Do we want the rich to get richer?

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pushing for more tax cuts for the rich, a new study shows this election will hinge on a choice – do we want to hire more teachers and send more kids to college – or do we want the rich to get richer.

The Institute for Policy Studies published a new report showing that tax loopholes used to boost CEO bonus pay cost taxpayers $14.4 billion a year. That same amount of money could instead be used to hire 211,000 elementary school teachers or give Pell Grants to 2.5 million college students.

Of course – Republicans around the country are busy laying off school teachers and cutting Pell Grants, in order to pay for more of those same tax breaks for the rich.  Plain and simple, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against education – and a vote for oligarchy.

Comments

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
Republicans are not going to

Republicans are not going to vote for Mitt Romney.  They are going to vote against Barack Obama.

Republican voters don't care who the Republican nominee is.  They even wanted Herman Cain at one point.  They just don't want Barack Obama.  They don't know why they don't want Barack Obama, but they know that they don't want him.

It would be hilarious if it was all a television show, and didn't have such horrific real-life consequences.

Perhaps if the Left had the same intense lust for voting as the Right, then majority rule would actually win in the US and "people" like Mitt Romney wouldn't even be considered for a Presidential nomination.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Thom Hartmann Administrator

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pushing for more tax cuts for the rich

Last I checked,  Only Congress can pass tax law.  Executive can only pass or deny the bill. 

workingman
workingman's picture
Last time I checked the

Last time I checked the federal department of education did not hire.teachers. That is a state job so cutting federal taxes on anyone will have zero effect on hiring of teachers in any state.

chilidog
Capital1 wrote: Thom Hartmann

Capital1 wrote:

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pushing for more tax cuts for the rich

Last I checked,  Only Congress can pass tax law.  Executive can only pass or deny the bill. 

If we want to get technical, there's a third option:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

But it seems to me that the President has at least a little bit of influence on what laws come out of Congress.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Thom Hartmann Administrator

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pushing for more tax cuts for the rich, a new study shows this election will hinge on a choice – do we want to hire more teachers and send more kids to college – or do we want the rich to get richer.

First of all.  I want everyone to get richer.  I do care how people get richer.  If they get rich by providing a good or service that people freely choose to buy, I'm for it.  Sociologist Franz Oppenheimer call this the economic means.  If they get rich by using the State apparatus, I'm against it.  Oppenheimer called this the political means.

As an aside, who is "we"?  If you don't want someone to get richer, don't patronize their business.  Not taxing someone doesn't take anything away from you.  If you want more kids to go to college or hire more teachers, you are free to take your money and the money of those who agree with you and give it to college-bound kids and current teachers.

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

The Institute for Policy Studies published a new report showing that tax loopholes used to boost CEO bonus pay cost taxpayers $14.4 billion a year. That same amount of money could instead be used to hire 211,000 elementary school teachers or give Pell Grants to 2.5 million college students.

As was said above, all these things are or should be done at the State level. 

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

Of course – Republicans around the country are busy laying off school teachers and cutting Pell Grants, in order to pay for more of those same tax breaks for the rich.  Plain and simple, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against education – and a vote for oligarchy.

Tax breaks are not an expenditure.  Unless you believe that all property belongs to the government.  I do agree that voting for the Republican ticket is voting for the oligarchy, I also think that voting Democrat is also voting for the oligarchy.  In addition, progressives policies are welcomed by the oligarchy.  Anything that centralizes power is.

anonymous green
LysanderSpooner wrote: Tax

LysanderSpooner wrote:

Tax breaks are not an expenditure.  Unless you believe that all property belongs to the government.  I do agree that voting for the Republican ticket is voting for the oligarchy, I also think that voting Democrat is also voting for the oligarchy.  In addition, progressives policies are welcomed by the oligarchy.  Anything that centralizes power is.

So give up.

Or tax the rich, and fold the country's wealth back into the country.

Inheritance tax. 60% at least.

No deductions without a pulse.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote: Thom

LysanderSpooner wrote:

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pushing for more tax cuts for the rich, a new study shows this election will hinge on a choice – do we want to hire more teachers and send more kids to college – or do we want the rich to get richer.

First of all.  I want everyone to get richer.  I do care how people get richer.  If they get rich by providing a good or service that people freely choose to buy, I'm for it.  Sociologist Franz Oppenheimer call this the economic means.  If they get rich by using the State apparatus, I'm against it.  Oppenheimer called this the political means.

As an aside, who is "we"?  If you don't want someone to get richer, don't patronize their business.  Not taxing someone doesn't take anything away from you.  If you want more kids to go to college or hire more teachers, you are free to take your money and the money of those who agree with you and give it to college-bound kids and current teachers.

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

The Institute for Policy Studies published a new report showing that tax loopholes used to boost CEO bonus pay cost taxpayers $14.4 billion a year. That same amount of money could instead be used to hire 211,000 elementary school teachers or give Pell Grants to 2.5 million college students.

As was said above, all these things are or should be done at the State level. 

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

Of course – Republicans around the country are busy laying off school teachers and cutting Pell Grants, in order to pay for more of those same tax breaks for the rich.  Plain and simple, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against education – and a vote for oligarchy.

Tax breaks are not an expenditure.  Unless you believe that all property belongs to the government.  I do agree that voting for the Republican ticket is voting for the oligarchy, I also think that voting Democrat is also voting for the oligarchy.  In addition, progressives policies are welcomed by the oligarchy.  Anything that centralizes power is.

For the accounting system of the Federal govt, yes, tax breaks are an expenditure. By definition. Do not speak of things of which you are ignorant. Thank you.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
When the country has worked,

When the country has worked, which means coincidentally the government has worked, the revenue collected, or the price of maintenance for a successfull country, economy, government has averaged 18.1 percent of gdp, most agressive growth had a 21% of gdp revenue collection. Republicans think they can run a casino without taking a cut of the pot, and no ante. It's never been done, but why let facts obstruct idiot ideology.

Currently they aren't paying, revenue is 15%, and they are dumbfounded as to why things don't work like they did when revenue was 20%.

Republicans don't even want to pay a cover charge to get in the door of biggest economic show on earth.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
chilidog wrote: But it seems

chilidog wrote:

But it seems to me that the President has at least a little bit of influence on what laws come out of Congress.

Great...  He can be lazy and it's still a law... 

He has Great influence..  Bully Pulpit for one.  VP head of Congress being the other.   However....  He doesn't vote to pass legislation.  That is the province of 538 members of Congress. 

  

anonymous green
The aim of the Republicans in

The aim of the Republicans in Congress has been to make sure nothing passes but what they want to pass.

The right wing has turned our democracy into a joke.

delete jan in iowa
Capital1 wrote: VP head of

Capital1 wrote:

VP head of Congress being the other.   

Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the United States Senate.[4] In that capacity, he or she is allowed to vote in the Senate when necessary to break a tie. While Senate customs have created supermajority rules that have diminished this Constitutional power, the Vice President still retains the ability to influence legislation (e.g. the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005).[4][5][6] Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College.[2]

Get your facts straight.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
The Republicans are doing

The Republicans are doing exactly what they were elected to do.  When the Democrats  get the majority  they can do the same, and pass things like say, Obamacare.

Conservative_Th...
I don't think anyone is

I don't think anyone is "dumbfounded" as you say. I think it's part of a much larger plan, and frankly, I'm fine with it. I think that both parties, to some degree, have attempted to get spending under control. No one, really wants to eliminate spending and I think both parties, if you pulled them aside in private, understand that the government has to spend, especially now, to charge the economy. The problem is that special interests have overtaken the government and every ridiculous pet project gets funding. They can't stop it, so they want to starve it.  I freely admit I lean pretty hard to the right on fiscal policy and therefore my view is surely biased. What I find disturbing is the rhetoric. If I say, I want to cut spending, Dems will reply that I want to starve children and kill mothers. It's become that ridiculous. Now, I know the biggest expenses are entitlement programs and the military and that's fine. I'm even ok paying higher taxes to fund both of those things. It's all the other worthless stuff that has to be cut before I feel comfortable with any further tax increases. For example, when Obama's stimulus money was released, I got on the website to see if there were any local projects being funded. The very first project in my area - a fish ladder. Huh? We have crumbling bridges and roads, an aging power grid and terrible city schools. And yet, we are building a fish ladder.  I hoped there was more, so I kept looking. Dredging of a small stream that has no commercial boat traffic. Odd. Dredging near a lock and dam that is no longer usuable because it is in need of repair. Awesome, they must be going to reopen the lock which would create some jobs and reopen the river to commercial traffic. Nope. Just dredging.  So, I looked a little further. All of the contracts went to one company. And that one company is a huge political contributor. You draw your own conclusions.

 

 

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
Conservative_Thom_Fan

Conservative_Thom_Fan wrote:
If I say, I want to cut spending, Dems will reply that I want to starve children and kill mothers. It's become that ridiculous.

It's not that Conservatives want to cut spending.  It's that Conservatives want to cut spending to social programs that promote domestic well-being in order to increase spending for the military to expand a global empire.

When the GOP continuously seeks to cut spending for low-income families while simultaneously starting illegal global wars on whatever, it means that Democrats are entirely justified in saying that Conservatives want to starve children and kill mothers.

chilidog
anonymous green wrote: Or tax

anonymous green wrote:

Or tax the rich, and fold the country's wealth back into the country.

Inheritance tax. 60% at least.

Why do you want estate taxes lower than what Nixon was happy with?

The top rate on estate taxes was 77% from 1941 to 1976.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/ninetyestate.pdf

 

Conservative_Th...
You obviously didn't read the

You obviously didn't read the rest of my post. In the very next line, I said the two biggest expenditures are defense and entitlement programs - with which I have no problem! I'm saying, cut the rest of the silly spending. Cut the duplicate programs. Clean up the existing programs.

As for you final comment, hyperbole and flat out lies are not exclusive to any one party.

 

 

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
JTaylor

JTaylor wrote:

Conservative_Thom_Fan wrote:
If I say, I want to cut spending, Dems will reply that I want to starve children and kill mothers. It's become that ridiculous.

It's not that Conservatives want to cut spending.  It's that Conservatives want to cut spending to social programs that promote domestic well-being in order to increase spending for the military to expand a global empire.

When the GOP continuously seeks to cut spending for low-income families while simultaneously starting illegal global wars on whatever, it means that Democrats are entirely justified in saying that Conservatives want to starve children and kill mothers.

What about libertarians like myself who want to cut ALL spending, want to stop the illegal wars and don't want to start any new ones?  How are progressives any different than the conservatives you supposedly disagree with?  By your own admission, progressives want to cut one kind of spending and increase another. Exactly what conservatives want to do!

By the way, the GOP has never cut spending in recent memory.

Assuming that they were cutting spending, are you saying that not forcibly taking money from group and giving it to 2nd group is equivalent to starving the latter group? 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Nobody in Washington really

Nobody in Washington really wants to cut spending, they want to reroute spending.  They want to take from A and give to B.  It's almost impossible to cut spending anyway.  Every year the cost of goods and services goes up and we expect spending to go down.  It's not very logical.  How many American households simply cut spending?  They usually will cut spending on one thing so that they can afford the increases in the more important things.  When we have an increase in revenue we generally still spend it.  The American people are very hypocritical in that regard.

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote:What

LysanderSpooner wrote:
What about libertarians like myself who want to cut ALL spending, want to stop the illegal wars and don't want to start any new ones?

Libertarianism doesn't appeal to me so I don't know much about it.  What do Libertarians propose to replace the current system with?  If you cut all spending, then what?  The entire country will collapse in an instant.  What we have already is the basis for a great system of government, but it has been corrupted to a nearly unrecognizable state by a very determined, self-serving few.  What do Libertarians plan to replace the current process with after they destroy it completely?

LysanderSpooner wrote:
How are progressives any different than the conservatives you supposedly disagree with?  By your own admission, progressives want to cut one kind of spending and increase another. Exactly what conservatives want to do!

No, progressives don't want to cut spending.  What would be the point of that?  People need more money, not less.  Do you have any idea how much money there is on this planet?  More than enough for everyone, that's for sure.  The best way to properly fund local and state programs is to put more money in the hands of the voters.  The imbalance of wealth today is atrocious, especially seeing what the international 1% does with it.  With more citizens having more funds, they can more easily handle their family's immediate living expenses and still donate more to popular causes of their choice.  As long as the majority of the world's wealth is controlled by a minority of the population, the minority of the population will continue dictate policy.  The overall (and avoidable) situation in the US, which projects to the rest of the world, appears to be an idealistic war between a few dozen billionaires over what direction they believe is best for themselves, and our politicians are just chess pieces.  We the People have been entirely neglected.  Progressives want the exact opposite.

LysanderSpooner wrote:
By the way, the GOP has never cut spending in recent memory.

Assuming that they were cutting spending, are you saying that not forcibly taking money from group and giving it to 2nd group is equivalent to starving the latter group?

What I'll keep saying is that the legalization and production of Cannabis Sativa can provide for the majority of the world without corporate pollution or war- a realistic alternative to the current global process.

Liberty-Pac
Liberty-Pac's picture
I see we are learning about

I see we are learning about Representative Government today :)

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Historic tax rates and the

Historic tax rates and the country was never in trouble even during WWl and WWll. Only when republicans got the keys to the vault did it bleed.

Cap gains got up to 39% in the 70s. Which fit with earlier designations of half the highest rate or 25% whichever is lower. 39% was about half the top rate in the 70s.

Ending carried trade would be revenue boost. Supporters claim to pay cap gains rate, but they don't have to pay any at all, and many don't. It is only levied when sold, so hedge funds just borrow from the fund, no tax at all. Borrow 10 million a year, no tax. Management fees account for some of the loan, too. Since it is your own fund you're borrowing from, the interest rate might be favorable, too.

The first 40K ought to be tax free. When the income tax was initiated, the majority did not pay.

btw, the federal tax did go to teachers and firefighters, and police. The stimulus was quite successfull and would have been even more so if it had been bigger. The worst results were from republican governors.

The New New Deal by Michael Grunwald

Quote:

The stimulus has launched a transition to a clean-energy economy, doubled our renewable power, and financed unprecedented investments in energy efficiency, a smarter grid, electric cars, advanced biofuels, and green manufacturing. It is computerizing America’s pen-and-paper medical system. Its Race to the Top is the boldest education reform in U.S. history. It has put in place the biggest middle-class tax cuts in a generation, the largest research investments ever, and the most extensive infrastructure investments since Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. It includes the largest expansion of antipoverty programs since the Great Society, lifting millions of Americans above the poverty line, reducing homelessness, and modernizing unemployment insurance. Like the first New Deal, Obama’s stimulus has created legacies that last: the world’s largest wind and solar projects, a new battery industry, a fledgling high-speed rail network, and the world’s highest-speed Internet network.

Michael Grunwald goes behind the scenes—sitting in on cabinet meetings, as well as recounting the secret strategy sessions where Republicans devised their resistance to Obama—to show how the stimulus was born, how it fueled a resurgence on the right, and how it is changing America. The New New Deal shatters the conventional Washington narrative and it will redefine the way Obama’s first term is perceived.

Digitizing and cross referencing medical records is a waste of money to republicans, because it keeps poor people from dying. The rest of the civilized world achieved that decades ago, but the rest of the world is not exceptional.

Legacies that last is another problem with republicans, it means planning, waiting longer than a quarter, or election cycle.

anonymous green
Legacies that last are easily

Legacies that last are easily done with poison pills.

Poisoning the New Deal was a long, long process, but finally, Bush the Least delivered and set his people free.

Tax free. Inheritance tax free.

OK, 77% is fine with me, but 60% would be a good compromise.

Tax the rich. The richer they get, the more the tax. They can afford it. Any other plan is just plain stupid. Ask anyone who remembers what really happened over the last 80 years, and how we slowly went broke as the New Deals were gnawed at by rats, working for the rich.