This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
There Aren't Enough Rich People To Tax
The colossal size (and growth) of the US government's budget deficit is a problem that seems to remain on the sidelines all the time the Fed is buying and maintaining interest rates at an acceptable level. As we noted last night, nothing points to investor concern (yet) aside from an increasing diversification from the USD as a trade currency. Many have suggested raising taxes on the rich to cover the difference between what the government collected in revenue and what it spent. Professor Antony Davies takes on this thorny issue and demonstrates that taxing-the-rich will not be sufficient tyo make the budget deficit disappear as he notes: "the budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget"; instead we should work on legitimate solutions like cutting spending.
»
- 16853 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
That's the government's wet dream. The biggest problem with this approach is that the information gap is not too large on whether central planning is beneficial to the average person... the difference between capitalism and socialism for the mules in the back of the train is that with the former there is at least some chance to change their view (no ass in front of them), albeit a small chance. This chance is all that's needed to differentiate the two.
The only way to stave off capital flight and perpetual systemic collapse is to use a scalpel to remove the cancer, not a machete. I realize that this process has been perverted and is no longer functioning as conceptualized in an academic vacuum, but it needs to be shock paddled back to life.
There will always be inequality in life. The thing that we want to avoid is inequality based on immoral endeavors... I think universally, there are some obvious top candidates for confiscation, but in order to do so, we'll need investigation and trial...
The longer the mechanism to weed out the spoils of immoral endeavors is prohibited from working, the more we risk mob rule to "cure" the situation... and, frankly, mob rule may be better or worse than the present situation... which, for the risk averse, necessitates operating within the system to cure it.
Indeed, indeed. By definition, however, the rich own the world. That math doesn't lie.
To continue the devil's advocate rap, the rich are putting too damn much risk on the rest of us. Don't give a fuck how you'd like to excuse it or justify it, the rest of us have decided without your crazy assed input. Sorry. Find some way to reconcile yourself to being a slug with only $10M.
If there's a collapse, the risk of another crazy assed socialist revolution is pretty high, imo. Obviously being rich won't last long then.
So much better to cut back now to a line that you can defend with simple common sense. And enjoy your $10M.
Money is power. The more you have, the more you wield. That's just how it is. We don't need a philosophy of any kind to explain it. It isn't the poor who've fucked things up, much as you'd like us to pretend.
Of course healthy incentives must survive. But most people--including toadies--would have to admit that $10M is probably enough. Wish we could sanely pretend that unlimited wealth and the power that comes with it isn't what motivates most of the sociopaths now in control of our world, but it seems painfully obvious.
When you reach $10M, you retire. Sure, it ain't your yankee doodle dandy pirate vision of capitalism, but . . . why is it, again, that capitalism can't function without unlimited incentives?
The thing is... when you backstop a failed company, it no longer has any incentive to perform rationally or reasonably... it becomes dependent on the backstop because the backstop, inherently, requires it.
Same thing when the government confiscates wealth to pay for its prolifigacy. If it knows that on a whim it can confiscate wealth to pay its debts, then what incentive does it have to cure its transgressions? To act reasonably and rationally (not that government can). This is moral hazard.
The other problem, practically speaking, is with an unbridled government being "congenial" and "prolific" $10m will retire you today, but tomorrow you might not be able to buy bread... you gonna give back the money to folks who are forced into retirement early when the "retirement amount" is later raised due to currency dilution? Is this going to be the first government, ever, that lives within its means?
Confiscation might be a viable strategy IF, and only if, every other aspect to establish a level playing field and maintain a moral and reasonable stasis were perfectly implemented. I don't think this is humanly possible... I believe we not only lack the discipline, but the ingenuity to even devise the system. Maybe this is a contemptuous view of humans, but I think it's well founded through induction. So, not only are the means wrong, but those who believe the end could justify the means are simply mistaken...
This is exactly why it will happen...
I hear you, there are certainly other problems and issues to be addressed, but I strongly suspect that productively doing so would be far more likely if there were not insanely greed-driven lunatics to be served in not doing so.
Hell, we could institute "Rich People Day," a national holiday where we honor all the folks who've maxed out at their $10M limit. Now that's a completed accomplishment that we can all admire and aspire to.
Think about it. Alot of things would change culture-wide. Let's live in a vital, entrepenuerial capitalism that eliminates the rent seeking and continually rewards improvement.
Strange as it might sound, I think alot of problems might find real solutions in that.
Sure, rule of law must be established, value-anchored currency maintained, government appropriately restrained, and all that.
But rich guys are never gonna let that happen. Neither are all the footsoldiers they control with money that functions as a weapon of mass control. Disarmament might be our only hope of getting to a better place.
Here's the thing... humans have never met stasis. We literally have no idea what it looks like or how to develop a system of governance combined with a political system, whereby the lunatics don't take over... sociopaths and those with high machiavellian aptitude are the sultans of industry... it's the very things that make them (us?) tick that propels them to success. This is the same regardless of whether there is capitalism or socialism... democracy, despotism, or communism... we simply boom until we bust... and start the charade again... only to be repeated by our grandchildren, despite our most dire warnings.
In short, all we're advocating at this juncture is to change the people in power... but make no mistake about it, the new boss will be the same (or worse) than the old boss. The view only changes for the lead donkey.
If we scrap the system altogether, I'll put the odds at zero chance we emerge with some improved version of the original republic... maybe .01%... somewhere in the 10% range anarchy... 70% despotism/feudalism... and the remainder for some piss poor mixed socialist state. Some people might feel as though there is nothing to lose, but sometimes feelings are not in conjunction with reality.
There aren't enough rich people to tax and you can't cut enough spending. My four step plan...1) End all the wars and cut back on the militery industrial compex 2) get rid of all the tax loopholes The system is too complex and too easy to game especially for large corporations. 3) a flat tax rate across the board that is easy to manage and fair to everybody. 4) And most importantly get rid of the fed so they can't tax us through inflation.
Or my one step plan...collapse and start over.
Am with you except -- everyone person and company in the US can cut back their spending to 2007-08 levels or below and survive except the US Federal Government for some reason. Proposing such is considered draconian by nearly all in government (except a handful on the right). Absurd.
Tax the rich and then they'll stop spending simultaneously 2? Yeah sure that'll happen maybe in about the year 2525.
Erm, 'raising revenue' on the backs of'job creators'.
Job creators are the ones that spend money ... you know ... DEMAND. No demand, no sustainable jobs. With the rich hoardinga nd the poor tapped out we need debt writeoffs and higher taxes on the rich.
There aren't enough jobs - meaning career employment.
We've gone too far down the rabbit hole on entitlement spending to cut that, unless we are ready for huge riots, crime, and collapse of large metropolitan cities.
The old solution was a war to put all those youth in boots and send them overseas. Now the war will be subs, drones, planes, and nukes so that won't work this time around (not that many boots needed).
Generational reset coming, after year over year of printing and bread and circuses which may last a decade or one year.
Do we mean:
Asset rich?
or
Income rich?
Also, if I am rich, and therefore, targeted, is this my cue to leave & hide?
What then, Taxman?
I dare say that if you post here, you're probably not rich enough anyway. Just gently breaking it to you.
The super wealthy are the problem on our economy of scale.
What we have here is a hit-getter for a slow Monday morning. The topic alone should stir the ZH natives, and the ratings will soar!
My thought as well. Just when I was so disgusted by state of the world that hopelessness was setting in bad, there comes some crazy shit at ZH to enjoy!
We have reached a "higher consciousness" of economics when a person who insists that everywhere and always 1 plus 1 equals 2 is called an " ideologue", and only worthy of being marginalized.
Since when is making over $180,000 per year "rich" ???
You ain't never lived in the Ozark hills, have ya city-boy? That kinda money goes a long way here.
10 mil p.a. is where I would draw the line.
I believe that the rich MUST pay their fair share of taxes. Then the corporations MUST pay their fair share as well. NO MORE SUBSIDIES for Big Oil & Gas. We must also pare down the defense budget, it is totally out of control. We do not need such a huge defense budget. If these 3 ideas are implemented it would go a long way to bridging the gap. Any time I hear idiots saying we must cut spending even more it makes me mad. Money must be spent wisely and waste must be eliminated.
Typical progressive bullshit. Make a lot of sweeping generalizations based on emotion with no fact or arguement to back them up. The guy (and gal) earning $1M pays around $250,000 in taxes. You Mad Mad probably pay $10,000. It seems to me that the rich guy pays 25 times more than you. Is that fair?? Corporations pay the tax rate that is allowed them by law. From 2009 to end of 2010, the Obama administration had an absolute and filibusterr proof congress and they did nothing about personal taxes, corp taxes or oil and gas tax structure. The Defense budget is at its lowest share of the whole budget in a long time. In 1958 Defense was 58% of the budget. In 2011, Defense is about 20% of the budget. Did you even watch the presentation Mad Mad or is your name really Michelle and you are a troll for your about to be former president.
Do trolls get paid by the word?
I don't know if they get paid by the word.... Are you?
You forgot the P in your handle... You sure do sound just like an Old Prick....
One question to you Mad Mad Woman:
Would it be a good thing if the US paid off the National Debt?
pods
Tell ya what. Get together with your progressive friends, have a nice party, but come out of it with one simple thing: A MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE YOU'LL BE SATISFIED WITH, NOW AND FOREVER, AS A "FAIR" TAX ON THE RICH.
Post the number. Take pride in it. Be honest about it, and By God be prepared to live with it; no new higher number next year, or the year after.
Then the rest of us can figure out if we want to reside in your crappy some-people-work-while-all-play entitlement paradise or not. You seem to be enthralled with/by massive government, and you want me to pay for it. Be honest as to how much you think it is "fair" for me to pony up.
The US FED.gov is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends (IIRC). Ain't nobody paying for it. Ain't nobody supposed to pay for it.
Income taxes are to merely keep you and Mad Mad Woman arguing while the banksters inflate away your grandchildren's wealth in front of your nose.
Inflation, or debt expansion is the real gravy game in town.
Income taxes are merely the blindfold they use while they rob your kids.
pods
90% agree. My own take is that taxation perpetuates the illusion that our currency isn't just smoke and mirrors, from which stems the validity of government spending, where the income shortfall is an ongoing "convenient crisis" that can be used to erode individual rights and move towards a collectivist wet dream of 99% slaves and 1% elite.
It is distressing how the masses buy into the blatant manipulation by the elites and eagerly help promote their own further enslavement. "Life isn't fair; here, help me put the manacles on that minority over there! Don't you hate them? It's all their fault. We're only ever going to enslave them; we would never do this to you..."
I agree that the income tax provides legitimacy for our currency. It also acts as another policy tool of the FEDs to counterbalance any money shenanigans of the FED. Lowering the rate tends to increase leverage and other risky behavior, which benefits the government whenever they need to keep the aggregate debt curve pointing upwards.
With the latest SCOTUS decision, WE are all THEM now.
Shit, they can now fine you if you don't shut up and "eat your peas."
pods
"Any time I hear idiots saying we must cut spending even more it makes me mad"
I don't mean to be rude, (well, actually, it's completely intentional) but are you fucking insane? If we don't cut spending, we as a nation collapse.
If Joe Blow earns $30K a year and runs out and charges $10K on his plastic with an interest of rate of 22.5%, he either goes bankrupt or he dramatically pares down his living expenses and gets a second job and pays the fucking money back. Those are the only options when you have mired yourself in unsustainable debt. Any other options, such as getting another credit card, taking out a home equity loan, borrowing from Mom and Dad, only delays the inevitable and makes the crash that much harder when it comes. Because Joe won't stop spending if he can acquire more debt.
The US either defaults on its debt, or it dramatically slashes spending, increases taxes slightly, and pays the money back. Because we've kicked the can for so long, it's going to be ugly no matter which option we pick. Our spending as a nation is not sustainable. Period. You can keep telling yourself that if we tax the hell out of those rich people and just make things FAIR, all will get better. But you'd do better to wake the fuck up and realize that the rich own the politicians and a vote to tax the rich more will never pass, so it's time to stop spending.
Actually it is far more insidious than that. If on the aggregate (private and public) we stop deficit spending, we collapse.
Beautiful system eh?
pods
That's why I said it is ugly either way...we passed the point of no return a while back.
I did neglect to mention there is a third option for Joe Blow...to obtain a gun and rob a bank. That is what these "tax the rich and make it FAIR" people advocate for the nation...taking the money at gunpoint. But just like Joe Blow wouldn't pay back his debt with the money he stole and would instead go on a spending spree, so would the US if they were actually able to pass a law taxing the rich even more.
Stack it high and stack it deep, folks.
I thought this was the "home" of the "Paulists"...what is all this redistribution of wealth crap ??? You guys sound more like OWS wackos.......
still plenty here that think there is a difference between republicans and democrats too...
I think it is just one guy with a lot of accounts.
I'd Love to Change the World - Ten Years After
Aaaaaaand, good luck with that.
"Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more"
Some people have found ways to made a ton of money doing this very thing.
Quoth Uncle Remus:
"Tell me, where is sanity?"
The rich, a good place to at least start!
Rich = that top 1% pf the population.
Top 1% get to divvy up 40% of the entire nations wealth.
Bottom 40% get to share 3/10's of 1% of the nations wealth.
Yes, spending has got to be reduced, but not on the backs of the poor.
Time for the rich to pony up. Do with one less house, Bentley, boat, holiday, condo, maid, etc.
Hey moron! Dust up on Venn diagrams.
Now put on your holier-than-thou life-isn't-fair-and-we-must-do-something-about-it attitude and explain to me either:
a) You're the type who is happy with collateral damage; you don't mind killing innocent people as long as at least one bad guy gets it, or even maybe if just intelligence indicated that there was a possibility that a bad guy could maybe possibly be present in that crowd. 'Cause the scatter-shot bazooka you're waving around of "tax the rich" is going to slam a lot of people even YOU would judge to be innocent moral and upright citizens. Be advised that taking this option will reveal your hypocritical nature; you shout for "fair" taxation, but your criteria for said treatment is based upon such a broad measure it virtually ensures unjust and unfair treatment. Might as well choose to discriminate based upon skin, eye-color, or religious characteristics. This option panders to thievery: you see something your neighbor has, you want (covet), you cry "unfair", and you use numbers to take, with no consideration about *how* wealth was amassed.
b) If you'd prefer, you can instead present a 1,000 word essay detailing your twisted rational as to why "rich" is a circle that is always and entirely contained inside of a larger circle labelled "immoral b*stards who without exception are unfair". Be advised that this alternative is frankly impossible, and by attempting it you will in all likelihood reveal to one and all your logical shortcomings. Doing so indicates that you don't understand the problem, and allowing you to have a voice in the say of things makes about as much sense as asking for your advice on the finer details of brain surgery.
Let's start with taxing the rich first (like they used to be taxed when times were good, before Bush that is) then we can talk about other remedies. But start with the rich FIRST. ... oh yeah and the military TOO!
there may not be enough rich folks to tax but their foundations and munificent tax havens could be called to the rescue....the rich folks got us into our fiscal hell hole and their wallets will have to render extraordinary service - logic which they use to justify their neo-feudalism...
the real problem is indeed irresponnsible spending rather than tax levels......the wars of foreign aggression and a shrinking of the military would be an excellent place to start...and taxes should be raised to cover spending...when people are not immediately acountable for their piss poor spending, they spend irresponsibly and kick decisions down the road....
with so much wall street wealth made in crime, taxing the rich would be just desserts...god knows that the sec, cftc, et al aren't going to do anything about them....
oh, and let's not forget to default and liquidate.....the debt is hopelessly defunct....fess up, clean up, and move on....
Don't tax you don't tax me
Tax the man behind the tree.
Slash government spending! But don't touch my social security or my medicare! Or my student loan!
Here we go again, another article to stir all the nut jobs.
All this challenge the status quo, wealth redistribution and equal rights for all.
Why can't we just get this through that no one was born equal, everybody can never be equal and hell, if everything and everyone was equal you'd be rioting on the streets because you don't want to be of equal status as everyone else.
You'll always want to be equal to someone better than you but you'd never want to be equal to someone worse off than you. Double standards.
"son of Soros" / no .. you're not. Definitely not. Maybe "boot licker of Soros" .. or worse.
What is so wrong to consider income equality in this 21st of centuries?
Did you benefit from trillions in bailouts? I didn't. Most of us didn't.
Equality is not really the issue but it could be.
For starters, the bailout money would have been better spend if it was evenly distributed through the population .. BUT BUT BUT we couldn't have that now, could we?
The ponzi had to be protected. All hail to the RACKET.
You're not party to the RACKET and neither am I or most of us here. That's a shame now.
When you're governed and extorted by pirates, you can either roll over and play dead or you can be a better pirate. They came after ours, now its time we come after theirs. Pirates don't care about laws and they don't fear the King. Pirates only fear other pirates.
Anyone advocating one solution to payng down the deficit is simply carrying out their agenda.
There are ways to do it, but only if there is a blended approach. Tax the rich, is not the only solution, but it is part of the solution, just as reducing spending is another part.
Simpson-Bowles was on the right track, but with the current Congress and the unwillingness to compromise, absolutely nothing is getting done - on anything. On the one hand tax & spend, on the other hand borrow & spend. Neither party acts much like adults, but I must say that tax & spend is more responsible. It's kind of like the draft. Nobody likes the idea, but it sure would have kept us out of becoming bogged down in these stupid ME conflicts. Nobody likes taxes, either, so if we were forced to pay up to cover spending, there would be way more pressure to reduce spending.
As has been pointed out, this is a big, rich country, but the wealth has become far too concentrated over the past 30-40 years. We all know that far too many are not paying what they should, including corporations. We also know that we are getting shafted by the MIC, the Medical/Pharma complex, Wall Street, and by every other special interest group with a half-assed lobbyist with a wad of cash.
There are ways to fix this economy, but probably not the will. When I see the big banks get broken up and theiving bankers perp-walked, maybe I will feel a little more optimistic about it.
Amazing, the federal government alone spends three trillion a year and even with that much there will always be those who show up and defend. Their solution? Government theft of private wealth. No wonder we're in the condition we are in.
Crash the system, crash it now. The sooner we do, the sooner we find out the true value of everyone's labor. Fucking bring it. Wake the fuck up, government theft and corporate theft are the same thing. Can you say "bailouts" and "socialization of private losses"? I knew you could.
The answer is so simple.
Lets be US citizens.
Lets go and find some generous Indian sponsors so that, once amazed by the US citizen project of freedom, truth and justice, they freely accept to yield their wealth to support US citizen way of doing things.
US citizenism all the way.
Once a thieft...
And better to inherit from a thief than from the thieved.
Give a Chinese Citizenism citizen a fish, make him crappy for one day.
Give a Chinese Citizenism citizen an empty roadside, make him crap-happy for a lifetime.
The nature of Chinese citizenism crap-happiness, and hap-crappiness, is eternal.
Not so much would I minding be the eternal craptastic nature of Chinese Citizenism, but if they good Chinese Citizenism citizens not doing make as so much the desphincterizationizing on shoulders of public roadways like pre-roaasted dogs, many much the stinkings are come from they and the step-in of poopoo platters unnice making for between the toes greatly nonbeguiling.
But much as like old sayings of they US citizens: squat down like dog, rise up with Chinese citizenism fleas (and patriotic People's Liberation nightsoil on shoes).
Pre-roasted dogs? ROR! Making me to raughing out roud with much vigour.
Chinese citizenism euphemistic colloquialism known as fetching cuisine.
You forget about rich corporations, foreign elements, and lowering the standard of living. Also, how about chopping the fat from basically everywhere in gov't spending (current & obligations).
If we actually did balance the budget/pay off the debt things would be so bad here that people would clamor for debt slavery.
Anyone that knows what our money system is knows exactly what I speak of.
One hint: Debt backs our money supply.
pods
That and a powerful military, well at least until gold is revalued. This is zerohedge after all.
another person I know with 2 months to live through cancer, again. and standbys waiting for the ticket. This is starting to piss me off.
Gant: You really think I'm gonna to let you walk free 'round this fucking planet? It ain't gonna happen.
Mitchel: See, what you have to understand is that if I were a gangster - Rob - you would be the first to fucking die. I wouldn't work for you. I would kill you and take everything you've got - if I were a gangster. That's why you don't want me to be a gangster. Nobody wants me to be a gangster. 'Cause I couldn't stop if I started. Do you get it?
Squeeze out some fun zh
Lost in this smoke and mirrors charade is the following....
Compare Corporate taxes as a fraction of Federal revenues and as a function of GDP over the past 50 years... Now compare the fraction of revenues going into Corporate Officer compensation over the same period....
Actually the thing that bothers me is the outright fucking lie that tax cuts pay for themselves and that raising taxes on the "job creators" is a bad thing... Seriously, look the number of jobs created over the last 35 years as a function of the derivative of the highest marginal tax rate...
We need to find another virgin continent to plunder now that we've finished with this one.
maybe we need more rich people. but how do we get a lot more rich people quickly? I know - Subsidies, Big Subsidies.
maybe we need more rich people. but how do we get a lot more rich people quickly? I know - Subsidies, Big Subsidies.
Taxing anybody, any amount, never pays for anything... the argument is capricious and irrelevant.
If a spending budget gets passed that exceeds revenue, then the remaining deficit funding must come from somewhere.
What increased taxes on the "rich" COULD do, if handled correctly, is level the playing field so that capital-poor entrepreneurs can operate under the same policy and legal framework as capital-rich entrepreneurs...
Today, the "privileged" operate under the protection of the state, while the under-privileged must operate AGAINST the state, thereby incurring the state's wrath...
Everyone looks for economic solutions to legal and policy questions... And that's why I think everyone else are idiots.
Solve policy and legal problems with policy and legal actions, born out of fairness and individual equality, and the rest will work itself out economically....
Fucking duh.
We often hear that we need both spending cuts and tax increases. I agree, but this time lets see the spending cuts enacted and in effect before the tax increases.
Not "instead"...in addition.
"Cutting spending". That is good, oh that is really good. Never happen. Until the printing press is taken away from The Bernank.
I think we need both: Higher taxes on the wealthy AND massive spending cuts.
Yeah, and I like Max's idea about buying silver as well.
It's always a mistake to focus on income tax. The very wealthy simply do not have income, but they have generally arranged their family trusts etc to receive the benefits of the financial system and pay little tax. We really do need a wealth tax to tax individuals and corporations.
And while we are at it, why don't we go for a four day/ three day weekend week? More leisure time for all. Higher employment opportunities and better distribution of income.
want to cut the deficit ??? start with 10% across the board, no crying, no whining.
GDP, the measurement of economic health, is based on spending. Get that through your heads folks. Spending = Economic health.
Those of you who fall victim to the "Taste Great/Less filling" debate (Tax the Rich/Cut spending) are only arguing the corners of a cirlcle.
The problem that tax and spend politicians don't seem to understand that raising tax rates and increasing tax revenue are not the same. (Tax revenue tends to only increase as a result of economic growth - it usually runs at about 20% of GDP regardless of tax rates). Also having and high (temporary) income is not the same as being rich or independently wealthy.
Politicians assume when they raise tax rates that tax revenue will also increase, so they go ahead and spend the money, often on long term committments, before ithe money comes in. When the extra revenue does not materialize, and they get extra bills for food stamps and unemployment benefits from the people who lost their jobs due to the tax increasse, the budget deficit, instead of getting better, actually gets worse.
This is what happened during the dotcom boom in California. Public spending and salaries were ratcheted up as more and more millionaires were minted, providing the State with a windfall. When the bubble burst, they were left with long term expenses and no revenue to cover it. Same with local government and property taxes during the property tax boom.
Tell that to a lib.
They think that there is always more rich people to tax
As libertarian as I am, Do we get the same 'Cayman island' TAX BREAKS?
Oh that’s right, we don't....
Dude....really disappointed......I don't get any f***ing tax credits.
My crime.....I AM HONEST!
Zero Hedge can't complain about gaming the system, while encouraging gaming the system.....that’s like ‘sort of being pregnant’ remember…
Just have a flat 15% max......and that’s generous...
And as for the deficit, that’s WALL and WAR street........please.......this video is worse than zombie face eating on a highway....its starts of badly, gets even worse, and by the time it gets good...people have changed the channel because the sentiment is wrong.
It should start off at the end, and then explain the reason by using the beginning..
Back in the 80's, when we had huge military contracts, it was common knowledge that at least 25% of all government spending was waste - hence the bumper sticker
-I owed the IRS $1500 in bax taxes, so I sent them 3 hammers and a toilet seat.
This inherent inefficiency of government spending seems to have gone off the radar screen. The 25% was not actually wasted per se, it went into the pockets of defense contractors. With the Federal budget running close to $4 trillion, if you count all the off budget items such as loans to states, the chances are that at least $1 trillion of this is wasted. In other words, it is going into the pockets of cronies via a patronage system.
Needless to say, when Congress is asked to come up with cuts, they can not even come up with a 1% cut.
Why not create more rich people? Toss the H-1B and other Indian guest workers out of the country. Engineering and IT salaries would shoot up overnight, creating a rich base of income which could be taxed. This worked well in the 1990s, balancing the budget under Clinton.
Raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour.
Abolish the cap on SocSec and MediCare tax.
Abolish all deductions and write offs.
Tax all income over $12,000 at a flat rate if 15%, including bonuses, vacation pay etc.
Raise MediCare tax to 8% with everyone automatically eligible for MediCare.
So you make the mistake of lowering taxes over decades and when the unpaid bills are finally so high that the place is collapsing, decide that bringing taxes back up to a proper level is too little too late.
Taxes have to be a certain amount or you need to borrow. If your taxes are so low that you need to borrow, what makes you think you will ever pay the loans?
I have a mortgage. I have utility bills. I have maintenance costs. I pay them. What would be the alternative? Hey I think I'll just pay less on all my bills. The people I pay that money to can just borrow the money that I don't feel like paying them.
Yeah the government does stupid things with some of the taxes. Like business does stupid things, like I do stupid things, with money. But the utilities and maitenance of running a country a business or a home, need to be paid on time. As is blatantly evident now, things fall apart if you don't.
Time to at least start catching up. Not giving up. If taxes do not increase progressively on income then soon enough it all crashes and you can consider the lost wealth as payment of back taxes. In a very big painful lump sum.
You left out the part about interest on the National debt.
Spending = Economic Health ???
Depends on who is doing the spending...you can see what Federal spending and raising the deficit ceiling are doing for this economy. Need to go back and look at Japan since the mid-80s for some historical perspective.
No one has to pay a percentage more in taxes than they pay today. Just increase devalue the currency by 90 percent. Pay off the deficit in a year.
No one cares about the angry white man and his savings, he is already mad......
/sarc off
Seems to be plenty of middle class to tax.
Remember, one must NEVER broach the subject of taxing any rich. Any hint towards that must be stomped on in less than ten seconds.
What we need to do is tax unproductive rich people; you know, the assholes like Jaime Dimon, Ben Bernanke, and Mitt Romney.
Repudiate all debts in which the interest on said debt is paid to the international banksta class....which would include any and all debts that the 'Federal' 'Reserve' has gotten us into.
Forget about a Jubilee. Silly rabbits, Jubilees are for Jews not Gentiles.
Then start trimming the fat in ALL US Govt agencies and departments. How many fucking deputy directors to the senior deputy director of the assistant secretary do we need? Does anyone ever watch govt hearings on C-Span? Who the fuck are all those people who sit behind the one person testifying? Ok I realize half of them are probably lawyers and attorneys.
Speaking of which what's the feudal history of the root word of attorney?
Attorn:
Let that sink in...
And once again Repudiate the debts!
This system has outlived it's usefullness. It's time to walk away and build something sustainable.
I Don't have any great ideas myself, but we need ideas.
In international law, odious debt is a legal theory that holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are, thus, considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt
When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfill one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilized for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.
You've obviously read up on this. Now the question I have to ask is, "Historically, who has ended up on the hook when the dictator's debts go into default? Creditors? IMF? Bake Sale?"
Before any trifling discussion about taxes, which is nothing more than a distraction, how about we eliminate the root cause of the debt problem. Get rid of the parasitical Central Bankers. Declare the "debt" claimed by the criminal financial mafia to be illegal, Hold trials to determine how much money they have skimmed from this country since 1913 and get it all paid back with daily compounded interest. Seize whatever assets are necessary and then jail the parasites for crimes against humanity.
Only at that point, should any reasonable person feel the need to address the taxation system.
This is easy... make the politicians pay for the gap between spending and taxation. BOOM, BITCHEZ!!
Let me get this straight. This asshat economist is say that if increasing taxes on the rich doesn't clear the deficit completely than we shouldn't do it at all? If this is the best argument these bozo toadies for the rich can come up with, they're in trouble. They're in trouble in the court of public opinion, but have no worries that anything will actually be implemented. They still control all aspects of the government. But public opinion in the long run can lead to changes as they well know. The propaganda will continue.
this shit is hilarious.
The tax money is coming off the hide on your asses.
Taxing the rich. When did that ever happen?
offshoring is great. At least my money goes on vacation
Rich = about 50% more than I will make in a few years.
I've heard this crap before. 400 hedge fund managers earned as much money as the bottom 150 million Americans. I'd rather you tax those 400 s.o.b.s first. And do it fast, before they and their Congressional puppets change the laws so they pay no tax at all.
No matter how many bodyguards and primvate military companies they own, one day pretty soon we'll all be
EATING THE RICH !
Ptuiiii!
That's exactly what we are doing with inflation
In an intentional, perpetual, monetary inflationist scheme, taxes are just a curb on future price inflation.
2009 the top 1% had 1,685 Bn in AGI, paid 385 Bn in tax. So let's take all of that to get closer to a balanced budget.
Next year the top 1% have decided they do not want to work for free, so they all sat on a beach.
No problem!
The top 5% have about 1,900 Bn in AGI. Let's tax them at 80%+.
Year 2, the top 5% have joined the top 1% on the beach, and did not work.
No problem!
The top 20% have about 2,300 Bn in AGI. Let's tax them at 70%+.
That's YOU, the poor schmuck who earns $50k to $80k a year. That's the top 20%.
KA_BOOM.
Congress never controls spending, give them more, they just spend more.
We are out of money, time to cut back.
"A one-time" wealth tax is theft, and no tax is one-time. It will be instituted, become permanent, and then it's a short hop to just taking your money to pay off government programs and debt.