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?
Moore also called on all high school students to walk out of their schools at 2 PM Friday in solidarity against the Wisconsin budget fix.
That fizzled.
Student protest plans yield few walkouts
I think the loony left has spread itself too thin what with all their calls for secondary strikes, walkouts, boycotts, etc.
Why is it that anyone would take a damned thing this guy says seriously? Isn’t he the same guy who was in those Austin Powers movies? The one they called, “Fat Bastard”!!!
Hitler failed with a similar plan to Moore’s.
No surprise. He has obviously already eaten everything else.
Here is a little interesting tidbit on Michael Moore-on: Weinstein Co. was the financier for MM’s movie, Sicko. Moore, whose estimated weath at the time was $10 million, cut a deal with Weinstein right out of the “Guidebook on How to Be A Greedy Capitalist.”
It seems that Moore received not the standard percentage of the box office take, but that his agent managed a tony 50% (unheard of) of Sicko’s gross profits (that’s after the theater owner collect their take of ticket sales). But that wasn’t the end. Moore’s agent also negotiated a 50% of all DVD sales, instead of the standard 20%. Since it cost $9 million to make, and grossed almost $25 million in the US, Moore earned a nice little income from Sicko of at least $5 million, adding to his already fat checking account. And that doesn’t count the DVD sales.
Now, you may wonder who is MM’s agent; well none other than Ari Emanuel, brother of Rahmbo (Dead Fish) Emanuel. And it gets even better: Michael Moore, and his wife, funnel his money into a non-profit organization that is especially designed to off set his tax bill. From investments of that organization, Moore uses the profits to contribute to certain [useless] charities. In other words, he spends none of his own money on charity (having given a paltry $36,000 in charitable donations in 2006).
But sticking his money into a tax free account doesn’t prevent Moore from living in a tony area that is absolutely lily white, sending his kids to a private school with non-union teachers, keeping a posh Manhatten penthouse or refusing to hire union laborers on his movie productions.
Moore is just another hypocrite that wants to redistribute other people’s money, but not his own. If he really believed in his socialist clap-trap, he would be living in a remodeled block house in mid-town Detriot, sending his kids to a public school, and giving his money away. Instead, he is just a stinking (according to the students of the University of Texas who claimed his body odor was so strong you had to stand upwind from him) fat bastard in a gimme cap who goes around trying to keep his name in the papers so he remains relevant.
It pains me to even respond to Moore’s BS. I say to all progs especially the ones who’s girth exceeds the national average by 200%. Give all of YOUR money away. Live in a tent, graze on grass and leave me the hell alone.
The “confiscation” most liberals have in mind is what is commonly referred to as “taxation”. Liberals don’t advocate the confiscation of wealth. They advocate a more progressive taxation of income. The way that the distribution of wealth and income are trending in America and the rapid growth of the national debt can both be attributed–at least in part–to the fact that those with the highest income have been subject to some of the lowest top-end tax rates in history, for nearly three decades. (At least in part is an acknowledgement that excessive spending has been the second component of the problem.)
Mary Katherine Ham’s billionaire argument is bogus. She makes her point by taking the hyperbolic Michael Moore’s words literally, when he’s really using the word “billionaires” rhetorically. What Moore is actually talking about here are the wealthiest 5 percent or so of the population–a group that doesn’t consist only of Ham’s literal billionaires, but includes them. That wealthiest 5 percent doesn’t just own the $1.3 trillion Ham cites; that wealthiest 5 percent collectively owns 60 percent of the nation’s total wealth–a total that greatly exceeds $1.3 trillion.
There’s an obvious correlation between the concentration of wealth and the concentration of income. High end tax cuts have serious budgetary consequences. They increase deficits. The effect is not only cumulative but compounding, because we have to pay interest on our growing debt balance.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks it makes sense to cut spending and then pass out all of the savings (and then some) in the form of more high-end tax cuts must be even loonier than Michael Moore. (Or just plain devious.) Doing so turns the fiscal wisdom of spending cuts into little more than a scam that facilitates the upward redistribution of even more of the nation’s income and wealth, while doing little or nothing for the debt problem. It certainly does little or nothing to increase the overall economic security of the American middle class.
I don’t know where to start Greg.But I’ll try. First, do you realy think that the Federal Government is better at managing our money than you or me? Do you really think that with all the coruption in Washington that they would dole it out fairly? And to whom , the poor ,you or me? No ,it would go to the unions who pad the polititions wallet thats who. Do you really think, given the history of communism and sociolism,that it is better than capitalism? Do you really think taxing the rich is going to solve anything? Is that gonna motivate people to succeed knowing if they work hard and be productive the government will just take it? Come on Greg we all know you’re jealous of rich people and you just want them to be just as poor as you are, because that’s what is in the future you so furvently want. Even a high school graduate from a small town can see that. Finally, why not a flat tax on everyone, 10% accross the board. Would you be for that?
That’s it I’ve spent far to much time on you, I can’t change your mind just like you can’t change any ones mind here on this site. And thats fine with me Greg, something your freinds on the left need to understand, just because we disagree as to the solution to our problems doesn’t mean we are enemies. Your buddies are escalating the redoric not the Tea Party it’s gonna get ugly just like it allways does when sociolism enters the picture. Make decisions based on facts and not feeling and you’ll never go wrong.
Whoo, I feel better now!
So, now the left’s talking points are pure hyperbole, meant to be taken figuratively?
Is that it?
And apologists of the left’s speakers can interpret their hyperbolic speech any way that works at the time.
I see.
NOT!
Who speaks for the left in plain English?
Anyone?
Didn’t think so.
Out of curiosity, i did watch Moore’s “Roger and Me”. The manure thrown on Roger Smith was indeed historic. Smith tried to get concessions from the United Auto Workers to save the GM plants in Flint, Michigan. That powerful union said an absolute no to saving jobs and improving the competitiveness of GM. Roger Smith did not kill Flint, Michigan. Moore, the propagandist, missed this.
I wonder what economic class Greg took when he was in 2nd grade!
@Dastardly Dave, #8:
You’ve got at least three incorrect assumptions in a single sentence. Counting the “we all know” part as a fourth would probably be a stretch.
@Nan G, #9:
Moore probably should have said “gazillionaires” rather than “billionaires”, to avoid confusing conservative literalists.
I was talking to a coworker of mine this week about all sorts of issues. We talked politics (Wisconsin). We talked fuel prices (He wants to see $10/gallon fuel). We talked the bi-polar paradigm of politics. And we talked debt. And on debt, he mentioned that he feels that the wealth of people is “ours”, meaning citizens of the state.
He has issues with the government saying what he can have in his back yard, but ok with the government forcing other decisions on him. He likes China’s policies on people control (he believes that China has a great political system that ensures that people aren’t harmed by “nonpracticing” bureaucrats ).
It kept coming back to money.
And then, it hit me.
I have figured out a way to eliminate the national debt. I have the ABSOLUTE SOLUTION. Of course, since the government can create any law it wants (see ObamaCare, etc), the solution is painfully simple.
Make collecting Social Security a capital crime. Make it punishable by death.
Imagine that. The glorious government programs could do on forever. Budget deficits would be eliminated overnight. And think about the economy without the debt burden.
Of course, I say anyone in government old enough to collect Social Security should be first on the list, to show how it is a noble and just cause.
Then there’s that pesky problem of all the bodies, right? Well, now we have a BOOM industry of death. Think about all the caskets, mortuary business and crematories that you should buy stock in now! And this would help quite a bit. Then add in the inheritance to the younger crowd. They obviously will spend it with little regard, further spurring the economy.
Soon, we could have one of the youngest (by average age) countries…
And all it requires is a commitment to collect social security and face the penalties.
You could tax the people a 100% and it still wouldn’t get us out of debt. Once the dollar is declared useless and no longer the worlds currency we will be hurting worse than we are now.
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
- Abraham Lincoln
Calling confiscation “taxation” doesn’t change what it is. Taxation is the method used to acheive the goal, not the goal itself.
1. OK Mikey…How about you start without us and we’ll catch up (wink, wink). How about you liquidating every asset you have and send the cash to the government? That’s the only way I’ll know you really believe what you say. It is a national resource anyway, right?
2. And when it is time to confiscate the wealth of billionaires, please start with George Soros.
@Greg:
Actually, there isn’t. When one talks about wealth, they speak of what a person, or group of people have attained, asset-wise, during their lifetime up to that point. When speaking of income, it is based generally on the money one makes over the course of a year. Money isn’t necessarily wealth, just as wealth isn’t necessarily just money.
What’s more, the wealth a person has accumulated might, or might not, have a bearing on their income for a particular year, whether past or current. Some people have their wealth in areas that do not bring in a single penny during the year, thus, their wealth is not income. Some people have all their wealth in the market, and in a good year, make plenty of income off of it, and thus, their wealth is entirely tied to their income, although their total wealth is not their income.
The Vanderbilts still have an enormous amount of wealth, but their incomes are nothing special. Bill Gates used to make vast amounts of income, and added most of it to his total wealth. He is now more like the Vanderbilts in that parts of his wealth contribute to his income.
Most liberals make the same mistake you do, Greg, in thinking that wealth and income correlate with one another. As such, that is why you all speak about the “concentration” of wealth when discussing taxation policies. You are wrong to think that way, just as Moore is wrong in his assumption that people’s wealth belongs not to them, but to everyone.
@johngalt: Well put. There are many on the left that do not understand this. My family lived a very poor existence in NE Pennsylvania along with thousands of other farmers. Now, the Marcellus shale gas deposits are paying them as much as $4000/acre. Families who just existed for so long are now wealthy Greg? Should they pay part of this to others who failed to labor for generations to keep the family farm? There are some very deserving older people who can still farm but not be concerned about where their next dollar will come from.
For those of You that may need more explicit info on Economics INRE the Entitlement Class, Wealth Redistribution and Those that have questions about fairness, taxation and confiscation of assets.
I view it in the same vein as someone rustling my cattle or stealing my horses. Try it at Your Own Personal risk including that morbidly obese clown Mr. Moore. You can’t outrun me or OO’ gauge Buckshot. Survivors will be prosecuted.
Little Red Hen – Modern Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQIGN84RN8&feature=related
It’s very easy to determine if an Idiot NeoFabian Progressive like Greg truelysupports a “progressive” tax rate vs “confiscatory-punishment-for-simply-being-more-wealthy-than-I-want-tax-rate”…
Ask them if they support the most progressive tax method ever proposed: The FairTax
They will obviously scream bloody-murder, because along with true fairness (which they don’t really give a shit about), it removes influence-peddling from government, which IS what they need to cling to power with.
If left wingers really believed in what they say, people like Michael Moore would have no more money, or assets, than the poorest person in America. When Moore earns $5 million from just one movie, he would redistribute that wealth equally among the camermen, the grips, the caterers, the actors, the production crew, the entire movie company. But he doesn’t.
He keeps that money, just as Obama has kept the money from his book sales. He did not share that money equally with the editors, the printers, the accountants at the publishers, the printers, the truck drivers who delivered his books to the store, to the clerks who sold the book. He kept it. Socialism is only for the little people and never applied to the socialist themselves.
Case in point: when Castro overthrew the Cuban government with the help of Dr. Death and hard core communist, Che’ Guevara, did Che live like the poorest of Cuba? No, he confiscated the largest mansion in Havana that had a yacht harbor, seven bathrooms, a huge swimming pool, a sauna, massage salon and a specially designed U.S. built 10 foot TV with remote control, exotic technology in 1959. Che also sported a quite expensive Rolex watch. The meals prepared for Che were like something out of Arabian Nights in their luxury.
See, communists/marxist/socialist are always quick to claim they are for the little guy, but when it comes to living like the little guy, they suddenly think that the rules don’t apply to them. This is Moore. Rules don’t apply to him because he has managed to dupe millions into making him very, VERY wealthy.
When income tax was first pushed in the USA the story was it would never be more than 5% and how did that turn out?…..
FDR was the Obama of his time; hiring government workers, using keynesian economic principals and pretending to be Robin Hood. What we were not taught in school about FDR was that he prolonged the great depression for years because of his foolish half cocked decisions and all Americans suffered greatly because of his lack of intelligence, explain that one greg. Why is he considered a great president anyway?…
Here is a good reminder of how Michael Moore, like most of his type, fails at practicing what he preaches. As usual with his side, “don’t do as I do, do as I say”.
archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/3/150518.shtml
@Zac, #22:
The explanation is simple: The reason none of that has ever been taught in schools is because none of it is true. What’s stated there is a recently contrived version of history–a revision of history–that the great majority of Americans who actually lived through the Great Depression would have immediately recognized as a distortion and rejected in an instant. It’s rooted in little more than the criticisms that were leveled at FDR by wealthy special interests and the politicians that represented them at the time.
Why should we trust those who–seventy years later–would revise history to tarnish the image a man who was generally recognized as one of our greatest American presidents, by a majority of people who actually lived through that era? We can’t even trust such people for an unbiased version of current events. They’re revising events to suit their political agenda on the roll, before the day is even over.
Long before Obama was even a state senator economists looked at what FDR did and why the Great Depression lasted so long.
In 2004 a couple of them published their findings.
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
…………..
“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
-UCLA Newsroom-
LSMS368
August, 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy
LOL!
@Nan G, #25:
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are two such revisionists.
Would you have preferred the approach that Adolph Hitler used to lift Germany out of the depths of the Great Depression? A lot of people did. His approach had its proponents in both the United States and England. Quite a lot of them, in fact.
What about Joseph Stalin’s? The situation was so desperate in the United States that there was serious danger of Marxism taking hold. During the height of the Great Depression this wasn’t some trumped up threat trotted out as a political boogey man. The threat was real.
There were basically three different political and economic responses to the Great Depression, each of which played out somewhere: National Socialism/Fascism, Marxism, and FDR’s New Deal democracy.
The American people chose FDR by democratic election. Three consecutive times. As a consequence, America beat the Great Depression, successfully resisted and defeated opposing extremist systems, and went on into over 70 years of growth and prosperity. America chose wisely.
False Dilemma fallacy, greg.
You pull one every once in a while.
There were a LOT MORE than just two or three ways to deal with the Great Depression.
But you go ahead with your hasty generalizations.
You never read any of the massive records that allowed such perfect 20/20 hindsight that led those two economists to reach their conclusion, did you?
@Nan G, #27:
I’ll stick with the “hasty generalizations” that have existed for seventy-some years, originating with the people who lived through the time and witnessed the events. My grandparents and parents were such people. They had no problem with what was in the history books. I’m pretty sure some of this New and Improved History would have made them raise their eyebrows and shake their heads.
Hubby’s family lived through that era as well.
His dad talked about getting farmers mad enough at him to where they would throw turnips or cabbages at him.
He’d pick them up and his mom would make dinner out of it and hunted, gathered, fished foods.
He described sharing an egg between the four of them on more than one meal time.
So what?
All of that is anecdotal.
The point is, hindsight is not just 20/20 because we can look back.
It is more accurate because we have so much more raw material to add in than people immersed had.
Look at how the archeological age in Europe added to the accuracy of our understanding of ancient places and rulers.
Heck, scientists still add to our accurate knowledge by doing autopsies on mummies, running materials through spectographics, and so on.
Our understanding of ancient languages is constantly improved because we uncovered and interpreted more ancient words in different contexts.
You are set in stone.
Ask yourself why.
It must benefit you in some way for old theories to still be thought well of.
Fox News: At Least 100,000 Protesters Outside Wisconsin State Capitol. That was Saturday, March 12.
@ Greg, The World War Two Industries brought the US out of the Depression, Period.
Your sense of history as per usual waltzes around the Facts. FDRs Policies prolonged the Depression
by and large. Your usual tripe and Party Line Revisionist History.
@Nan G: You can tell them the koolaid is not good for them, but you can’t make them stop drinking it!
@Greg: You said:
Evidently you didn’t watch the entire video, Greggie. MKH also dipped down to the millionaire category. She noted that even doing that would not touch our massive debt.
You then ventured into well trodden territory upon which myself, Mata and others have proven you wrong again and again:
*sigh*
You are so predictable Greggie. Your jealousy of those “evil rich” people knows no bounds. I only hope you pay your taxes, because your ideology is so inline with the Obama administration that were you to stop paying your taxes, all road blocks to a job in the IRS working for Obama would be removed. I shudder to think of you with ANY power over tax policy.
@anticsrocks, #33:
Please refer to #12.
@Greg:
Please refer to #17.
If you insist on discussing economics here, please learn the difference between wealth and income. It is hard to have a real discussion with someone who insists on using ignorance, with a helping of liberal diatribe, as a replacement for reason and knowledge.
@johngalt: Don’t you hate people who think they know everything? It gives those of us who do a bad name! LOL
@Randy:
LOL! I don’t claim to know everything, but what I do know, I know well.
I just finished reading “Life and Death in Shanghai” by Nien Cheng. Incredible read about the Communist’s “redistribution of wealth” by the “revolutionary” youth and later The Red Guards who did Mao’s dirty work. They looted houses, took what they wanted, destroyed music, art, etc., from the “old way”. They turned over enough of their ill gotten gains to their superiors so they would get credit but they did take whatever they wanted…not just tax money. In 1966, Mrs. Cheng was imprisoned for 6 1/2 years for being a “capitalist-roader”. I’m sure some here at FA have read her account but to those who haven’t I urge you to go to your local library and read this wonderful writer’s story.
This is what the Socialists and Communists in the USA have in store for us. We have to stop them and the more you can recognize their tactics and thinking used in the past, the easier it will be to not be deluded. For instance I read today that one Democrat strategist is recommending that the party move to the center again to win 2012. Leopard meet spot. It’s merely a trick and a lie. Now that they have exposed themselves and their agenda, we can’t ever believe a word out of their lying mouths. They are determined to bring down our constitution and republic. Just as Michael Moore, the Communists in China and Russia always made luxurious living “for me but not for thee”. They took over the houses of the formerly rich and were driven in limos without so much as a blush. Mao lived in the Imperial Palaces.
Failing to persuade Mrs. Cheng through near starvation, punishment and solitary confinement, to make a false confession to being a “British spy”, she was finally released. Upon her release, she demanded that her name be cleared and an apology be issued in the newspapers and when they laughed at the suggestion, she refused to leave Detention House #1 until they did. Exasperated, they told her she had to go anyway because “this is not an old folks home….” After Mao died, she was able to leave China and finally was allowed to come to the USA where, in 1986, she wrote her book. She was also a guest of President Reagan at one of his state dinners. She became a US citizen in 1988 and died in 2006 at 94. I wish I had read this 20 years ago.
@Randy: AND @johngalt: Talk about prescient, Reagan nailed Greggie down DECADES ago when he said – “Well, the trouble with
our liberal friendsGreggie is not thatthey’rehe’s ignorant; it’s just thatthey knowhe knows so much that isn’t so.”Did MM send in a HUGE Check from his own fortune to SHOW by LEADERSHIP??? Nope….
Did he tell the UNIONS, he does not use UNION LABOR on his films??? HORRORS!!! NOPE…
Man is a fake, Liar, fraud.. he’s setting up, for his NEXT film with all this I’ll wager! Mikey Moore is all about Mikey Moore! Now he’ll hop on his Private jet and wing off somewhere else, while polluting the atmosphere….. Fat SOB is exactly the person he SAYS he Despises! Two faced liar… can you tell I don’t like him much??
@Madame DeFarge, #38:
Oh yeah, sure. That’s definitely what requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes would lead to.
Curiously enough, that’s not what was happening before high-end tax rates were reduced to today’s historically low levels.
Something else that wasn’t happening was a totally out of control expansion of the national debt.
@anticsrocks, #39:
I voted for Ronald Reagan in two presidential elections, believing the entire economic pitch.
FROM EACH, ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.. TO EACH, ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS……
Basic Tenet #1… Communist Manifesto… Karl Marx….
Your take??? TAX the WEALTHY cuz they have it, to give to the have nots, because they need it!
The DIFFERENCE?? ZERO! Face it, your a Commie Lib!!! Just admit the truth…..
You want to know the REAL INTERESTING part?? There never has been a PURELY Communist state! Because, once those “in charge” take charge, they TOO become “corrupt”.. and have to live ‘better” than the rest, and Classes, and envy of such, is still there!! Soviet Politbureau… lived WAY BETTER than the “Comerades” did!
“Meet the NEW Boss, same as the OLD BOSS”…..
The Who, “Won’t get fooled again”…
Madem DeFarge said….”"For instance I read today that one Democrat strategist is recommending that the party move to the center again to win 2012.”"
This is EXACTLY what Obama did during his Campaign, spoke like a Moderate, tho everyone(with a brain) knew he wasn’t. Acted like his voting past, etc never happened. And once elected , returned to his TRUE self, far left.
Greg, you going to deny THIS TOO??
@Greg:
You state that like it’s somehow unfair that some make as much as what they do. Sure, you can pull out a handful of examples of people taking advantage of others in order to increase their take, but that is a pittance of people compared to those who work hard, work smart and treat any employees they have with respect(wages and benefits).
Yet, you wish for them to pay more. Then, when that isn’t enough, they should pay more, and then even more. If it is so unfair that some make more than others, why not place the top tax bracket at 90%? Or 100%?
Is it fair that the top 5% of wage earners pay an immensely unfair proportion of all tax receipts?
It isn’t smart economics telling you to think like you do. It isn’t some internal scale knowing what is fair and what isn’t. It certainly isn’t intelligence that makes you state what you state. No. It’s one of two things. Either your ideology is deeply rooted in communism, or you are jealous.
We’ve given you numbers. We’ve defined terms for you. We’ve explained how things work in the real world of business. We’ve explained the non-viability of various liberal economic policies. All this, and you still desire to take more from those that have it. You don’t care about the budget, debts or the deficit. You’ve shown that by supporting Obamacare. You’ve shown that by supporting every spending program the democrats can dream up. You’ve shown that by railing against those enterprises which could truly increase jobs, and tax revenue, in our country.
Do you know why people are so resistant to higher taxes, beyond the obvious that it takes more from them? It is because they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the more government takes in, the more they will spend. Government hasn’t shown the ability to cut it’s own spending. All they’ve shown is the ability to spend more than they take in, and then pompously claim that they don’t have enough in government because some people are selfish, or that some people have gained their income unfairly.
Show me true spending cuts, Greg, and then we can discuss taxes more, otherwise what you foment about is nothing more than support for the outrageous spending our governments do.
@JohnGalt…. after dealing with lots of people like Greg here, on MANY forums… I’ve come to the conclusion that Michael Savage is right.. Liberalism IS a Mental Disease! And since the Mentally Ill do not SEE their illness, the acceptance of a “cure” isn’t possible. You can talk from now till doomsday, and he will never “get it, because his mind refuses to accept it! Sad, but it’s looking more and more like a fact. They are like those “mindless zombies” you see in the popular movies and TV shows these days…. keep bumbling about doing stupid and harmful stuff, but never know WHY, or see the hurt they cause! LOL!
@Greg #41 Why not read the book and then post so you know what I’m referencing? It isn’t only about redistribution through taxing…if they took control as they really want to, they’d simply come to your house and take what they want. Communists want a populace destitute, unable to resist…except themselves and a controlled military carrying out their agenda.
After Mao died, Socialism was finally declared a disaster. Maybe what they have now is Communism Lite…in comparison to what they had following WWII. There is no freedom in China today.
Mao… “Diplomacy comes at the barrel of a gun”…..
Democrats want all your guns……. um, duh, WHY??? Why indeed Greg??? WHY is the Liberal side of American politics so HARD BENT on an unarmed populace???? Enlighten us with your superior intellect!
LOL!
OH, for your own information, Gun deaths/murder is #15 on the CDC list…… 14 things kill Americans MORE.. know what #10 was??? INFECTIONS from wounds!! Yeah, lousy infections are more likely to kill ya than GUNS! So, why?? Still waiting….
@johngalt, #44:
What I want is a more balanced approach to the debt problem. If republicans really want to move toward a budget solution, they should at least be willing to see the top end tax rates increased to the levels we had at the beginning of the Bush administration. That should be done in exchange for spending cuts affecting progressive social programs.
Instead, what republicans seem to want are even more tax cuts, leading to the eventual breakdown of the progressive social programs that most Americans at some point depend upon. They’ve also been opposed a higher minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, organized labor’s efforts to maintain working and middle class pay and benefits, etc. All of this tends to diminish the economic security of the majority while increasing the wealth and power of the few–which has undeniably expanded enormously over the last few decades.
Taking that view hardly means that someone is a marxist, advocating confiscation and the equal redistribution of everyone’s wealth and property.
You are right, Hankster#47
The Chinese could not mount a rebellion or stand up to Mao and his thugs because they were not armed. Obama will not succeed in the USA…maybe that’s why being President of China is so appealing to him.
Greg, a lot of people have already pointed out that tax hikes are a pipe dream solution. Even if you were aware of history the Republicans know this lesson rather well before and after Woodrow Willson.
I’m just not in a fittin mood to get into details of how sourly unsound your economic understandings are. John’s done enough in that department.
@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.