patrick.net

THe question is and always has been...What is the fair share?
Is it a percentage of the income they produce or is it the total tax dollar someone pays? If it is the total Tax dollar they pay then the millionaires pay much, much more. If it is the percentage of the income then they probably pay less. If the wealthy are producing jobs and hiring people and paying a higher tax amount isn't it a good thing that they receive a higher non taxable amount of their income to "reward" them for the risks they take and to continue to encourage them to hire people and produce jobs therefore increasing the overall tax base for everyone to benefit from? You don't want to kill the goose that is laying the Golden Egg. Obviously the government is not producing Jobs so let the small business person do it who has always done it well but reward them along the way.

mike2 says

If the wealthy are producing jobs and hiring people and paying a higher tax amount isn't it a good thing that they receive a higher non taxable amount of their income to "reward" them for the risks they take and to continue to encourage them to hire people and produce jobs therefore increasing the overall tax base for everyone to benefit from?

Thing is, since 1980 the income disparity has grown and the middle class has been seeing less and less of the pie -- the top 10% earned 35% of all income in 1980 and now takes home 50%+.

The key difference between rich and poor is that the rich have their money working for them earning interest, and interest never sleeps.

It compounds on itself over and over, while labor's wages do not.

Obviously the government is not producing Jobs

Obviously, there is only 1 Steve Jobs. The government, however, does create a a lot of employment.

Try cutting just 10% from the defense budget and see how many people and communities go bust.

The fact of the matter is that the working class is getting tapped by rent-seekers from every side.

Landlords. The corner gas station. Health insurance. And, yes, government, even though taxes are at a historical low right now.

Not all "small business" is "job-creating". Much of capitalism today is simply predatation and specu-vesting, not actual wealth accretion.

We've been using rising debt to fake the working class having a rising standard of living, but that can't last forever, necessarily.

mike2 says

If the wealthy are producing jobs

Bingo. That's the flaw in the analysis. They AREN'T creating jobs.

And it's obvious why. The rest of the country (non-rich) don't have any money, so there's no demand.

mike2 says

THe question is and always has been...What is the fair share?

Which is why my answer has always been--I don't give a shit about "fair". Taxes need to be at a level that ensures a healthy economy.

But some of the logic here is a bit odd.

If millionaires were making their income as a wage that would be pretty simple...but they aren't.

Just by the fact that this is largely based on capital gains vs income taxes. Capital gains taxes can be raised but that still does not really get at what the issue is.

If someone has enough "stuff" then they don't need to work to begin with.

Consumption on major goods is marginal. If someone doesn't have a car and they buy one that is a significant gain. But they gain less by having two, three, four cars. I would suggest that ultimately consumption comes down to food and energy. Luxury taxes on high ticket items (boats, jets etc) might make some sense but I doubt it would yield that much.

One could argue the only direct tax on wealth is the estate tax. But the issue with that is it is upon time of death. So that gives ample amounts of time to give things away. If Bill Gates sold all of his stock he'd have a fair amount of money in the bank..we only tax interest on accounts not the size of them.

mdovell says

One could argue the only direct tax on wealth is the estate tax.

+ property taxes (real estate, vehicle, capital equipment, etc)

tatupu70 says

Taxes need to be at a level that ensures a healthy economy.

The successful eurosocialists -- Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Denmark -- understand this.

The unsuccessful -- Italy, Greece, Spain, etc -- do not.

AFAICT France, Belgium are somewhere in the middle. Dunno where Canada, Australia, and NZ are.

80% of this country only have their wages to amass wealth. The 20%, and especially the top 1%, has wealth to do this for them via interest.

This is why things are unbalanced and becoming more so. Compounding interest is a bitch if you've got to pay it, and that's the situation we're falling in now, more and more debt.

For ever debtor there is a saver somewhere.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

Nobody is looking at the flows to and from the working class. I can repeat myself again listing the outflows, but I shouldn't have to. The inflows are largely that $5T+ of gummint spending. While at $100,000 per job there ~should~ be 50 million government jobs, at any rate there are tens of millions of jobs dependent on government spending. Redistribution here is much needed to keep the entire system from seizing up.

mike2 says

If the wealthy are producing jobs and hiring people

RICH PEOPLE don't create jobs. It's the demand and the markets that create jobs. Rich people have already cashed out and are simply sustaining what they have. It's the hungry, the enterpreneurial, those who still have something to prove who create jobs and wealth. The rich have already cashed in their chips, they are not even on the floor any more. Get a freakin clue!

Bank Bailouts = socialism.
"Too Big To Fail" = socialism.
Privatizing the profits and socializing the losses = socialism.

For some reason in this country we only like socialism if it benefits large businesses rather than struggling individuals.

Like Buffet said...there is class warfare and the super rich are winning.

I have no hatred for the super rich, as long as they aren't buying our government. But clearly some of them ARE buying our government, as evidenced by the bailouts of large politically-connected banks...while everyone else got skrewed.

Let's end corporate socialism and restore capitalism. Who's with me?

wthrfrk80 says

Who's with me?

A lot of people. It starts with getting most of the money out of politics, but that is nearly an insurmountable task. Things have recently been going the other way, which is why the propagandists got so many Teabaggers in in 2010.

Although I disagree about socialism. Some of the things people call socialism I am very much in favor of (such as social security, and universal health care).

marcus - Dylan Ratigan has begun a movement to eliminate donated money from federal politics, complete with a proposed constitutional amendment. I know, I know....but we could surprise ourselves and actually have an effect. The website for signing the petition is: www.getmoneyout.com. At least you could know you gave it one shot....

mike2 says

Is it a percentage of the income they produce or is it the total tax dollar someone pays?

Good question. The answer, in my mind, a progressive tax makes both economic and moral sense. First off, it is a distortion to say that the wealthy and poor are taxed differently. They both pay the same tax on their first $10000 in income. It's the incremental earnings that are taxed differently.

But now to the main point. People claim to "make" money. Unless they print it, or they make a pot from scratch out of abandoned materials, they are really just diverting it from the huge river of river that is this economy. Some people build huge machines (businesses) that divert large amounts of money from the economy, paying people (employees) to operate that machinery by doling out some of the diverted money. Some people divert money by taking a slice of every transaction they are involved in.

So who benefits most from this river of money (economy) made possible by the stability of the U.S. Government? The answer is pretty obvious, it's the people diverting the most money towards themselves. It makes sense they would pay more to sustain it. Elizabeth Warren said it pretty clearly here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110042-503544.html. It is the height of disingenuous hubris to suggest that the judicial system benefits the poor as much as it benefits the rich. Who has the most to lose?

I'm not against capitalism. I think it pretty obviously works. I just think people who benefit the most from it should bear more of the burden of sustaining it than those who are pretty much left out of the party.

It's probably also worth noting that when people are enriching themselves through taking advantage of externalities, it is society's responsibility (to capitalism and to our people) to either regulate or tax to account for that. For example, if a company is producing a product cheaply by lacking pollution controls in their manufacturing plant, the extra money they rake in is being paid by all the people who have to breathe the air and drink the water. And it's being paid for by the health insurance costs for those who have it, and it's being paid by the government who have to issue disability checks and pay medicare costs.

This is one of myriad examples of this kind of economic distortion that makes regulations and taxes necessary. The most salient and topical is the need for a carbon tax. People who are spewing the most carbon into the atmosphere are reaping the benefits of that, to the cost over time of everyone who is hurt by climate change.

It really irks me when people who claim to be good capitalists argue against the very things that make it work.

I guess this is the best someone can come up with in order to corner an otherwise brilliant website Patrick.net. I tire of Aristotles Discus on CNN and Fox. Inundated by ream after ream of one liner one thought simple simon thinking.

That said something that will try to be turned as not real and a gimmic like the teacher gripes in Wisconson. Is the ongoing. Recently published in the news. Marchs on LA and NY and Wall. This stuff has been happening longer than you know. Much like the disappearing of the tent cities on youtube. The interviews of some well established homeless people. Not to mention the complete caving in of Detroit, Dayton, Scranton and many other places. The foreclousure rate. The out of work people. Isn't betrayed by the news at all. WOW WE ARE HEADING FOR A DOUBLE DIP RESSESSION. Fucking Ray Charles can't see but he gets it.

You have hit and bypassed depression levels as of last year. Mostly has to do with foreclousers and job losses. You can print paper all day long thats a fact. Wall street and W.C. Fields mean not a lot to me.

So pretend it's election time and some greco statue will come to life and save us all. Ain't gonna happen. Or shove it in a postal workers truck. Or just pretend. It's a landslide Ray Charles says. Don't know whats going to happen but I'm gettin the fuck out of here.

MarsAttacks! says

So, if there's a demand for digging so much for a certain amount of time

You agree then, that said demand is the real driver for jobs.

Bla Bla Bla. Dependency is the driver for jobs.

I have a novel idea: Why don't we link tax cuts for corporations and rich people to the number of jobs they create? For each new job you create, your tax rate goes down by X%. Hire enough people, and you can have a 1% tax rate. If you don't hire, your rate stays the same.

?w=360&h=265

MarsAttacks! says

For new products or ways of delivering existing ones cheaper/better/both, no.

You don't need demand for new products? Really?

And I agree delivering products more cheaply does theoretically improve standards of living, increase demand, and potentially create more jobs. But that's only if the rewards of the increased productivity are spread relatively evenly across society. Which, unfortunately, isn't the case in the US. Increasing productivity has only resulted in fewer jobs here.

MarsAttacks! says

I have a demand for a harem of hot chicks of each race willing to serve me at my back and call, for example. But the supply just isn't there no matter how much I 'demand' it now, does it?

There is a supply, but you just can't afford them. I think Heff pretty much proves that.

PersainCAT says

disagree. We currently have an economy that produces all the goods required for our country, as evidence there is no drastic supply shortage of any commodity in this country. At some point an economy like the usa can produce enough goods at such an effective rate that 80% of the population can support 100% and a decent standard of living.

Yep, we had no problem providing goods, making everything from Steel to Socks to Saws historically. Also, the primary customer for US manufacturers was the US, not abroad.

Bellingham Bob says

the top 10% earned 35% of all income in 1980 and now takes home 50%+.

If that number hits 75%, I might have to get into the guillotine business. Class warfare will be full blown like the french revolution of 1790's.

PersainCAT says

We currently have an economy that produces all the goods required for our country, as evidence there is no drastic supply shortage of any commodity in this country. At some point an economy like the usa can produce enough goods at such an effective rate that 80% of the population can support 100% and a decent standard of living.

Yeah, that is why our military vehicles like the MRAP had to be outsourced to other countries. We only have one steel factory left in the US.

I seen a quick blurb at the beginning of this year on the interwebs that says the NSA is now looking into the obvious threat that the US cannot produce anything in house due the shear amount of manufacturing that has moved to cheap labor overseas.

Pundits chant the party line... the rich are the job creators and if you tax them more they'll have less $ to hire people. This is just another middle class scare tactic. Business people and corporations are taxed only on profits. Profit means money left over after all business expenses have been paid. They are never taxed on expenses like salary and benefits. So they can avoid taxes by simply hiring more people.
The rich paid 90% tax up until around 1960, 70% up until around 1980. Even paying all this, the rich were still rich. And we had a much better unemployment situation then.

Ronald Reagan = Barack Obama

Truthplease says

Yeah, that is why our military vehicles like the MRAP had to be outsourced to other countries. We only have one steel factory left in the US.

Huh? There are still a great many steel mills in the US. Are you not counting the mini-mills?

tatupu70 says

Huh? There are still a great many steel mills in the US. Are you not counting the mini-mills?

Yes, but most of those are highly specialized, and not readily adaptable to manufacture any other kind or shape or size of steel. For example, a mill set up to manufacture long steel for building girders cannot easily convert to making flat carbon steel in the size and shape needed for vehicles.

This rich-poor tax stuff is great if your name is Alexander Ganopoulis. You sit around getting rebate checks. While your friends on the county commision sit around and laugh thier asses off at the suckers.

I guess that game isn't working out to well either at this point. Now that the tax people can't pay anymore because they haven't got jobbies. I have seen some of you working the check out counters at Wal-Mart. Kind of first come first serve if your one of the natives. I laugh like heck though I think its funny watching these near do wells trying to figure out how to work a scanner and bag towels. HA HA HA HA. I ain't payin and I got plenty good luck to you.

thunderlips11 says

tatupu70 says

Huh? There are still a great many steel mills in the US. Are you not counting the mini-mills?

Yes, but most of those are highly specialized, and not readily adaptable to manufacture any other kind or shape or size of steel. For example, a mill set up to manufacture long steel for building girders cannot easily convert to making flat carbon steel in the size and shape needed for vehicles.

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

I'm not a steel expert by any means, but that doesn't seem correct to me. All the US steel companies make steel for the automotive industry. Unless it's a specific chemistry that US companies don't make--which I find highly unlikely--I don't see why US companies couldn't manufacture it.

Yep shovel ready thats a good one. I guess its topic. I wish just for once the topic was just PEOPLE. Like hey you need to get a shovel dude. Because well its not looking to swift. I get tired of hearing from the supposed ON THE MOUNT people. I see the way things are going for people as nothing but good to be frank. I long for individuals that are self-contained. That are not dependent on anyone.

It's a dream of mine. See no loan or loans. Just you and your own work. Making your OWN life. I just hate the thought of a person that has to go into someones so-called work place and grovel. It takes away your dignity dude. Be here on time or else your boss says. Be here on time FUCK YOU. DO IT. Just do it. Oh you'll shake. You will be afraid. Once you get over that. Hey guy then its your life again.

I actually did something very similar. I made 20k one month for a company. I got about half of that for myself. When I went to get the check. It was a small company. Most anyone ever made for them. Fairly new company. A guy younger than me had all kinds of gripes. Most of the workers were there. The boss. He started dressing me down. The boss to. Everyone was standing there waiting for my reply. I stood there like an embarrased child.

I looked at the younger guy. I said fuck you. The boss looked suprised started in on me. I told him fuck you. Another guy came in and tried to calm me down. Well your going to have to do what my asst said the boss said. Fuck you I'm done with this place. True I could have done well. I took what I had. Did'nt know what I was going to do. Never went to work for anyone again however. I was fed up.

Now I don't work. Not at all. I have everything. See I take the time and am willing to help. Sound like a piss-ant. I actually like people. I can afford to. I'm big enough to give. You want paper. I haven't got any. So don't bother asking for some bullshit credit from me. I hate credit. I have a lot of the real things in life. Look around. Your entire life is waiting for you.

Another great Patrick.net link. Look at the picture. I don't think they want to occupy wall street. They look like they want to tear it down. I know what I said before. I see a lot of outrage in those peoples faces. From being taken in by a bunch of swift talking confidence men. I have changed my mind. The framing of it from the interest soaked media is they want the American dream. DREAM WHOS DREAM? Their dream? Screw that.

Look at those faces. What are they really saying. Seems to me they are saying things like tear that mother down. It's scary. They know. They can frame it as scared jobless people to. Which they will. Forecloused on people. What they really are thinking may be leave our neighbors alone. Leave our families alone you thieves. We are tired of you stealing from our friends, neighbors, families. You built your fucking empire off of our backs. We hate what you do. We are going to stop it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/02/occupy-wall-street-99-per-cent?

Read one more thing. Am going to jump at this. Labor unions joining those people. MORE LIKE INFLITRATING. Not one of these guys asked for politicians in this or greco bullshit and that
includes labor to. They get the jobs. Always been that way.

They can't cache these guys into someone phoney like Ron Paul I expect. What they are is honest people saying hey your a bunch of cons. Once again what they are really thinking is you built your empire off of our backs. Unions want jobbies. Most of the really real people out there want the scammers shut down. They aren't asking Unions, Cheese sucking politicians or anyone elses help or opinion. So keep your labor union bullshit. They won't be joining in with the OTHER scammers in all of this. Not to mention the phoney organizations the interest sucking scammers - Wall Street - Cheese sucking politicians - Labor will be setting up to trap and cache the people who want to shut down the THIEVES THEMSELVES.

Been going on for sometime. You watch how carefully they craft little groups for these really pissed off people to join as they peel these people off slowly. Till they can have one BS group like oh the tea party BS. Or Ron Paul for whatever to represent them all right back into the interest sucking scammers hands.

Kudos to you Patrick for not betraying your friends and readers. Like what is going to be tried and is being tried just watch and see.

PersianCat, you don't know what you are talking about.

I also stand corrected. We don't own any high grade steel companies in the US anymore.

Here is a mind blowing statement from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA479009

There are only two manufacturers of high grade steel in the United States qualified to produce the armor steel specified for use in MRAP production. Oregon Steel Mills Inc. located in Portland Oregon and International Steel Group based in Richfield Ohio. Both of these mills have been acquired by foreign companies in the past year and a half. Oregon Steel is now owned by Evraz Group S.A. of Russia. International Steel Group was acquired by the Dutch conglomerate Arcelor Mittal. Foreign ownership of U.S. defense manufacturers brings unique challenges to DoD acquisition. In many cases
priorities of foreign companies may not match U.S. defense industry needs. The potential for policy differences between the U.S. and foreign companies may cause differing prioritization of production between DoD and the foreign corporations.

Houston, we have a problem!

Zakrajshek says

The rich paid 90% tax up until around 1960, 70% up until around 1980. Even paying all this, the rich were still rich.

They could also deduct almost everything, so the 90%/70% rate isn't really comparable to today's rates. It was also for very, very high earners. The effective tax rate in those years for the 90% bracket was something like 45% and that would have been on income over 4 million in today's dollars.