Michael Moore was out and about this last week railing against those who want to bring public sector unions under control and giving his views on the economy.
His solution to fix the problem?
Confiscate the wealth of those few who are billionaires.
Yeah, you read that right. Go in and take it. It’s not like they earned it anyways.
What’s happened is that we’ve allowed the vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people, and they’re not circulating that cash. They’re sitting on the money…
…that’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this… we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.
The simple mindedness of this creature is sometimes hard to comprehend. But lets say we go along with his simpleminded, communist, wet dream.
The United States of America has about 400 billionaires. Moore calls them “400 little Mubaraks.” About half of those have less than $2 billion each, and those with a net worth in the double-digit billions is an exclusive club of about 30.
The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.
That’s before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you’re keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).
So, what if we try to solve a smaller problem? Across the nation, 45 states are projecting over $100 billion in shortfalls, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If the government just redistributed the wealth of the top three American billionaires—Bill Gates ($54B), Warren Buffet ($45B), and Larry Ellison ($27B)— it could solve that problem in a jiffy.
Of course, the 260-275,000 people employed by Berkshire Hathaway, the 105,000 employed by Oracle, and the 100,000 or so employed by Microsoft, might have something to say about that (to say nothing of the thousands of non-profits, charities, and causes that benefit from Gates’, Buffet’s and Ellison’s fortunes). That’s over 400,000 people out of a job.
Michael Moore would argue to nationalize those jobs, but as MKH argues, where would the incentive come from to make those companies profitable if anyone successful in that endeavor will have their monies confiscated?
There will be no incentive.
One could also close the state budget gap with the wealth of the bottom 100 or so billionaires, who have but $1 billion and change each. But good luck processing the payment because you’ve just wiped out Paypal’s founder (Peter Thiel, No. 365). Also, the owners/founders of the Colts, the Eagles, the Redskins, the Saints, Campbell’s Soup, Home Depot, and the entire ironic t-shirt empire of Urban Outfitters. Those products, brought to you by the country’s billionaires and currently enjoyed by all of us, would be sacrificed to Moore’s plan to almost pay for the 2011 deficit.
But when it comes down to it, his goal isn’t to eliminate the debt. He wants to transfer the wealth from the rich to the poor….make it all even you see.
What’s that called again?
See author page
@Mr. Irons, #5:
If we cut income taxes to 10 cents on the dollar for a year and then returned rates to their former levels when the resulting deficits blew through the roof, some people would probably be up in arms, yelling about the outrageous new tax hikes.
My point being that current top end tax rates represent a significant downward deviation from the nation’s historical average.
@Greg:
Balanced? What a laugher! Let’s start with curbing the spending disease rampant amongst our public officials in DC first. Is there any reason at all why Obama’s first budget should be 3 times as high as Bush’s last one?
Of course you would say that like it’s a bad thing. Ever wonder why so many people depend on those programs, Greg? Maybe if you understood economics better, and what actually makes a free-market work, then you’d realize the intrusiveness of government is a destructive force in a free-market system, and the programs they claim to help the needy actually create more and more dependence on the system. No doubt that if many of the entitlements were done away with that there would be screaming from parts of the populace. That is basically what happened in WI. Take away someone’s freebies, or access to easy money, and they’ll scream bloody murder about it. It’s time to end the dependence on government.
And now we get to the liberal diatribe part of your post. Higher minimum wage? Damn right conservatives are against it. All it does is raise the ceilings for wages of those working non-minimum wage jobs, increasing product and service prices, increasing debt to purchase those products and services, and in the end, those working minimum wage end up in the same boat they were in before, sometimes worse due to compounding math. Smart. My 19 year old knows better than that, and he’s just a dumb teenager.
Equal pay for equal work? What’s considered equal work? What’s considered equal pay? Who decides on those? Are we to have a new Czar now, making decisions to make everything ‘equal’? How about this, Greg: The market determines what is fair pay for someone for a particular job. When an employer pays under the market determined wage range, good employees go elsewhere, leaving the bottom of the barrel for that employer. That is why the good employers will pay what is necessary, not above, and not below, in order to get the best employees they can. And you know what? Benefits plays an important part in that as well. It’s no surprise that you know nothing of business, economics, and their application in the real world.
“organized labor’s efforts to maintain working and middle class pay and benefits,”? Another laugher. Union management is solely concerned about their own slice of the pie, and in keeping their path to the gravy train of government open for business. And please, I’ve shown you the numbers in relation to union workers and the middle class. Do not attempt to repeat their tired theme of “standing up for the middle class”. I am middle class. I do not need them to stand up for me. And for the majority of the middle class, that is absolutely true as well.
Really Greg? So higher taxation on those who have higher incomes isn’t a form of confiscation? Your views are marxist in theory, Greg. Anyone who promotes the curbing of someone’s success in order to benefit all(none of whom likely contributed to that someone’s success) has marxist tendencies.
I work 14 out of 28 days, Greg, at 12 hours a pop. I make a decent income. If I want more, I work overtime when available. Do you contribute to my ability to work those hours? Do you contribute to my ability to be able to work overtime? Do you have any bearing or influence on my income? No, you don’t, and because of that, you shouldn’t have any access to the income I receive for my work. Nor should anyone else, yet, that is what entitlement programs provide. Access to my work and the income I garner from it. I have become a servant to those who demand partial payment for my work. How is that not wrong? Better to end entitlements and show people how to stand up on their own, rather than continue to prop them up with other’s income.
You don’t understand economics. You don’t understand the free-market. All you do is parrot tired old myths, half-truths and outright falsehoods you hear or read from liberals. I don’t know if you’d know the truth if it came up and bit you on your a**!
Truly, I say to you again, you need to ask yourself how and why you’ve strayed so far from our founding father’s principles, and whether or not that truly is a good thing.
@Greg: You said:
Really? Good then you won’t be able to argue against these facts about Reagan:
Number of American taxpayers who claimed more than $1 million in income in 1980: 4,400
Number of American taxpayers who claimed more than $1 million in income in 1987: 35,000
—–
Share of income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers in 1981: 48%
Share of income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers in 1988: 57.2%
—–
Total growth of Real GDP 1983-1990: 35.7%
Total growth of Real GDP 1991-1999: 33%
—–
Total federal revenues 1980: $517 billion
Total federal revenues 1990: More than $1 trillion
(in constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28% increase)
—–
The Reagan-created economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.
The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II
—–
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms.
This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan’s economy to the U.S. economy.
—–
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year.
From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent.
The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.
—–
Proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% 1981: 18%
Proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% 1988: 28%
—–
Doesn’t matter how the left tries to revise the record, history shows Reagan’s fiscal responsibility is by far the most successful economic policy of the entire 20th century.
What he did to the tax structure in this country brought about a boom equaled by no other US President.
He won the Cold War without firing a shot and put the Soviets where they belong – on the trash heap of failed governing systems.
Think what Reagan could have accomplished had he a Republican Congress that would work with him, rather than a Democratic Congress that worked against him.
Notice how he increased the tax revenue of those “evil rich people” you hate so much.
@anticsrocks: I can’t tell you how much I appreciate seeing your stats. Often, I am too lazy to go find them.
Btw, MKH is such a total babe.
@anticsrocks, #53:
Fiscal responsibility? Let’s not forget that we saw the national debt triple during the Reagan years–the beginning of the run-up that’s brought us to where we are today.
The proliferation of millionaires is of little comfort to working and middle class Americans who have been steadily losing ground while the richest have grown more numerous and ever richer. Their experience generally includes longer work hours, declining real wages, a progressive errosion of benefits, growing job insecurity, and steadily increasing worries about attaining any degree of security for their retirement years. The cost of basic necessities have been steadily rising. Higher education for their children is quickly moving out of reach.
Nor do I understand why an upward shift of the tax burden would be pitched to mainstream America as some sort of a positive indicator. With high-end taxes at historically low levels, what this actually signifies is that the distribution of income has shifted along with the distribution of wealth. The wealthy are paying a higher percentage of the taxes simply because they’ve now got a higher percentage of the national income.
None of this makes them evil. It just means that the playing field has been tilted. It certainly hasn’t been tilted in favor of the average citizen.
Be that as it may, it is the average citizen who’s apparently expected to bear the brunt of the fiscal dysfunction that has resulted.
(We did win our 40-year pissing match with the Soviets, I guess, though the total economic costs are probably so large as to be incalculable. Now we’ve got a new and improved Russia run by gangster capitalists. Perhaps this will ultimately turn out to be better.)
People like John F. Kerry remind me of the fact that rich people (he inherited and married his wealth….twice) could always pay MORE than their required taxes IF the WANTED to.
IF their conscience so moved them, they could do that.
BUT what’s the reality on the ground?
John F. Kerry specifically put his yacht in another state just to AVOID paying his own fair share!
Think he’d pay MORE voluntarily?
Don’t hold your breath!
And Obama?
What about Obama?
He’s rich.
But his own relatives live ”on the dole” in the UK, illegally in the USA and in a metal shack in Kenya.
But Obama wants to make it more difficult for you or me to help a relative privately.
He wants all ”charity” to go through the government!!!
Compare that to John and Cindy McCain.
That couple paid all the taxes on the property of an aunt who was living in one of the homes they bought to make her safe and secure in her life as an elderly widow.
They paid all their taxes and took care of family.
@Greg:
Oh, this whole paragraph is full of fun!
Let’s start, shall we?
If not for the liberal theme that millionaires become so because of ill-gotten gains on the backs of the poor, the majority of Americans should welcome the fact that more and more people are making so much income. Who do you think owns the businesses that poor to middle-class people work at? Who do you think invests their money into ventures that actually create jobs for those poor to middle-class people? By your comments, you’d rather the high income earners be taken to the cleaners as far as taxes are concerned. Nice job destroying idea Greg.
Longer working hours? As compared to when, exactly? I would agree that some people are being asked to work longer, although the 40 hr week is still the norm.
Declining real wages? Number one, the minimum wage increases have contributed to this. When they go up, competing business increases their employee’s salaries in order to keep who they have, and it continues on up the wage ladder until everyone makes more. And guess what? Businesses have to charge more for higher overhead costs due to payroll. It affects everythings prices, and in the end, those working the minimum wage jobs are, at best even with where they were, but most likely are worse off.
Progressive erosion of benefits? Businesses have to compete in several markets at once, Greg. The market for employees. The market for their main product or service. The market for new ideas. And what does the government give them, Greg? Nothing but more rules, regulations, taxes, and oversight. All those require more and more money, which leaves less for employees, because they cannot just price their product or service higher and higher. Eventually they price themselves out of the market, and then everyone loses, including the employees who are laid off. Benefits are trimmed, but not too much, or the employees move to a different company or business. It’s a tricky game, running a company and keeping it competitive and profitable. But of course, it’s just because they are evil, right Greg?
Growing job insecurity? Tax a business owner higher and of course he’s got to lay people off in order to remain open. Along with that comes longer working hours for the remaining employees, and the trimming of any benefits they might have. With the amount of spending the feds have done over the past few years, of course people are looking at higher taxes becoming more probable, because we all know the government ain’t gonna go on a diet, don’t we?
No surprise on the retirement insecurity. SS was destroyed long ago by people who couldn’t keep their grubby paws off of that money. But just try to implement a plan to truly save it, and make it less of an unfunded liability for the future, and all manner of crooks and liars in DC start accusing those with a plan of trying to steal people’s retirement, and then they turn around and just thieve it anyway. What’s your plan, Greg? Tax people more?
Lots and lots of reason why this is happening. Have you looked at gas prices lately, Greg? Kinda high, aren’t they? Those high fuel prices affect everything. Kinda stupid that we, as a country, are so dependent on other regions of the world for the fuel we use, particularly when we have the means to make ourselves much, much less dependent. Maybe then, every time some tin-pot dictator is in the midst of getting overthrown, it won’t affect our fuel prices one little bit.
And corn, Greg? What do you know about corn? Do you know how many everyday products, and not just food, that corn is grown and used for? Damn near every single one of them. Plastics, toiletries, even electronics are just some of the non-food items that use corn. And corn itself? Prices are rising higher and higher due to the ethanol mandates by the government. Just another of those unintended consequences caused by government intrusion. And don’t give me the crap about freeing us from oil dependency either. The energy required to grow, harvest, and process the corn is many times higher than the amount of energy derived from that ethanol. It’s a fool’s dream, Greg.
No argument here. I wonder though, just how many of those tenured professors are actually teaching in their own classes. And why their salaries are continuing to increase astronomically out of proportion to everything else. Of course, the blame has to go somewhere, doesn’t it? Why not blame this on conservatives as well, even though most college campuses are bastions of liberal ideas and thinking.
Taxes, Greg, were instituted to allow the government means to pay for the necessities of keeping it’s citizens safe, and to provide for common uses such as roads, and fire departments. The expansion of what taxes go to pay for now is outrageous. Why do we need to grant monies to artists? Why are we paying farmers NOT to farm their land? Why are we paying a bloated DOJ to sit around on their asses and not defend anything? Why are we paying monies to keep companies and businesses propped up? Why this? Why that? And hundreds upon hundreds more questions about why we, the people, are paying for it.
And your answer to all of this is to tax people more. Why? Because it isn’t “fair”. Your not dumb, Greg, I know that. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out why you choose to argue from such a dumb position.
@gary kukis: Glad to be of service. That is a post I did over at my blog for Reagan’s 100th birthday. Most of all the posts I saw were waxing poetic (as they should) about RR, I just thought that a quick reminder of his accomplishments was appropriate that day.
@johngalt: Thank you for taking Greggie to the woodshed on his insipid comments. He has proven himself over and over to be a rigid ideologue who is so very jealous that others in society have more than he does that he cries from the rafters every chance he gets about how the rich don’t pay enough, dammit!
I would only add that he really proved himself extremely ignorant on history when he said:
What a bunch of tripe. Maybe he ought to tell that to the fine citizens of Poland. I would wager that the vast majority of those who lived through the “solidarity” movement looked at finally having freedom as more than a “pissing contest.” That does such disservice to all those who struggled for decade upon decade to fight communism. But then again Greggie really doesn’t give a crap about them; after all, it was just a pissing contest…
@johngalt: Very good explaination, but this has been explained to Greg many times by many people. His lack of understanding of basic economics is incredable. When fools recite these arguments to me, I usually ask them if they have ever worked for a poor man? “No, then maybe the boss has an idea and some money to make it work.”
@anticsrocks: Without rich people, how can one be inspired to be rich? Find an idea and make it work. Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Penalizing those with good ideas is a sure way to not get any new ideas! Liberals never understand that maybe because they do not ever have new ideas.
With regard to Reagan’s legacy:
Yes he lowered tax rates but he also raised taxes numerous times when it was needed.
Tax Increases
Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
+57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982
+4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983
+24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983
+1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
+25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
+2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
+2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
+0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987
+2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
+8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988
+2.0
Total cumulative tax increases
+132.7
@Greg: Remember, Greg, there was no great depression throughout the world; only in the U.S.
Under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax cuts kicked the economy into overdrive and brought in more money into the treasury, and the rich began to pay a higher percentage of the national revenue.
Obama’s approach is to spend a whole lot of money, and we get a tepid recovery (if that); and there was no recovery whatsoever under FDR….for 12 years.
The government spending a lot of money does not fix the economy.
@Gary Kukis, #62:
I trust no one who reads that statement will take it literally.