a good thing for a much friendlier, less interpersonally competititve, more cohesive society.

Secondly, don't set the top income tax rate at 100%; 91% will do. Which is exactly the same rate as the years around 1960.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:48 | 2020302 Chump
Chump's picture

Firstly, net net, this would probably be a good thing for a much friendlier, less interpersonally competititve, more cohesive society.

Wow, good thing we don't make policy based on some ding-dong's opinion of "society" as defined by completely subjective and ultimately meaningless standards.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:00 | 2020334 Pay Day Today
Pay Day Today's picture

Well, its important to have a concept of a cohesive society where everyone has the satisfaction of a meaningful role to play and a stake in the future of that society. And where any young person has the same chances in life regardless of the inherited family wealth (or poverty) that they are born into.

Don't you think?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:50 | 2020719 Chump
Chump's picture

Whether I think so or not is irrelevant.  Your metrics are impossible to measure and entirely subjective, yet you would use them as the basis for enacting a tax policy that would confiscate 100% of someone's labor over some level you deem appropriate.  That's not only ludicrous, it's dangerous.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

~C. S. Lewis

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:38 | 2019831 economics1996
economics1996's picture


This guy, MDB, is dense.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:45 | 2020287 Chump
Chump's picture

No, he's a satirist, and usually quite brilliant.  Unfortunately he's had to make his schtick more and more absurd as reality continues to outpace him.  You can tell when he's produced a gem because the greens will be in the single digits and goober after goober will passionately argue with him, completely unaware.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:28 | 2020022 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Barrack.  Is that you?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:37 | 2019406 AngryGerman
AngryGerman's picture

I got better idea: Everyone gets the same salary, and the government tells you what your work is based on 5-year strategic plans.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:49 | 2019444 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I got a better idea.  Nobody gets paid anything at all, everything is free, including food, medical care and education, and we all live in tents.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:55 | 2019466 AngryGerman
AngryGerman's picture

but then we need ipads, too. and starbucks coffee.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:03 | 2019500 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Will my tent have a plasma, PS3, and wifi so I can play MW3?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:08 | 2019749 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

mine does , but we never use them.

too busy making yobs for youse boys and gurls.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:23 | 2019796 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Well if your tent has that I'm sure we'll be able to distribute your wealth evenly among everyone...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:55 | 2019468 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Nice. I like how your mind works.

Now, how do we make you POTUS? 

The Temporalist PAC?


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:05 | 2019507 Matt
Matt's picture

I thought the plan was formeldihyde-filled trailers? At least, that's what was used in the test run.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:37 | 2019407 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture


Nothing will.

Except a Debt Jubilee.

As well as the elimination of all central banks and fiat currency backed by debt - though that's being redundant, as we all know that debt=money.

Oh, and the outlawing of "trickle-down voodoo supply-side economics" would help, too. Otherwise, it's going to be a long sunshine-less mourning in Amerikkka.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:44 | 2019851 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Debt Jubilee every 50 years or so as suggested by Moses
is a good idea. But remember how many THOUSANDS of turbulent
years were needed so people felt they were in bad need of
religious instructions ?

P.S. Most of the big religions evolved about the same time.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:38 | 2019408 vegas
vegas's picture


I sure hope this question is rhetorical. Confiscate all wealth above any threshold you want and it wouldn't run Soetero's dream empire for more than a few months tops. Of course, if you think people that make money will just sit around and let government take it, then you deserve to work in goberment.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:28 | 2019596 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"Despite its continuing popularity among Republican politicians, at least a few conservative intellectuals are starting to have misgivings about STB [starve the beast]. In 2005 free-market economist Arnold Kling admitted he had been wrong. "Cutting taxes did not help to reduce the size of government," he conceded.

For some years Bill Niskanen of the libertarian Cato Institute has argued that STB actually increased spending and made deficits worse. His argument is that the cost of spending is ultimately the taxes that will have to be raised to pay for it. Thus fear of future tax increases was the principal brake on spending until STB came along. By eliminating tax increases as a necessary consequence of deficits, it also reduced the implicit cost of spending. Thus, ironically, STB led to higher spending rather than lower spending as the theory posits. "

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:38 | 2019409 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



Guest Post: Will "Tax the Rich" Solve Our Deficit/Spending Crisis?


If the Top 1% of the Top 1% doesnt want thier taxes to go up they will cut spending! and only they (with their 80% fudning of the Lobby Dollars in to Washington DC) have the power to pull it off!


But lets be serious for one minute.. they get rich from the Tax Trough.. and get even richer by not participating in the Tax Collections..

so.. look for more of the same.. the middle gets raped, robbed and Fucked Over by the Group who OWNS! the Lobby Whores!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:38 | 2019413 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



25 Giant Corporations That Paid Their CEOs More Than They Paid Uncle Sam

It might make sense for a small business to pay its top brass more than it doles out to Uncle Sam in taxes, but what if that company has tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars in profits? Well, this is America folks. What follows is a list of 25 mega corporations that paid one guy—their CEO—more money than what they spent on their entire federal tax bills last year. The same companies averaged $1.9 billion each in profits—money that was earned, in many cases, by cutting thousands of American jobs.


10 CEOs Who Got Rich By Squeezing Workers

Corporate profits grew 38.8 percent in 2010, the biggest increase since 1950. But while CEOs earned an average of 20 percent more last year, many Americans continued to lose their jobs and benefits. The insecurity of the middle class has a lot to do with how executives are paid. Bonuses pegged to stock prices encourage CEOs to mercilessly outsource and downsize, slashing costs to boost profits. The result is that more corporate leaders are getting paid at the expense of average workers. Here are 10 of the worst offenders:


The Top 10 CEO's who Fired Workers to make the bottom line seem more profitable so that they could take home BIG Bonuses! Fire the workers! and get a pay raise for doing it! Wall Street Loves the Middle Class! Loves to sell shit to the Middle Class and Loves to Axe the Middle Class for Bonuses!


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:42 | 2019637 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



80% of the Lobby Dollars that flow into Washington DC like a GIANT RIVER! Come from the Top 1% of the Top 1%.

    Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

    Top Individuals

The following individuals contributed at least $50,000 to federal candidates and parties during one or more election cycles while affiliated with the organization.


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:48 | 2020089 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

Every lobbying transaction requires two people -- someone buying (lobbyist) and someone selling (politician).  I am inclined to put more than half the blame on the selling politician.  The lobbyist would have little to do if influence was not for sale by politicians.  

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:12 | 2020171 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



I want them all dead for treason.

I want their secretaries dead.

I want their families dead.

I want them hung on the White House (pun) lawn! on national TV during dinner time every night.. until they are all gone! from like 7pm to 9pm every night.. they read the charges and show the video and evidence.. and then hang them.. it would take a while.. but no one any time soon would be trying this bullshit again after it was all done!

and as Luck would have it! Obama just signed a law into effect that would allow for things like this to happen legally!


Eat the Rich! And anyone who sides with them!! The World would be a MUCH! Better Place minus their Greedy Laws / Ways!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 17:10 | 2020362 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

Greed = bad

murder = good


The nuts are so thick in this place you'd think you were in a San Francisco bath house.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:40 | 2019414 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Pretty easy, let everybody pay 50% on their income. Problem solved.
No max, no minimum.

You make 1 million = 500 k taxes
You make 10.000 = 5000 taxes

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:24 | 2019587 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

So you all want somebody else to pay you taxes and you don't want to pay taxes yourself.
Does that sound fair?
People should realize that when you overtax the rich, the money goes away to another country pretty fast and 'the rich' like to invest only in the places where they are welcome.
So populistic solutions like 'only tax the rich' wll destroy the remainders of america and will indeed transform it into a 4rd world country where everybody is poor and everybody is diabetic.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:07 | 2019744 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



The Rich.. the Top 1% of the Top 1%.. OR? The Top 1% of the Top 1% of the Top 1%..

should be rounded up.. and all of their Trusts, on shore and off.. should be confiscated.. and until they can prove that they were not involved with scuttling America.. should remained Jailed. Guilty until Proven innocent by a Jury of My Peers! Not their Peers.

But Alas! they have no criminal Laws to oversee what they do to America.. only Civil Laws to Govern the Rape that they participate in Daily.


They Provide 80% of the Lobby Dollars to Washington DC.

They Fire Workers to maintain the Most Profitable Year for Corporations since the 1950’s!

They get paid more in Bonuses than the Corporations they run Pay in Taxes!


The Law states that Corporate Officers are to run the most profitable Business possible.


Well, when you fire Huge numbers of People to make this year’s Bonus Season Jolly.. the act comes at the expense of next year’s earnings. But Next year may be someone else’s job.. thusly America’s Economy is controlled by a Short Term Point of View or Views.


America is Run or Controlled or Owned by Soulless Corporations!

A Soulless Corporation to me is where No one person or Group of People own a controlling amount of shares.

Thusly the Board is compiled of a Group of Yes men or women that provide the Votes needed for the Executives to maintain a short term, Quarterly / Annual Bonus Mentality at the expense of the broader economy.


Please don’t confuse what I am saying.. One Corporation does not in itself, thru a short term view, control the U.S. Economy.


But!! When this is the Corporate Culture that has inundated Wall Street and Beyond.. ALL! Of those Corporations Combined DO!! Exact an extremely high toll on America’s Economy.


The Law of the Land is to Destroy the Law of Land for Benefit of Short Term Profit Schemes!  


And that is one of the Major Catalysts that in itself has Destroyed America’s Ability to Heal or grow out of a serious rescission / depression.


Out of this line of thinking / lobbying was born the idea that Investment Bankers should be able to draw down Federal Funds the same way Retail Bankers do.


Comingling the Sheep’s Savings Accounts with Company Investments to the Soul Benefit of the Company in the event of a Gain and the Sole detriment of the Clients for any losses.. without any transparency, without the client knowing ahead of time their monies were to be used for the Sole benefit Company!


When Politicians start talking about less laws.. less regulation.. what they mean is.. the Businesses handling your money have less Civil Laws to protect you.. it does not mean that you will be Governed by less Criminal Laws!

 When Politicians start talking about less taxes.. that is not less taxes for you.. it is less taxes for the Job Creators! You will be paying more in Taxes because they are paying less in taxes!



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:56 | 2019896 SillySalesmanQu...
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

+ 100 jw   Well said. I have been trying for years to explain this to family, friends, business aquaintances...."but noooooobody cares". Thank You for summing it up very neatly.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:04 | 2019931 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture



You have a Family! here.

The Fight! Club!! Family!!!

None of us are always right and None of us are always wrong (even Robo has 20 / 20 hind sight, LULZ!).

But almost all participants here try to share good info! and learn.

Closed minded Fight Club is not! we always want more facts!

and being able to source and sight the facts.. so that they can be shared with others! is what makes this place special (short bus special).

Tyler has my respect for the simple fact that he believes in the Constitution.

the 1st amendment!

the 2nd amendment!

and the others too!

But rarely can we find a place a special as this where everyone can come and throw shit up on the wall.. to see what sticks!

I feel very lucky to have most of the people here to keep me in line, help me learn and to help me grow in a way that should be beneficial to everyone I know.

God Bless ALL! of You!!

and for those of you who dont get down like that.. I will pray for your soul while you are in hell for not loving Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior!



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:44 | 2020078 SillySalesmanQu...
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

Thanks JW, god bless and Happy New Year ...Sweet Crude and Gold Bitchez

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:18 | 2019776 Matt
Matt's picture

I suspect more people here are in favor of less government, less spending, less taxes, not the idea that some people should pay more taxes.

Personally, I think truly simplifying the tax codes with a basic exemption of the first X amount of money, followed by a flat tax rate and no deductions would be ideal. But without limits on spending and deficits, it doesnt matter too much.

More revenues just means more military spending, not less debt.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:55 | 2019897 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Don`t mind the junks. You are just from the wrong planet.
5% flat would have gotten you all the praise on the same presumptions. Medieval revolts got furious when the clerics
went to the unacceptable threshold of 10%.

No taxes wasted is no taxes paid. Be generous, 1% on consumption would still be a lot of money to a benevolent
King who earns his own due.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:22 | 2020510 boattrash
boattrash's picture

SD, Yes to 50% but only for 2yrs AND 40% of it to your state, 10% Federal.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:17 | 2020681 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

For as long as it takes. BUT with severe spending cuts to the bone.

But on the other hand, a default would restore the economy much faster.
At least that is what i'm praying for here in my country...
We already have the 50% tax for decades... And now they plan to raise it with 8% in total.... We are fucked... We need a debt haircut like greece or better yet a default.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:39 | 2019415 HistorySquared
HistorySquared's picture


37 year Study Shows Spending Cuts, Not Tax Increases, Best for Debt, Growth, Bond, Stock Markets

  • The typical consolidation that failed relied on 47 percent spending cuts and 53 percent tax increases.
  • The typical consolidation that succeeded consisted of 85 percent spending cuts and 15 percent tax increases.
  • The “most wildly successful” efforts by nations, as Brooks put it, went into tax cut territory: Finland in the late 1990s, pointed out by Biggs and Hassett as a model of successful consolidation, had 108 percent spending cuts along with modest tax cuts.
  • Regarding which cuts :  “Specifically, reducing transfer programs and government wages were the most beneficial to growth, according to the 37 year study.”   No real surprise there really. How would cutting waste jeopardize growth?  (Federal workers earning double their private counterparts).
  • Fiscal consolidation can produce wealth effects on growth because of lowered expectations of future tax liabilities and the positive effect on real interest rates.
  • This is now termed the “expectational view” of fiscal consolidations and contrasts with the Keynesian belief that a fiscal consolidation will reduce aggregate demand and GDP


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:13 | 2019549 Matt
Matt's picture

108 percent spending cuts? So they unspent money, and generated net revenue?

(I know, they mean a cut of just over half the budget, probably 54% cut, but it just looks so wrong the way its written).

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:39 | 2019421 rbg81
rbg81's picture

The question is silly to begin with if you look at recent history.  Any "extra" tax revenue coming in will immediately be spent by politicians to buy votes.  They get away with it because, at the end of the day, most Americans prefer tax-funded pork or entitlements to deficit reduction anyway.  And when the fiscal chickens come home to roost, everyone will point to the other guy as the one to blame.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:41 | 2019424 AngryGerman
AngryGerman's picture

WOW, Credit suisse forces all their  traders to take 10 days off beginning january 1st. they are not allowed to log-in and use their blackberries!


guess that's a way to prepare for the biggie!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:47 | 2019437 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture




Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:52 | 2019454 AngryGerman
AngryGerman's picture



block leaves are usually ok, but not for 10 days, not certainly not now. they checking the books at completely the wrong time.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:22 | 2019794 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture




Fantastic Grab!! Please keep sharing the Sourced and Sited Info!!


It's something that all of us, even traders themselves, have suspected -- traders are even more psycho than the average psycho!

That's the result of a study from the University of St Gallen in Switzerland, Der Spiegel reports. Researchers ran tests on 28 traders, and found that stockbrokers' behavior is more reckless and manipulative than that of psychopaths. See the most rogue traders in the graph below.

That news, coming as it does in the midst of a mild financial crisis, nearly halted the Marketplace Daily Pulse altogether today and had us calling for a crash cart.


I have commented multiple times about the sickness that permeates Wall Street.. about how empathy is a naturally occurring emotion in healthy human beings.


Bestselling author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society.


Let’s hope that Sooner than Later.. America can install Healthy Americans as Leaders instead of the Psychos! Who are now running the Country and Controlling the Economy, one Bonus Cycle at a time!


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:43 | 2019427 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Maybe if companies like GE that make billions paid ANY tax, that might help?  Burn every Rockerfeller Rothschild Morgan Warburg at the stake and seize their assets for financial crimes against humanity

Should be enough to cover the deficit.  Then abolish the Fed and try every employee for treason, restore sound, sovereign money to the people, and while I'm dreaming repeal NDAA, Patriot Act, investigate 9/11, and end all the wars.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:03 | 2019926 SillySalesmanQu...
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

A very happy dream... would almost eliminate the need for scotch, joints, and sleeping pills...

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:18 | 2020185 viahj
viahj's picture


Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:45 | 2019431 gmak
gmak's picture

Perhaps one should distinguish between an income tax and a wealth tax. Arguably the wealthy should pay the same % of income as everyone else - no matter what the source. At the same time, the promises made have to be reduced.

I think that there has been enough evidence presented elsewhere that trickle-down, and "only the wealthy create jobs" has been refuted. It is clear that the wealthy can only remain so with the support of the "great unwashed". The logical conclusion is that they should not kill the goose that lets them have their golden eggs and pay the same proportion of taxes to help bring the budget back to balance state.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:00 | 2019487 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

I have an idea.  How about we go back to the original tax plan and let the states collect it and fund the federal government for the one thing it really needs it for...National Defense...and not nearly as much as we have now.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:12 | 2019958 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Give them a lot of babelish languages and tongues and a different tax for every one of them and they will argue till the end of time without ever noticing being robbed blind.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:47 | 2019432 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I brought up an interesting point to my family over the holliday that provoked a good discussion. 

Most of the people you saw @ the OWS probably weren't even paying federal income tax. The bank bailout (TARP) was funded by the federal government and this is paid with federal income tax. 

Most of those people saying they bailed out the banks...didn't pay a nickel for the bailout.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:47 | 2019438 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Right! No one paid for it, its all good! Free money, HOORAY!

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:50 | 2019451 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

#1 The Treasury made money when the banks paid it back. 

#2 It was funded by federal income tax payers. The truth is 50% of the country pays no federal income tax, and 60% pay very little.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:56 | 2019458 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Right! And as long as the Treasury makes money, then its all good! Thank God, the Treasury is rich now, or something.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:59 | 2019473 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I'm not saying it's good. It's non-sensical to complain about bailing out someone you've never bailed out.

And WS didn't write the bailout check. It was elected politicians in Washington D.C that wrote the check (against the will of their constituents) They should be occupying D.C. Was Solyndra losing over $500 million in taxpayer dollars Solyndra's fault or D.C's fault?

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:02 | 2019495 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Its like I always say, there are no problems on Wall St or DC that cant be solved with a 5 gallon gas can, a road flare, and some good lengths of rope.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:11 | 2019536 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

The framers of the constitution gave us a way to enact change without violence. 

We (the people) are guilty of being complicit through silence. If we want to blame someone for the state of affairs in our country, we can look into the mirror.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:21 | 2019574 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

A lot of people can look in the mirror and see the problem. I myself have been warning this would happen ever since the mid 80's when we started shipping all our factories and jobs overseas to access 'cheap Chinese borrowing and spending'...of course back then everyone said I was crazy and some kind of 'communist' or whatever for trying to spoil the big party. 

Forever Lazy, bitchez. FOREVER LAZY COMMERCIAL - YouTube

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:14 | 2019550 T-roll
T-roll's picture

It's not non-sensical at all.  Do you think that half the people in this country should remain silent while their government performs unconstitutional acts?  Also, you're making an assumption about the OWS people.  How do you or anyone else know if they paid taxes or not.  Maybe many of these people paid taxes for many years but lost their jobs. 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:21 | 2019567 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

"How do you or anyone else know if they paid taxes or not."

Most of the people who pay federal income tax were at work. Also, my comment was not an absolute. Some people who pay Federal Income Tax were down there I'm sure. Most were students, unemployed, or not earning what they think they should be. 

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:06 | 2019738 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

If OWS was anything other than a fancy foreign acronym for "Meatpuppet of TBTB" then they would be moving their Monday protest.

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:14 | 2019760 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

it was "pitched" and we know where that came from.


The faux job creators of WS. baby. Tax that bunch into the grave or at least back down to less than 5% of the economy.


Oh and if they want to run overseas then fine. great I will buy the plane tickets for them.



Thu, 12/29/2011 - 13:47 | 2019654 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

so what [?] ,... tax the shit out of the piss-poor 50%, and the gubmint gets their pound-of-flesh ---  whoopy!  let's take alook at what happens next to  those nasty parasitic 50%'r^s bottom-feeders? oh my,... i forgot that ~70% +/+ of GDP comes from consumption via consumers

has the gubmint been leading us on ---  playing both sides of the poverty goal-post,... heads you win - heads i  win?

but the "Loaded Coin' belongs to me, and only me,... the 'gubmint' - while my [the] 1%/10% stays off-shore, out of the mundane fray of equal mediocrities     

Thu, 12/29/2011 - 18:39 | 2020543 BigJim
BigJim's picture

#1 The Treasury made money when the banks paid it back. 

#2 It was funded by federal income tax payers. The truth is 50% of the country pays no federal income tax, and 60% pay very little.

Here, let me help you out:

#1 The banks paid the money back by borrowing at 0.25% from the Fed... and then lending it to FedGov at 3%... with leverage.

#2 it was funded by USD currency holders via inflation.

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