Originally posted at http://blog.myspace.com/godhatesrepublicansdotorg

How much is enough? A call for the largest tax increase in history.

Last week on THE DAILY SHOW, Louis Black did a segment on what rich people are doing with their money, now that the Bush Administration has cut taxes for the top 1% to amazing lows. One of these wealthy soulless fools spent four million dollars on a customized Ferrari.

It's not Christian of me to say this, but in all honesty I hope this fool's car gets totalled when a $500 rust bucket plows into him.

How much is enough for these people? Seriously. There's only so much stuff in the world to have, and these greedy scum want it all for themselves. It's like one person going to a pot luck dinner, and hauling all the food they can carry out to their car and driving off with it before anyone else can get a plate full.

I personally think any income over say, $5 million a year should be taxed at about 95%. Any taxpayer in that bracket will get a gold plaque thanking them for their service to the nation, and a life time guarantee that if they manage to lose their fortune, society will give them medical care, room and board for life.

And with that money generated with my "More money than any sane person needs" tax, we could give a life time guarantee of medical care, room and board for every American. Think of the good that would do for all Americans.

And to people who say that such a "More money than any sane person needs" tax would take the incentive away from wealthy businesspeople I say horsefeathers. Imagine the life-long bragging rights one could have by flashing a gold plaque saying "This person was rich enough to fund all of American society." That will get people a lot more respect than a customized Ferrari, and for good reason.

By Brian Davis, author of http://www.godhatesrepublicans.org

I thought the whole point of freedom is that how much is enough for each person is up to that person.


Marginal or total?

Yes we need a change to the tax system.

I propose(yea like anyone would listen to me)

Make tax cuts or elimitation for all people in the true poverty level. Ususally around twice what the Goverment claims is poverty level.

Make flat tax rates 15, 25, 35, 50 percent depending on income. Including dividend on stocks, etc.

Get rid of all off shore tax shelters. Personal, corparation, etc.

Raise the upper limit on Social Security to 250K. Make a law to keep it protected and not used for other things.

When the country operates at a surplus instead of a deficit budget, a tax cut of 5 percent for the 2 lower and 10 percent for the 2 upper level incomes. Could work a something in here for elimination of trade deficit also.

Anyway, I think this would be a start.

Curtis

Well, it is certainly more realistic then 95%. LOL....

Why do you think people who make more money should pay higher tax rates?

Because they can,
and because they have earned that money off the sweat of people who do not,
and because they owe the society that was able to make them so fortunate!


And still more basic, because if they don't, the poor who vastly out number them will eventually get pissed off and rise up.
Can you say, Custer Syndrome?

That's a really interesting point. And sounds pretty good to me from the outset, but here's where i get all liberally about it:

Yes, a person's income should be unfettered and allowed to become as large as possible without restriction, but...

two points:

1) Anyone who reaps the benefits of the American system, should pay back into that system so that others may enjoy the same benefits. Meaning instead of reaping huge benefits and hording it, it should go back into the system after you croak. Such as the inheritance tax. That tax affects less than the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.8%, to be exact. Those people should have the crap taxed out of them at death, to fund the very system that allowed them to become that wealthy in the first place, thus strengthening that system and providing for more people to get that wealthy in the first place. Stealing from their kids, some may say? No, the kids of someone that wealthy already have a huge advantage over the average American and have the opportunity to go to the best schools, start their own corporations, etc. Which brings me to the next point...

The whole point of freedom is also a level playing field. The Bush family kids are already born with a silver spoon in thier mouths. The son of a steel-worker who has sub-standard schools and poor nutrition as a baby and less access to the resources of the rich doesn't stand a chance of ever owning his own steel mill. But, the Bush kids do. Tax payer funded child-care programs, nutrition and healthcare programs, education subsidies, etc. can level the playing field and give some poor schmuck a chance at the pie, that the rich are already. It's that kind of thinking from FDR's new deal (And the dreaded spectre of socialism) that created a middle class in this country and helped to level the playing field and cut the level of elderly poverty in half in a decade.

Another point of freedom and taxes, is the notion of the individual. Do we really even need to focus on the individual? Not really. 60% of the corporations in this country pay no taxes at all. Some even recieve tax rebates for the taxes that they DO NOT pay. CSX is one of those companies. (The CEO of that little tax thief, was actually appointed by Bush to head the treasury for a while.)

So really, if we want freedom and a level playing field and to place the power back in the hands of the individual rather than the corporate and political elite, we need to regulate industry and the ultra wealthy (like the top .8%) We need to stop giving billions of dollars in subsidies to corporate cronies of the administration and the most profitable corporations in the country and shift the tax burden to those who have the most. Taxes aren't meant to benefit the people who pay them. Taxes are menat to benefit the people who need them so that they can become taxpayers as well, and benefit the lower tier. Right now, the working class are the lower teir and the corporate and political elite are those who should be shelling out what they've been allowed to amass, so that the others below them can be the next generation of treasury fillers.

Of courae, the other problem is where our tax dollars are being spent...

I can, but what does an incompetent cavalry commander have to do with taxation? Or are you thinking of a different Custer?

[quote]1) Anyone who reaps the benefits of the American system, should pay back into that system so that others may enjoy the same benefits.[/quote]
I agree. Margaret Thatcher once said "There is no society. There is only people looking out for their own interests." I think that is as wrong as can be. Every society, even the most primitive, has some method of taking care of its most helpless members by more or less mandatory contributions from others. It's fundamental to what a society is.

[quote]Meaning instead of reaping huge benefits and hording it, it should go back into the system after you croak. Such as the inheritance tax. That tax affects less than the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.8%, to be exact. Those people should have the crap taxed out of them at death, to fund the very system that allowed them to become that wealthy in the first place, thus strengthening that system and providing for more people to get that wealthy in the first place. Stealing from their kids, some may say? No, the kids of someone that wealthy already have a huge advantage over the average American and have the opportunity to go to the best schools, start their own corporations, etc.[/quote]
I agree again. As did the Founding Fathers. I can't quote which one offhand, but one of them saw inherited wealth as a danger to the Republic. I think allowing some level of inheritance is good both for the economy and for motivation to succeed, but I'd cap it someplace around a million dollars (more for the worth of productive capacity like a farm, factory, or shop).

[quote]The whole point of freedom is also a level playing field.[/quote]
Oh, well. So much for the love-fest. Freedom is not about a "level playing field." I think Vonnegut had a few sharp things to say about that.

[quote]The Bush family kids are already born with a silver spoon in thier mouths. The son of a steel-worker who has sub-standard schools and poor nutrition as a baby and less access to the resources of the rich doesn't stand a chance of ever owning his own steel mill. But, the Bush kids do. Tax payer funded child-care programs, nutrition and healthcare programs, education subsidies, etc. can level the playing field and give some poor schmuck a chance at the pie, that the rich are already. It's that kind of thinking from FDR's new deal (And the dreaded spectre of socialism) that created a middle class in this country and helped to level the playing field and cut the level of elderly poverty in half in a decade.[/quote]
I generally agree with this part, though for different reasons. Maximizing opportunity benefits everyone, the one who receives the boost in opportunity, and all those who benefit from what that one does with her opportunity.

FDR expanded the middle class, but he did not create it.

[quote]Another point of freedom and taxes, is the notion of the individual. Do we really even need to focus on the individual? Not really. 60% of the corporations in this country pay no taxes at all. Some even recieve tax rebates for the taxes that they DO NOT pay. CSX is one of those companies. (The CEO of that little tax thief, was actually appointed by Bush to head the treasury for a while.)[/quote]
I don't have a problem with taxing corporations. They receive government services, they should pay taxes.

[quote]So really, if we want freedom and a level playing field and to place the power back in the hands of the individual rather than the corporate and political elite[/quote]
Power is in the hands of the individual. Always was, still is.

[quote]we need to regulate industry and the ultra wealthy (like the top .8%)[/quote]
I may or may not agree, depending on the regulation you have in mind.

[quote]We need to stop giving billions of dollars in subsidies to corporate cronies of the administration and the most profitable corporations in the country and shift the tax burden to those who have the most. [/quote]
That's a very conservative viewpoint. Welcome to the Dark Side.

[quote]Taxes aren't meant to benefit the people who pay them. Taxes are menat to benefit the people who need them so that they can become taxpayers as well, and benefit the lower tier.[/quote]
I disagree. Taxes are meant to benefit everyone.

[quote]Right now, the working class are the lower teir and the corporate and political elite are those who should be shelling out what they've been allowed to amass, so that the others below them can be the next generation of treasury fillers.[/quote]
Again, I'd need specifics on this before I could agree or disagree.

[quote]Of courae, the other problem is where our tax dollars are being spent...[/quote]
Indeed, sir.

Clearly I was not refering to the man.

See, I'm more of a Socialist than TJ is. Though I agree with him on the idea of a Capitalistic Democracy.
I seperate myself though in the idea that regulation is not a bad thing. Case in point, Wal*Mart.
I do not want the government running the store, I want the store tyo run it's self, and work with in a set of rules set down by the Federal Goverment. Rules that would guarantee a fair wage and bennifits for those who give their sweat equity to the profitibility of that organization.

Apply the Wal*Mart standard I just mentione dto every industry and every employeer, and that includes small employeers. Them too? Yep, because when they can't then another way WILL be found to guarantee every citizen access to health, dental and vision care!

I see Government Regulation of Business and the very rich as being the most healthy thing to do for them, to ensure their continued profitability. How so?

Industry has no proplem investing in new machinery when the old needs to be updated or replaced. Every one of us who owns a car doesn't mind paying the money required to maintain the vehicle. I'm saying when industry and the rich are forced to invest in THE PEOPLE, then they reap the same returns as investing in machinery will and does.

But why do we need to regulate this? Why can't the free market regulate it's self? We've been operating under this so called free market since Reagan fired all the air controllers and deregulated virtually all industry. How much have you saved because of this? Absolutely nothing, in fact many aspects cost you much more, such as energy. (enron and everything it touched) Since that time the gap between the rich and the poor has grown to a chasm. The middle class has shrunk to the point that many economists worry about it's continued existance.

In other words, when asking the market to regulate it's self is a bit like asking the fox to guard the henhouse,
and we trust his promise to not eat chicken.


Regulation, inspite of what the Republicans will tell you, is not a bad word. However 35 years of them saying it over and over have pretty much convinced most of us that it is. I mean really! Repeate a lie often enough and the people will perceive it as truth. Catipult the propaganda!

Sometimes known as the backseat driver syndrome.


I don't recall that we ever had such rules. Better to have a union.


Good question. There's no government regulation requiring industry to upgrade its machinery, but it does. Why is it different with people? Maybe the analogy isn't valid.


How about mobile phones? Computers? Airline tickets? Televisions?


The best guard for the henhouse is someone who has an interest in ensuring its safety. The government has no such interest.


But it needs to be done carefully, and minimally. I'm not sure how to make that happen in a government that responds to politics.

But it should and if the people would quit bitching and whining and do something, then it would. But as it stands, we have seen the government can/has do/ne more than the market.

What most defines the unfairness of our tax system is that people who produce nothing and generate no new wealth to put back into the economy pay practically nothing. They simply wait for their dividend check to arrive and allow their increasing wealth to be passed on to their heirs, tax-free, who may choose an equally unproductive life. As their wealth accumulates, with none being returned to the "system" via taxes, the tax burden grows for the rest of us, who are left to provide the social services necessary to a viable society. More and more wealth accumulates to the very wealthy, the middle-class is squeezed into non-existance, and the number who live in poverty grows. Those who subscribe to social darwinism should realize that a society cannot prosper without a middle-class.

Is that like the ancient cry "It ain't fair !"?


I don't know. I regard unions as part of the market, and they put more pay in people's pockets than any minimum wage bill ever did.

Jubal


=-) I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Thus, I have no political representation.

I'm a chronic imbiber and periodic vomiter. Thus, I NEED no political representation.

You expected me to be scared by the word? In what way is a union "ownership by the workers of the means of production? Just the opposite, I'd think.


Is not.


Do you really think the mobile phone infrastructure is manufactured overseas? Or do you think the handset is all there is to the system?


Many companies do. The smart ones, anyway.


In that case, the Republic is doomed.

When you add everything up that a person has to pay for(food, housing, transportation, medical, school, familly, etc) those who have more money can afoard to pay a higher tax rate. I know of people working 70 or more hours a week either close or at minimum wage, trying to provide for their familly. Many times they have to skip meals to ensure their children have something to eat. I know people who invested in the stock market and basiclly sits around the pool making money and have the same bitch as you do. Look at it this way, paying a higher tax rate has a less effect on your quality of life that a lower one on those in the lower income bracket. A gallon of gas or milk cost the same whichever income bracket you are in.

Curtis

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Not a bad basis. I'd add that, in all fairness, people in higher income brackets receive more services and better services from the government. Who gets better police and fire protection, Harvard Heights or Brokedown Flats? Who uses the highways and airways more? Examples abound.

By the way, a question is not a "bitch." Try not to read things into my posts.

I disagree. Raising the min. wage would raise the same number of peoples wages as all of the union membership. Not all unions have good pay either. Some still pay min. wage. Current union membership is ~16 million, and that about how many who would be effected by a min. wage increase. But I do believe the we need more of BOTH. We need stronger unions, with less restrictions and a higher min. wage.

"And now for something completely different."

How 'bout setting the minimum hourly wage each year at the previous year's poverty level for a family of four, divided by 2000 (the average work year is 2000 hours, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Discuss.

No, its built using tax dollars, and then monopolized by the corporations so they can charge an outlandish rate!!!
But most companies are not smart.They too often lack vision. And if you look at the companies who take care of their employees, they do better. (for the most part) Those who slack, tend to drift away. Look at the big 3 auto makers. They started screwing their employees about 25 years ago, and its been downhill since then.

It is? That'll come as quite a shock to the companies that laid out billions for that infrastructure. What's outlandish about 5 cents a minute to call anywhere in the country? In real dollars, that's a lot less than your parents paid for long distance.


That would suggest that it's a self-correcting problem, then.

Which would make it about $10/hr now. I think it should be set at the level needed to get (pay all bills, including food) by working 40 hours a week. The current way of calculating the poverty level is outdated and just too damn arbitrary.

Which they get back in tax breaks. Its simple to spend billions when you get it right back into your pocket. Does this help make my cell phone bills cheap? No, but it should. They still charge us like they actually paid for the damn thing. In addition, they monopolize the infastructure WE helped pay for by charging us when we use a tower we dont have a "plan" for. But i wont get into the bullshit rate plans.... Just because its less than what others paid previously, doesnt automatically make it cheap. And with rate plans as low at $50 a month, you cant go wrong.....
Suggest? That doesnt mean anyone will listen.

godhatesrepublicans,

I just keep telling myself, when I die, it ain't going there with me. It being whatever the item may be; money, car, clothes, dog...well maybe the dog... but you get the idea. And the same applies to everyone else. The tax system in this country is tageted, currently, to be carried by the middle and lower classes thinking that since their numers out number the elite .8%(using Tj's figure) then there should be more pooled into the pot. But what no one admits is that this top tier, .8%, owns 90%(or so) of the wealth.

So the bigger question should be; Why does the top tier of the economic pyramid that controls the largest chunk of the pie be allowed to protect their chunk while the largest porportion of the economic poor who own the smallest crumb be required to carry the bulk of responsibility?

Jub,


You didn't say cell phone infrastructure, you said "Cell Phones", and that's what I responded too.




Green,


Thanks to VOiP I pay a flat rate of $199 (less than $17 a month) a year with unlimited long distance in all of North America. But that's a whole different and new technology that has nothing to do with standard phone companies. In fact, I feature a future in which internet access is free and wireless, and this will mean phone will also be free. Once tax payers put up the money to install the system, all that is then required is maintenance, and in the same way that we pay for a crew to repair roads, we'll pay for a crew to maintain the local internet system. The City of Portland Oregon is currently installing a city wide wireless system, and it will cost tax payers nothing. The California company that is installing the system will get their money back selling upgrades. The City of Hood River has been wireless for almost 2 years. (That's where Google is Based) Wireless and free basic is the coming wave.

1.) It's going to require a substantial tax increase just to pay back the debt these Republicans have run up. Think of all the money they've looted from the Social Security trust, plus the future VA benefit costs, plus the yet unknown costs of building a new non-petroleum-based infrastructure, etc.

2.) Since the economy grows, any new tax increase is almost certain to be "the largest tax increase in history."

3.) The democrats will be blamed.

I can't argue with ignorance this well armored.


I didn't say it was cheap. I was answering a post that said the price of everything had gone up by pointing out that the price of mobile phone service, among other things, has gone down. But don't let that get in the way of your whining.


Considering that's what you just did, why do it again?


See comment above.


You certainly won't.

Whats wrong? You dont believe this to be true? Telecomunication companies are always recieving government handouts and tax breaxs to cover their "buisness expenses" for doing a public "good". But, often times, when they do, they take control of the lines the people subsidized and dont allow competition over those lines, allowing them to jack up prices. (electric utilities are a prime example of this)

The price of mobile phone service per minute has gone down, however, now (everywhere i look) we are forced to get million minute rate plans starting as low as $49.99 etc... (ps, great way to sneak in the ad hom there....)


Have a problem with what i say? Stick to that. Check the insults and snide remarks at the virtual door.

First off, to clear the decks, I apologize for the snarky, ad hominem remarks. I'm in a bad mood for reasons which have nothing to do with you, and I was wrong to take it out on you. I am truly sorry, sir (bows).


Until you back that up with some actual data, I reject it.


Mobile phone companies don't have lines. And I don't see what electric utilities have to do with the discussion at all.

There is also a flaw in your math. Let us assume that you're absolutely right, and run a set of numbers.

The corporate tax is 30% of profits. Let us say that mobile phone system X cost ten billion to build. So X-comm, Inc. gets ten billion of venture capital and loans, builds out its system, and in the first five years takes in ten billion in revenues. 20% goes to operating expenses and 30% goes to paying its loans. That leaves five billion in profits over five years. Taxed at 30%, that means 1.5 billion would go to the Treasury. Let's say that telecom gets such terrific tax breaks that X-comm pays no taxes at all. That means they "get" 1.5 billion (more properly, are not compelled to pay 1.5 billion). Your thesis appears to be that the 1.5 billion that comes into the Treasury from other sources which we'll call "the people" pays for ten billion worth of infrastructure costs. Ergo, 1.5 billion equals ten billion.

Feel free to challenge my numbers or my assumptions. In fairness, however, I warn you that you're on my turf. I was deeply involved in the mobile telecommunications boom. I was a co-author on some of the important government regulations that made the boom possible. So I'm aware that there wasn't much manipulation of tax rates. There was a flood of venture capital into PCS and other mobile, and the profits of the boom were so high that most companies paid their taxes with very little complaint.


As far as I know, every mobile company offers pay-as-you-go plans. There's certainly plenty of them in the market that do. The advantage of rate plans in my experience is that they're cheaper for me.


Again, I am genuinely sorry about my snarkiness. I'll try not to let it happen again.

We all do it. Its understandable and I respect you for caring.
Well said, ill dig it up.

Right...i meant "towers" And i chose the electric as well because i thought we were on the subject of utility infastructure, so i chose them because they have a history to which we could relate.


It appears you quasi addressed this later, but 30% is a misleading number. To be honest, you lost me.


every pay-as-you go plan i seen was a total jip. crazy expensive for very few min.

On the relatively rare occasions that a mobile phone company puts their antennas on a tower that was built with public money, they pay for the privilege. On those occasions when mobile phone companies do not allow other companies to put antennas on their towers, it is usually because of loading and other engineering factors. It makes no sense to deny other companies access to your towers, if the towers can bear the load. The other companies pay rent for the privilege.

At one point there was some trouble with telephone pole attachments, but that was resolved by the FCC. And either way, those telephone poles were not built at public expense. They were paid for by the phone company.


It's called "what the market will bear." Standard pricing methodology. My point is that competition has brought mobile phone costs crashing down. I remember 1996. Cell phone rates were 59 cents a minute, plus roaming, plus long distance. Deregulation and expanded competition is what brought mobile phones down from three pounds to a couple of ounces, and prices down from 59 cents a minute to my plan, which is basically five cents a minute, no roaming, no long distance, and unlimited internet access for $20 a month.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use the expression "jip," also spelled "gyp." It's an ethnic slur on the Rom.

I remember those days too jubal, perhaps nygg wasn't around when cell phones were the size of a half gallon carton of milk?

At bottom I agree with Greenguy. We do need to make some adjustments to corporate tax rates. But it requires careful study of what the real situation is, not mere blanket statements like "Corporations get everything and don't pay taxes." Ultimately, competition and innovation pay for everything. That's how the Japanese managed to do so well despite the fact their country has, to all intents and purposes, no natural resources. Sweeping tax policy based on vague generalizations could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. This is especially true nowadays, when corporations find it easier and easier to offshore.

I couldn't agree more. Draconian corporate tax rates will equal, no corporations.

Wasnt around? I was building and repairing the damn things. ME and my friend also help to create a "tube" (it was a straw) that would prevent the antenna from a Motorola Richard phone from degrading due to friction. We didnt even get a damn dime from it. I really have a personal vendetta against cell phone/companies. I had a job at motorola making $13/hr and the bastards laid me off because they didnt know how to run the place. Bastards.....

Odd, cant say ive ever heard that!

Generally this is true, but also that desire for profit can have many negative impacts as well. The hard part is finding the right balance. But when it comes to $$$, people seem to loose all reason and only think in green.

I thought you hadn't, because from what I know of you, I can't believe you would knowingly use an ethnic slur. But to "gyp" or to cheat, is based on stereotypical views of the honesty of Gypsies, or Rom, as they call themselves. Just a word to the wise.

I was around when cells came out. The original cell phone was called "the brick".
And cell phone usage ran about $3 a minute. No rate plans.

Like all new technology, the cost is at first quite high.
As I said, I predict a day when nation wide telephone, as well as the internet are free to everybody.


I'm not against business. In fact, I really am pro-business. Competition and the ability to "get rich" is about the best encouragement possible for good products and services. However, if we allow business to regulate it's self, trouble will come from it. Nearly every economic ill of the past few decades is a direct result of Reagans deregulation. And yet, most of the Goopers manage to blame Clinton.


Everything in society needs some sort of over sight. For instance, If we have no citizen over sight of our police departments, we'd quickly wind up with cops like those in the 50's and 60's. Why on earth de we allow business to decide the fate of our country? I thought this was a nation of the people, by the people and for the people?




This includes social programs as well as keeping the robber barrons in check.
Oh yeah, national defense too!