This is why the 1% should be paying a 90% tax rate.

165 posts / 0 new

Peter Peterson Spent Nearly Half A Billion In Washington Targeting Social Security, Medicare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

When a man gets up in the morning and goes to work, and more than half of his labor is then confiscated and given to "The Man", is he not entitled to wonder, WHO it is he gets up for? Is he getting up to work to better himself?, or is he getting up to better his neighbor?

Any tax rate more than 50% is nothing but slavery, and as thus, inherently immoral.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

It's not what you are supposedly paid. It's what is left in your pocket at the end of the week. You have to determine if that amount is a good wage for what you are asked to do. Calperson actually think that his gross pay is what he is earning. Out of one side of his mouth he spews that the government takes too much of his hard earned pay and out of the other side of his mouth he spews that if you work for a union you are paid way too much and your pay should be less. A typical conservative.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

By the "man" are you referring to we the people?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Will Rogers once said that most people would gladly pay 90% tax on a million dollars if they were given the opportunity to make a million dollars. 100 grand a year is easier to live off of than 20 grand a year.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Calperson actually think that his gross pay is what he is earning.

It's true, it is what I think. It's almost like I believe the government needs my consent to confiscate part of my pay check and my opinion on where it is spent.

Revolutionary thinking indeed :) We have come full circle back to 1776.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

If your gross pay was $125 a day and the government "confiscated" $25 of it leaving you with $100 dollars in exchange for clean air, clean water, military protection, good roads to drive on, parks to use, a supplemental retirement plan and a well fed lower class of people that weren't trying to steal your food due to hunger; you would bitch and moan about it.

If your gross pay was $100 and you got to keep it all without any of the above benefits you would be happier than a pickled fart. Conservative thinking at it's finest.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If your gross pay was $125 a day and the government "confiscated" $25 of it leaving you with $100 dollars in exchange for clean air, clean water, military protection, good roads to drive on, parks to use, a supplemental retirement plan and a well fed lower class of people that weren't trying to steal your food due to hunger; you would bitch and moan about it.

If your gross pay was $100 and you got to keep it all without any of the above benefits you would be happier than a pickled fart. Conservative thinking at it's finest.

Actually that isn't true. All conservatives I know are more than happy to pay taxes for the basic commons, including clean air, clean water, miltary protection, police protection, and good road infrastructure. Look deeper and you will find it was Republicans who implemented institutions like the EPA.

However a certain line has to be drawn, and thankfully men much smarter than us have fully documented these lines in our founding constitution. I for one, am against funding some flea bagging bozo so he can sit around all day on the couch and smoke bongs on my dime while I go to work.

It is now 2012 and the country is in the grips of an OBESITY crisis, it has to be at least 100 years since anyone died of HUNGER in this country, the left really needs to update their arguments.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

What is obscene is that Peterson takes HALF A BILLION dollars from betting on Wall Street (with the US Treasury covering his loses on bad bets) and instead of investing it to create jobs as the “job creators” are supposedly doing, Peterson spends his wealth attacking American workers' retirement insurance fund so they can spend their old age in poverty. It isn’t enough that he is a billionaire; he wants others to live in poverty. He is sick. He needs a 90% tax shoved up his ass.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

yeah but thats not what our goverment does it goes around ad spending most of it on beuracrcy, unneeded research studys and subsides. Maybe 25% goes to what you mentioned.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Why JP Morgan Was Late To - Puke The Trade

“No new loans were created. No new jobs were created. Absolutely nothing of value to society was derived from this trade. At best, it was a form of gambling for the whale and his colleagues. Next time they should go to Las Vegas and skip the drama.” James Rickards, U.S. News & World Report (Video at 3 minutes)

Nothing of value to society”...let’s penalize the gamblers and tax them at 90%.

Banks are taking $4 billion a year that used to go to productive American savers as interest on savings and pissing it away on spread trades. That is legendary trader James Rickards talking about betting on spread trading of indexes and bonds. JP Morgan can’t puke the trade so let them chock on their own vomit....and then tax them. Wall Street can afford it, they have plenty of money to gamble and go after old people's retire insurance.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Antifascist:

....he wants others to live in poverty. He is sick.....

You know, I have never met in single person in my whole entire life that has wished another human to live in poverty. Look deep down and closer in your own life and will find this is true too.

The myth of "rich" people being so evil as to want to "grind the bones of the poor to make their bread" is a trick Big Brother uses to turn you against your fellow citizen and to keep suckling at the tender teat of the all protecting, all powerful State.

Don't fall for it, you are stronger than that!

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
The myth of "rich" people being so evil as to want to "grind the bones of the poor to make their bread" is a trick Big Brother uses to turn you against your fellow citizen and to keep suckling at the tender teat of the all protecting, all powerful State.

Peterson's half billion dollar campaign is not a myth. Don't be in denial.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1012

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Calperson:
Quote Antifascist:

....he wants others to live in poverty. He is sick.....

You know, I have never met in single person in my whole entire life that has wished another human to live in poverty. Look deep down and closer in your own life and will find this is true too.

The myth of "rich" people being so evil as to want to "grind the bones of the poor to make their bread" is a trick Big Brother uses to turn you against your fellow citizen and to keep suckling at the tender teat of the all protecting, all powerful State.

Don't fall for it, you are stronger than that!

No, these evil fucktards like Petersen and the Koch Bros really don't care what happens to society, other humans, who lives in hovels, what sort of hellish existence others have to endure, if it gets in the way of their tax cuts.

If they did, then why did Bain Capital destroy so many companies, and so many jobs, while simultaneously paying themselves outrageous performance bonuses?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If your gross pay was $125 a day and the government "confiscated" $25 of it leaving you with $100 dollars in exchange for clean air, clean water, military protection, good roads to drive on, parks to use, a supplemental retirement plan and a well fed lower class of people that weren't trying to steal your food due to hunger; you would bitch and moan about it.

If your gross pay was $100 and you got to keep it all without any of the above benefits you would be happier than a pickled fart. Conservative thinking at it's finest.

If government can provide all of these wonderful things, doesn't that mean that the people in the government could form an organization on their own and provide those same things? They could charge that same amount that people pay in taxes now. Those of us who didn't want their services could patronize another organization offering competing services. Or do you believe that when people organize themselves and call it a government, that somehow they magically could do what they couldn't do privately.

On a side note, the government is confiscating a lot of money and not even providing the services they claim they're confiscating the money for! We are militarily less safe, the roads stink, the waterways are polluted, and the money from the so-called retirement plan has been spent.

I also reject the notion that the underclass must be bought off or placated with welfare out of fear that they are going to rise up or steal your food.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm

Here's some more supporting evidence for your thesis, Anti; just ran across it on another thread:

The Inequality Speech that TED Won't Show You

The speech is made by a successful Seattle venture capitalist, first non family investor of Amazon.com. Here are some of the concluding lines:

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

My enemy is the world of finance.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Or is the world of finance the agent for the Chinese who bought the US when no one was looking? No wonder dissent is now having a tough time is this country. How's your Mandarin?

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

how much of the jobs were created by that 1%?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

The only problem with this theroy is that the assumption is that when government gets tax dollars, they spend it wisely, spend it on things that are good for the country. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!! Politicians number one goal is to get re elected, so when they get tax dollars, they spend it in such a way as to buy themselves as many votes as possible. And that's how we get stuck with all these wonderful programs that simply cannot be paid for going forward (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security). So in theroy taxing the upper class to help the middle class grow may be a good idea (I'm not sure I agree with that, but for the moment I'll put that aside), but in actual practice all you would be doing is taxing the rich so liberal politicians can buy themselves votes with the money.

Sorry that simply is not right.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote Antifascist:

My enemy is the world of finance.

I don't think the guy is talking about investing in the world of finance. He's talking about raising taxes on the upper 1% and getting it back into circulation. If you are targeting the world of finance, I think you are looking at something more systemic, like the banking system and Wall Street. And of course we are back to OWS with that.

I think he's talking about a system that assures everyone has enough money to keep it in circulation, even if that means continuing to provide unemployment compensation, not destroying social security and medicare, and all the other things people like Peterson at the top are working in their utter stupidity against. He sees things systemically, they see things atomistically. The result is they destroy society for their own gain, he wants to see it sustained, and he sees himself gaining as well. This is also related to the phony argument about rich liberals being hypocrites.

As Nick Hanauer put it in his speech:

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

I think this is the same message polycarp has been pounding in the Economics forum for years.

Personally, I don't have enemies. I see the problem as the system itself. The world of finance is only part of that system. Your link to the interview with Chris Hedges on the neoliberalism is touching us all thread has Chris pointing to that larger systemic problem and a much more dire need to address that. But meanwhile, people need to eat, clothe and house themselves, and they can't really pay much attention to their role in destroying the planet while they are starving. So the wealthy need to pay so they can stay wealthy and play like children while we adults attempt to solve the more serious problems.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

The argument I am putting forth is to defund billionaires like Peterson that pour hundreds of millions of dollars into propaganda campaigns to dismantal social security, Medicare, education, and unemployment insurance. The right-wing has been carrying on these think tank attacks on the middle class for decades and there is absolutely no push back. The billions that where previously paid in taxes during the high growth fifties and sixties at a 90% tax rate is now freed up to fund think tanks, lobby Washington, export jobs to China, buy political advertisements, to manipulate elections, and create market bubbles. The 1% is flush with billions in cash because they rewrote the tax laws and deregulated Wall Street—they made systemic changes to business law resulting in chronic bust and booms cycles in the markets.

For example, JP Morgan has so much capital in a single index spread trade (some think its is at least $100 billion dollars) that they can’t unwind—or puke it out-- because they are the market. If they pulled their dick out of the spread trade bet it would result in an unlimited loss of customer deposits and funds. These massive untaxed profits is their arsenal to wage class warfare and the way to stop it is to reinstitution the 90% tax rate on corporations—tax capital, not labor! JP Morgan and Wall Street banks are each financial Fukushimas waiting to melt down. It’s time to dismantle them—tax capital at 90%.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sounds like a win-win for us if somehow they can be taxed.

You and I don't have a whole lot of say in the matter. This information is important, nevertheless. The minions who make their consistent arguments against government (and we see them on this board) including against its raising taxes on the wealthy, are probably paid pretty well out of those think tanks you mentioned. Whether they can help those who do have a say, like Obama and both party representatives in Congress, to keep things as they are is a small but probably helpful strategy for the wealthy who can control where the money goes.

We need to continue to support and participate in OWS, that's about the best democratic strategy we have left it seems, unless you can think of something I and others like Chris Hedges haven't.

Meanwhile climate change and the destruction of the planet caused by this global neoliberal system we're all part of continues:

Global Warming: New research emphasizes the role of global economic growth

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—It's a message no one wants to hear: To slow down global warming, we'll either have to put the brakes on economic growth or transform the way the world's economies work.

Just thought I'd bring it up. Seems important to me in the larger view. I believe in a broad and synergistic approach.

I'm certainly in favor of "defunding" the more obnoxious pricks like Peterson through higher taxation, if only we could get our government back under a more democratic control in order to do so. That's going to take a little more than me being pissed off.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
We need to continue to support and participate in OWS, that's about the best democratic strategy we have left it seems, unless you can think of something I and others like Chris Hedges haven't.

But just think what the OWS could do if they had half a billion dollar fund yet they hardly have any resources at all. Peterson already spent half a billion dollars and likely has another billion he could add to his arsenal of resources.

The only way to counter such a massive cache of resources is by collective action, and collective action by defunding the banks by withdrawing from the financial system as much as possible, by not going into debt, by keeping low deposits in the banks, by keeping income and taxes payments as low as possible--it may not bring them down but it certainly won't help the financial elite.

And speaking of the financial elite, JP Morgan is getting murdered in their tail risk spread trade bet of the IG9 10Y index. The spread has increased 31%--see graph. What do they call it? Schadenfreude. ..but then we are the ones that will ultimately pay their lost bet.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, I own my home outright, never paid a dime of interest on it, and I'm debt free. I haven't used credit cards in ten years. I don't make enough income to pay taxes. I have my money in a local credit union which supports local businesses and invests in local homes and small farms. But all that is related to my main strategy to devolop a local community economy which will be resilient if the whole mess collapses, which I anticipate it will, simply because it's unsustainable and only a few of us are taking direct measures to prepare for that.

Washington State is one of about 17 states trying to pass a public bank measure as per the North Dakota model. I'm a supporter, and it's looking good.

SB 6310

HB 3162

I assure you, I won't be paying very many of their lost bets out of my pockets. Anyone who will be needs to wise up. What we are paying for collectively is the costs of this global economy that are racking up as a cumulating destruction of the biosphere of this planet.

The way you don't go to war is you simply throw down the spears for empire, turn away and do your own thing. Same with the empire's economy. It's time to stop listening to authoritarians. It was time for me more than forty years ago. You just gotta stop, that's all. That goes for OWS, too. There'd be no need for OWS if we had sustainable, resilient local communities. Just stop playing infinite growth monopoly games. There are plenty of other ways to live. Just depends on how bad you want to stop supporting the wealthy's lives so they can play gambling casino monopoly with yours.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote mauiman58:

The only problem with this theroy is that the assumption is that when government gets tax dollars, they spend it wisely, spend it on things that are good for the country. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!! Politicians number one goal is to get re elected, so when they get tax dollars, they spend it in such a way as to buy themselves as many votes as possible. And that's how we get stuck with all these wonderful programs that simply cannot be paid for going forward (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security). So in theroy taxing the upper class to help the middle class grow may be a good idea (I'm not sure I agree with that, but for the moment I'll put that aside), but in actual practice all you would be doing is taxing the rich so liberal politicians can buy themselves votes with the money.

Sorry that simply is not right.

Politicians don't buy votes, they sell them.

As far as Social Security goes, before SS the elderly 65 and over were at 50% poverty. Right now only 10% of the elderly live in poverty. Social Security did what it was supposed to do. Don't tell me that it can't be paid for going forward. That is a blatant lie. Did you ever think that maybe we can't keep spending almost half of our tax dollars on militarization? Either way, there's plenty of money for taking care of the sick and elderly. Anything taken away from those programs will go to someone else's pork or their pockets.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Ren, I knew you where ready. Hey, here are some snippets of a article about Peterson's love fest with "You-got-something-on-your-dress" Bill Clinton and our brave Tom Brokaw...the paradigm of journalistic courage.

Bill Clinton, Boehner, And Some Other Rich White Guys Had A "Summit" And Agreed: It's Your Fault

The low point of the day was the spectacle of former President Clinton mouthing false platitudes designed to gut everything his party once represented....

If Bill Clinton had any moral perspective he'd be holding Jimmy Carter's hammer at a Habitat For Humanity building site somewhere, not pushing programs that would doom the middle class.

But he won't stop, of course - not as long as billionaire Pete Peterson is able to entice Clinton and other "Summit" participants will all the flattery and free publicity money can buy. Peterson's also able to spoon-fed them those predigested economic lies which serve his agenda as Nixon's former Commerce Secretary: the downsizing or dismantling of any government programs that don't directly enrich corporations...

Former President Clinton wasn't the only wealthy and powerful white man to take the stage. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, and Speaker of the House John Boehner joined Commerce Secretary-turned-hedge-fund billionaire Peterson. While they might have differed slightly on the details, they spoke with one voice about how our problems came about in the first place: It's your fault....

That's the kind of nonsense you can buy with a billionaire's money. Tax filings show that Pete Peterson put nearly half a billion dollars into the foundation that held this summit - and that's just in four years. He's been trying to gut Social Security, Medicare, and other vital government programs for at least twenty-five years. Paul Blumenthal and Ryan Grim outlined some of the initiatives Peterson has founded or funded over the decades: the "America Speaks" town halls, the Fiscal Times, the "Indebted" series on MTV, the Social Security specialist at the Urban Institute, the "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget," a politically biased high school curriculum ... the list goes on and on....

But Blumenthal and Grim missed a few organizations Peterson secretly formed. They overlooked the Daughters of the American Revolution, SDS (he wrote the Port Huron Statement - but not the compromised second draft), the Quarrymen, the Royal Order of Buffalo, and the Shriners. (Hats and tiny cars? Brilliant! It's even better than Budgetball.)

Okay, maybe not the last few. The point is, a whole lot of politicians and policy wonks have benefited from Peterson's billions, which have been spread around a variety of organizations in order to create the illusion of consensus - consensus which slowly became real in Washington, and which is diametrically opposed to the public's preferences....

And was our fiercely independent media there, unwilling to be bought at any price and tireless in its quest for the truth? Yes. NBC's Tom Brokaw fearlessly spoke truth to power, summoning the vision and ferocity of the Biblical prophets as he chastised ... the American Association of Retired Persons. Brokaw said its ads defending Social Security were "in (politician's) faces."

That's our media for you. It's ever fearless in its defense of the powerful against the powerless. (Brokaw to old folks: Hey, "Greatest Generation," put a cork in it!)

Pete Peterson's campaign needs to be exposed. Bill Clinton needs to step away from the public sphere. Propaganda disguised as 'journalism' needs to be discredited. Washington's fraudulent claim to bipartisanship needs to be retired once and for all....

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

how much of the jobs were created by that 1%?

None, jobs are created by demand. Ray Kroc never created one job at McDonalds. People who walk in the door and order Big Macs create jobs.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

You don't have to have a tax rate of 90%. A tax rate of 3% of net worth annually would do the trick. And an estate tax of 100%.

I never heard of this Peterson fellow before. He sounds like he made his own fortune before he got to
Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

yeah but thats not what our goverment does it goes around ad spending most of it on beuracrcy, unneeded research studys and subsides. Maybe 25% goes to what you mentioned.

I've been hearing this from the time I first started "learning" about politics/government, and that goes back to Proposition 13 in California in 1978.

Republicans/Conservatives have been in control for most of the proceeding years, and nothing related to your complaint has changed.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Calperson:

When a man gets up in the morning and goes to work, and more than half of his labor is then confiscated and given to "The Man", is he not entitled to wonder, WHO it is he gets up for? Is he getting up to work to better himself?, or is he getting up to better his neighbor?

Any tax rate more than 50% is nothing but slavery, and as thus, inherently immoral.

The point of a 90% tax rate isn't necessarily that people will pay it, but keep it invested... with the added benefit there's less a chance someone will use their wealth to destablize or buy out our "democracy".

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Calperson:

Any tax rate more than 50% is nothing but slavery, and as thus, inherently immoral.

Property is theft!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Read. Learn.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

how much of the jobs were created by that 1%?

None. Jobs are created by aggregate demand, not individuals. Remove the 1% from teh face of the Earth and the jobs will still exist because demand... demands it...

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:None, jobs are created by demand. Ray Kroc never created one job at McDonalds. People who walk in the door and order Big Macs create jobs.

I know Thom subscribes to this simplistic idea. But there's a chicken and egg problem. So the ideas Ray Kroc had for a certain business concept had NOTHING to do with the eventual demand for those products? Fast food, 10c hamburgs, you eat in your car. Were people demanding that before McDs or did the public jump on the idea because the price was right?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote ah2:None. Jobs are created by aggregate demand, not individuals. Remove the 1% from teh face of the Earth and the jobs will still exist because demand... demands it...

To a point. But to effectively meet demand also requires some special skills. We do need a system that rewards innovation and the ability to organize. Hey, I want someone to cure cancer and Alzheimer's. OK, often such research is funded by public money, but that doesn't remove the element of genius. If they are rewarded for such productive activities... more power to them.

And let's not get captured by our own rhetoric. The problem here is the simplistic frame. Even in an egalitarian economy, there will be a top 1%. It's like what's the oldest building in your town? Once it's torn down or destroyed by fire... there's always a NEW oldest building. Remove today's 1% and there will just be a new 1%.

The problem with the US is too many make money from NON productive... even destructive, activities, and some use their wealth to corrupt government to work for them and against everyone else. Without that, arguably the vast, if not obscene, wealth disparity in the US might not exist.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Calperson:

When a man gets up in the morning and goes to work, and more than half of his labor is then confiscated and given to "The Man", is he not entitled to wonder, WHO it is he gets up for? Is he getting up to work to better himself?, or is he getting up to better his neighbor?

Any tax rate more than 50% is nothing but slavery, and as thus, inherently immoral.

A 90% marginal tax rate means that 90% of the income ABOVE a certain point is taxed at 90%. In the 1950's for instance it was any income over about $3 million (in today's dollars). So that anything below that amount would have been taxed at a less rate. There were about 10 -15 tax brackets at PROGRESSIVELYT higher amounts.

Richard Wolff says that FDR was threatening the top 1% with a MAXIMUM WAGE in the 1930's under pressure from the very strong far left. He used this to scare the 1% into passing the 90% top tax rate which they preferred.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 9:44 am

Neofascist oligarch Philip Anschutz: Another reason why the 1% must be taxed at 90% rate to keep them from subverting democracy.

Occupy Wall Street Oakland may not know the close relationship their city has with this financial terrorist who wants to run the Oakland Coliseum. I can image what a shitty deal Oakland is going to get.

WATCH OUT OAKLANDERS! YOUR CITY IS ALREADY BROKE AND YOUR’RE GOING TO GET FUCKED! And that other crook Oakland City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, one of the board members on the Joint Powers Authority is involved! Watch your ass!!!

Meet the Christian Right-Wing Multi-Billionaire Out to Frack Our World

He is a billionaire several times over, a supporter of conservative causes, candidates, and organizations, including campaigns of the anti-immigrant former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and the Intelligent Design-peddling Discovery Institute, and he's been a backer of anti-gay rights initiatives. He owns The Weekly Standard, a highly partisan conservative magazine, recently sold the conservative Examiner newspapers, but rarely will speak to the press.

After devoting years of building a massive Disneyesque entertainment complex in Los Angeles called L.A. Live - which tapped into tens of millions of government dollars -- he now has his eyes on building a $1 billion stadium in L.A. and securing a National Football League team for the city. He's also been putting the finishing touches on a deal that would have his company running the Coliseum complex in Oakland, California.

He is a native Kansan, and although he's not related to the multi-billionaire Kansas Koch Brothers, he certainly shares many of their interests.

We're talking Philip Anschutz, who, in 1999, was labeled the nation's "greediest executive" by Fortune magazine.

The Anschutz fortune

As of March of this year, Anschutz's net worth was $7 billion, placing him #133 on the list of Forbes billionaires and #39 on the Forbes 400 list. Forbes pointed out that Anschutz "has made fortunes in oil, railroads and telecom, but his biggest bets are in entertainment. Through ... AEG [Anschutz Entertainment Group], he operates dozens of the world's greatest concert venues, including the Staples Center and Nokia Theater in L.A., London's O2, and Shanghai's Mercedes-Benz Arena." Anschutz also owns Regal Entertainment Group, the largest movie theater chain in the world.

AEG "controls sports teams like the NBA's Lakers, the NHL's Kings and the L.A. Galaxy soccer team. His music division manages pop stars including Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and the Black Eyed Peas. His film division has produced the Chronicles of Narnia series," Forbes noted.

Oakland Coliseum Negotiating Contract With SoCal Entertainment Company

OAKLAND (CBS SF) — The board that oversees the Oakland Coliseum complex has voted by a narrow 4-3 margin to enter into negotiations with Los Angeles-based sports and entertainment company AEG to run the complex for the next five years.

If the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority and AEG, which is owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, can reach an agreement on a contract, it would mean the end of SMG’s 13-year tenure of running the complex, which consists of the O.co Coliseum and the Oracle Arena.

The Oakland A’s baseball team and the Oakland Raiders football team play at the O.co Coliseum, and the Golden State Warriors basketball team plays at the Oracle Arena.

The arena is also used for concerts for big-time performers.

Oakland City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, one of the board members on the Joint Powers Authority, said he voted against entering into negotiations with SMG at the board’s meeting on Friday because four of his colleagues asked for more time to review the proposals by AEG, Philadelphia-based SMG and a third bidder, Global Spectrum, a subsidiary of Comcast which also is based in Philadelphia.

De La Fuente said he had read all of the proposals before the meeting but he thought the request by some of his colleagues for a delay was reasonable because many if the details came in at the last minute and they had not had time to review everything.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Calperson:

When a man gets up in the morning and goes to work, and more than half of his labor is then confiscated and given to "The Man", is he not entitled to wonder, WHO it is he gets up for? Is he getting up to work to better himself?, or is he getting up to better his neighbor?

Any tax rate more than 50% is nothing but slavery, and as thus, inherently immoral.

Actually any tax rate more than 0% on a working person is nothing but slavery and immoral. However if you are a white collar, sit on your ass, manager of another man's labor you should be paying taxes. If you are a rich slob you should be paying a high rate of taxes on your wealth. Corporations should be in a super high tax bracket, not because the government needs their money but because it forces the corporation to reinvest their profits into the community.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

I had a list once of why we need to bring back the 90% top tax rate again. I cant quite remember but here's a quick recall.

1. Any time top tax rates go below 50% the rich start over-speculating in the markets which forms unsustainable bubbles that crash hard.

2) It keeps companies from spending too much of the company expenses on payroll keeping the money in the company for newere equipment, growth and hiring more people and/ or more even distribution of pay checks. CEO pay is now 400 times more than the average worker. Before Reagan's tax cuts that ratio was only 30 to 1.

3. It keeps senior executive level greed in check which lowers corporate corruption and short-term profit taking.

4. It raises more revenue for the government to invest in our country's infrastructure and people while keeping the country's debt lower.

There were a couple more I cant recall right now. I'll add later if I think of them.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 9:44 am

but the person that provided the capital to build the product that made that demand

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

but the person that provided the capital to build the product that made that demand

I take it your right wing mythologies fall apart if you don't have a simplistic black & white view of the world. While some may create something new they can create demand where there was none before, usually it's an incremental improvement over existing technology. And usually a business studies the market and just tries to satisfy existing demand or they make some minor change to existing products. McD may have popularized the 10c burger only to be followed by Hardies, Burger Chef, Carrols, Burger King, Kellies, etc. But McD didn't invent the hamburger nor fries nor soda. Steve Jobs didn't invent the cell phone, the smart phone, or the touch screen.

So while the market may hand out rewards as if someone DID create something new, it's hard to see how that's fair to all those behind existing ideas the new Big Thing was built on.

And there's not usually one sugar daddy who bankrolls some new venture on their own. Guess you never heard of IPOs, venture capital, or simple borrowing from friends, family or the local bank.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

And there's not usually one sugar daddy who bankrolls some new venture on their own. Guess you never heard of IPOs, venture capital, or simple borrowing from friends, family or the local bank.

You are very correct, however there are many in Thom Hartmann community who have no idea what happens to money when it is placed in the bank or an investment firm.

There are even comments above in this very thread erroneously claiming that the money is not "in circulation" or is somehow removed from the "system", and that the government is needed to confiscate the money so it is spent at all.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Michael Hudson - What We're Becoming (2 of 4)

Why we need to tax the financial parasites...

"'The Way We Were and What We Are Becoming' with financial economist and historian, Dr. Michael Hudson. We begin with an analysis of the continuing bailout of insurance giant AIG and Monday's stock market selloff; price and debt deflation; the two sectors of the economy; two definitions of 'free markets'; the classical economists; revolution from the right and the former Soviet states; the threat of war; IMF/World Bank resurgence; the dollar versus the euro; analogies to Rome and neo-feudalism."

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote Calperson:There are even comments above in this very thread erroneously claiming that the money is not "in circulation" or is somehow removed from the "system", and that the government is needed to confiscate the money so it is spent at all.

After reading your rabid and inflammatory "insights" and conclusions on the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident, you're the last person I'd trust to interpret ANY "evidence" of ANYthing. OK. perhaps not the last. There's no end of Orwellian Right Wingers who have self-sabotaged their own intelligence.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote Calperson:It is now 2012 and the country is in the grips of an OBESITY crisis, it has to be at least 100 years since anyone died of HUNGER in this country, the left really needs to update their arguments.

Have a credible source for your 100 year claim? Do you even know what "credible" means?

Didn't think so.

So according to your Catch 22 "logic"... you make the unproven claim that with all those government nutrition programs you obviously oppose, many are now obese... and therefore that's "proof" those programs were never needed? It can't be those programs contribute to that obesity and without them there WOULD be hunger in the US?

Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish one on drugs from one with a self-sabotaged intellect.

Pray tell CP, which are you?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

History shows that low taxes create less jobs than higher taxes. Jimmy Carter created more jobs in his 4 years than w did in his eight, and w even provided a tax holiday for corps to repatriate their foreign earned profits. Clinton's tax structure led to 23 million jobs, Reagan's led to 21 million, and he raised taxes 7 times. Even if the rate went to 90%, tax avoidance strategy would lead them to fund their tax free think tanks, and foundations. Tax avoidance allows the purchase of private jets that are free after excellerated depreciation. I remember Art Linkletter saying his tax rate was 87%, but your rate, and the rate you pay are two different things. Exxon's rate is 35%, the rate they pay is -3%, negative 3% means we pay them for the privilege of establishing their empire over the globe, and we paid them for the privilege of buying our supreme court to nullify their Valdez penalty. We are paying them to screw us.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

but the person that provided the capital to build the product that made that demand

If every rich capitalist in America decided to take their money and move out of country what would happen?

There would still be demand for certain items and services. Somebody like you or I would immediately run to the credit union and secure the funds we needed to supply that demand. As long as their is some place to borrow funds to supply a demand, there will be someone to do it. Frankly I wish they would all pull up stakes and leave. That would be one of the best ways to jump start this economy and replace that old money with new.

I guarantee you there are people waiting in line for such an opportunity to make millions of dollars with or without a high tax bracket.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Michael Hudson - Dress rehearsal for debt peonage

How the financial creditor class untaxed itself to take all worker productivity gains and established a rentier debt economy to strip assets and extract wealth from the real economy.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Thanks, Anti. A "rentier" economy. That's it.

Here's how the peons can cure themselves of the disease that saps the peons and feeds the parasitic rentiers (thank you douglaslee for the link): Affluenza.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

So where are all those billions of dollars going that used to be collected as income tax and corporate taxes? Some of it is going to the Chinese mafia, Ayn Randian think thanks and election manipulation.

Sheldon Adelson is so corrupt that his greedy and arrogance even offended the Chinese mafia. Adelson thought he could pay brides to the Chinese mafia to get around contracts and local municipal ordinances just like he paid brides to Las Vegas officials and American politicians.

Inside The Investigation Of Leading Republican Money Man Sheldon Adelson

In China, relationships, or guanxi, can make or break an empire. Adelson's relationships in Macau and China were frayed. George Koo, a member of the Las Vegas Sands board of directors, wrote in a confidential memo that Adelson's behavior had offended political figures in both Macau and China.

Koo quoted a prominent Macau official as saying Adelson had "slapped the table in front of Edmund Ho," Macau's chief executive. "Supposedly, Ho has said that he will not see SGA anymore," the memo said, using Adelson's initials.

This is what we are up against—billions upon billions of dollars backed by bribe taking politicians of both political parties reinforced by a militarized police with high-tech laser, sound, and electrical weapons to enforce obedience. America has morphed into the totalitarian monster we were told Soviet Russia represented.

His family's $25 million in contributions kept Newt Gingrich in the presidential race. He has been widely reported as donating $10 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. A "well-placed source" recently told Forbes Magazine that Adelson's willingness to financially support Romney was "limitless." A filing with the Federal Election Commission last night shows that Adelson and his wife, Miriam, gave $5 million to the "YG Action Fund,'' a super PAC linked to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican.

Here is another big gun pointed at Americans using resources that at one time were used to build schools, roads, and finance productive industries. Now private capital takes it billions of tax freed dollars to invest in domestic sabotage utilizing think tank propaganda, subsidized neo-fascist politicians, and a virtual parallel quasi-government to shadow official government agencies.

Ayn Randroids and Libertarians Join Forces: Will Her Noxious Philosophy Further Infect America?John Allison, a former bank CEO and a leader of the Rand movement, has just become president of the influential Cato Institute.

Allison, former CEO of North Carolina’s BB&T Bank, is not just going to be the Cato Institute’s sugar daddy. He replaces Ed Crane as president, meaning that he will have day-to-day control over the most significant libertarian organization in the country. Allison is a board member of the Ayn Rand Institute, the orthodox, no-compromise Randian organization, and is best known for his foundation donating free Rand books to thousands of schoolchildren across the nation—a crass exploitation of the fiscal troubles besetting primary schools.

Allison can be expected to bring Randers into key positions at Cato, and I expect that his formidable financial resources will also brought to bear on behalf of the think tank. True, he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as the Koch brothers, and I am sure the left will be rejoicing at departure of the Kochs. Don’t be.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The Cato Institute is not a libertarian organization.

I'm still amazed that you are surprised when the power progressives want gov't to have to do good is used by the powerful for their own ends. I'm shocked!

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system