Why do "Libruls" always want to tax the rich?

63 posts / 0 new
Last post


Would a proposed law be

Would a proposed law be unconstitutional, that essentially taxed political contributions?  I'm thinking something along the lines of, if I want to contribute $1,000 to Ron Paul, I'll have to pay a tax of $1,000 to some fund like the Presidential campaign fund (but some fund new and different that is disbursed to various candidates.)

Laborisgood's picture
Well put Poly.  That

Well put Poly.  That derivatives scam is THE definition of "excess wealth" for which there is no alter ego "abject poverty" to compare it to.

It's incomprehensible to be as far below poor as the derivative scam is above wealthy without getting bankruptcy rebates as ah2 proposed.

I was actually thinking of personal wealth originally, but your original comment was more about that type of hollow national wealth created by nonsense like derivatives and a false service based economy.  Makes much more sense in that context.


Volitzer's picture
How about putting an end to

How about putting an end to fractional reserve banking which enslaves both sides as well as libertarians ?

A system in which taxes are collected to pay back interest on debt in which for every $38 in cirrculation $1500 is owed ?

Banks versus the American Dream LEARN THE TRUTH

The Money Masters.


All Americans get screwed under this system.  The FED contracts the money supply and causes recessions.  Businesses pay into insurance so as to create a fund for unemployment benefits when this happens.  Then the National Government has to borrow money from the FED with interest to pay out welfare, foodstamps, medicare and medicade.  If debt free money was being issued in the first place these supplemental programs wouldn't be as burdend as they are.  Mind you I am not advocating the elimination of any of these programs.  Even when the FED is issuing money and the economy is in the BOOM part of the cycle unemployement never gets lower than 4 %.   I am not advocating un-fettered kleptocratic capitalism here.

What I am advocating is a serious look into how fractional reserve banking works and why it is bad for the American economy no matter where you stand politically.

Thank You !!!!

The problem isn't fractional

The problem isn't fractional reserve banking. The problem is fractional reserve banking being operated by private interests. Banks create the  national money supply. through private and government loans. The Treasury merely prints it.

1. Banks create the entire money supply though loans.. They inject the principle of the loan into the money supply with an accounting entry. They don't inject the interest amounts into the money supply,. There is a shortfall. Unless new loans are continually made, there is a shortfall. Not enough money in the money supply to pay the interest. The circulating money supply goes into meltdown as now.

2. Government banking, using interest rather than taxes to finance government would re-spend the interest back into the economy. There would be no shortfall. No periodic meltdowns in the money supply. "Faced by a failure of credit, they have proposed only the  lending  of more money" - FDR. Sound familiar? We seem to prefer paying taxes,, enriching banksters, and having periodic meltdowns. Afterall, we have a failed ideology to maintain.

3. National governments can spend money into existence rather than borrowing it into existence. The only limitation is, they can't spend more into the economy than the productive capacity of the nation can support without generating inflation. Same as now..

4. Governments borrowing money into existence rather than spending it into existence is relatively new in an historical context. There is no need for a national debt.

5. The state-owned Bank of N. Dakota is a working model for public banking. It has been in operation for nearly a century.

The banking system. How it developed and functions. Animated Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"



Ulysses's picture
Many of the opinions and

Many of the opinions and arguments above are both lucid and intelligent, and I agree with the majority of them.  But, to me, they're unnecessary, although I'm certainly NOT challenging anybody's right to express them.  The reason that they're unnecessary is that all the detail, nuance, and positive rhetoric inescapably lead back to one concept:  noblesse oblige.

Noblesse oblige simply means that those who get the most out of any society or system should put the most back into it.  The American rich don't do that. True, they pay more real dollar taxes than other demographics, but they also use the tax laws to avoid a large percentage of their overall assessed share.  

So, in real dollars, they cough up lots of tax money, and on paper they owe a lot, despite America's having the lowest corporate tax rate in the world.  But none of that matters, because the rich don't feel the same pain from taxation as the middle class and the poor.  What do I mean, you ask. Simply this:  it's moot that somebody pays a fortune in taxes if they take in such a huge fortune that the fortune they pay out causes them little or no economic pain.  

If somebody makes a billion dollars a year and pays out $200 million in taxes, does it matter?  They still have $800 million to "scrape by" on until next year. No pain.  But if somebody who earns $50K has to pay 15%-16% of that in taxes, that leaves them with $42K to live on.  That's hard.

True noblesse oblige would entail the billionaire paying enough proportional taxes to feel pain proportional to the $50K wage earner, while still being rich. So if you want to be rich, go make a fortune yourself, the naysayers will say, that's what the rich have done.  And I say that anybody who can't see the preposterousness of that response is certifiable.  EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT EXIST UNLESS PRECEDED BY A CERTAIN MANDATED LEVEL OF EQUALITY OF CONDITION, AND THE AMERICAN SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM DOES NOT MANDATE THE LATTER, SO THE IDEA THAT "FREE MARKETS" AND "COMPETITION" INSURE THE SUCCESS OF ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO WORK HARD AND PLAY BY THE RULES IS A FALLACY. 

The 400 families who own more wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans through corporate stock wealth should practice noblesse oblige until they feel economic pain proportional to that experienced by the middle class and the poor at tax time.  They've gotten the most out of the country and the capitalist system and they should make PROPORTIONAL contributions back into it (which, by the way, is why a flat tax will never be equitable).

Noblesse oblige.  It's not practiced.

DRC's picture
I love the varying rate at

I love the varying rate at which "Middle Class" is defined depending upon the issue.  When it was the Bush tax cuts for the rich, putting the line at $250,000 produced wailing from the Right about how this was not "rich."  People were struggling to get by on a quarter mil, so we talked about raising the tax limit and got nowhere there either.

Now we have the attacks on all these public sector union 'fat cats' whose pensions are breaking the State budgets.  Now, 50k is a fortune.

The French Aristocracy is beginning to look educated and enlightened compared to our Rightwing Corporate "Visionaries." I think they believe people can just move to wherever the jobs are this week.

While the French Aristrocacy

While the French Aristrocacy may have been more enlighteed than our own aristocracy ...like the Koch Bros., the Walton Family, etc., ...they still weren't enlightened enough to keep their heads.

Whenever an elite suck more out of an economy than the economy can support, heads tend to ulttimately roll.

The Middle East  seems to be the latest example of that following on the heels of Pinochet's Chile and Ceaușescu's  Romania. 

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"


Randy95023's picture
Most of us remember the 50's

Most of us remember the 50's as "The Good Old Days", especially the Conservatives, so they claim.  Let's not re-invent the wheel.  Let's blow the dust off of the 1955 Tax Code, adjust it for inflation and put it into effect.  When I was born Dwight Eisenhower was president.  This former 5 Star General, who led the allied victory over Nazi Germany in the west could hardly be called a "Socialist".  Those were the days of the McCarthy Hearings.  Eisenhower was a staunch, populist minded Republican but if he graced the Senate Floor today he would almost be Left of Bernie Sanders.  What's become of our once great nation?  If the so called "Conservatives" were as Christian as most of them claim, they would care about the poor and the disabled, the orphans and the widows.  Put another way; I would NOT want to be John Boehner on Judgment Day...

Peace, Randy


bobbler's picture
Because the money trickled

Because the money trickled "up" the last 30 years, when conservatives lied that it would trickle down..

mstaggerlee wrote:

Remember what Willie Sutton said when he was asked "Why do you rob banks?"

He said "Because that's where the money is!"

And THAT is EXACTLY why we have to tax the rich - BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS!

douglaslee's picture
Playing chicken with the debt

Playing chicken with the debt ceiling will cause a recession, Obama will then lose in '12. Borrowing will cost so much more because of the debt default, SocSec will be able to be cut in half, in addition to the medicare termination.

It takes courage to run your country off a cliff, but it's for their own good, they will be free, see we've made old people dependants.

DRC's picture
They may not discredit Obama

They may not discredit Obama that much when it is obvious that they pimp for the Kochs.  More people are angry at Obama for not kicking these idiots in their fat asses than are worried that he is too Left.  I think the case can be made for the Liberal Alternative in economics on the basis of Obama trying to work with these idiots.  They have gone off the cliff ahead of the country.  

Just the tax giveaways to the rich eliminated would cover the costs of slashing social spending.  And the costs don't really go away, they just leave the federal budget and don't get picked up by other budgets, so people pay them, one way or the other.  Like dying instead of living.

There is a parade in formation out there as over-reach and disappointment combine.  Obama may wind up on the poop scoop team at the back of the parade if someone else steps up for Drum Major.  He has been pushing the poop scooper for the first two years of his presidency instead of doing anything with that baton.  Time to get it twirling.

douglaslee's picture


gop wants committee of 5 instead of 1 chief. With 5 you get 3 of your own to overule so nothing will ever change. Like 1 senator putting a hold, the point is to allow fraud, fraud makes the world go around, it is our motto, "In fraud we trust".

Imagine, mortgage originators being asked to have 5% of the loan if it is planned for securitization. If they don't want to put skin in the game, then the buyer will have to have 20% down. 20% equity, makes walking away a little less likely, nope can't have that. Real estate doesn't want either, bubble? what bubble? owners society