It's time to outlaw billionaires!

47 posts / 0 new

Welcome to America, where half the nation lives right on the razor’s edge. A shocking new report out of the Corporation for Enterprise Development, finds that 44% of Americans are just one financial shock away from complete ruin. Nearly half the nation doesn’t have enough savings to keep them out of poverty for more than 3 months, should they suffer a job loss, an accident, a sickness, or other financial shock.

Another recent study out of the Consumer Federation of American, found that 40% of all American households live paycheck-to-paycheck, with virtually no savings. This is what’s become of the once valued American middle class, after thirty years of trickle-down Reaganomics. And it’s the main reason why our economy continues to falter – our nation's working people and consumers don’t have enough money to spend.

Let’s roll back the Reagan tax cuts – put in place a new wealth tax on everyone making over a billion dollars and redistribute some of that wealth down to working people, who will actually spend it. Go to NoBillionaires.com.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

"While it isn't obvious, for one to have more [money], another has to have less". - Milton Friedman, "Money Mischief".

The question is, how much less should the general population have to share among themselves?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It's too bad grown up people in a civilized country have to be FORCED to play nicely. I agree we need a WEALTH CEILING. There's only so much luxury a person has time to wallow in, in the first place.

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

I thought there would be a petition like my petition to end sanctions on Syria and Iran which can be found here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/630/908/878/end-sanctions-against-iran-and-syria/

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote leighmf:

It's too bad grown up people in a civilized country have to be FORCED to play nicely. I agree we need a WEALTH CEILING. There's only so much luxury a person has time to wallow in, in the first place.

A person can only spend so much. After a billion dollar bonus is spent buying a multi-million dollar home for each day of the year, how does a person spend the next bonus? Maybe a large fleet of private jets and an airport to park them in?

"While it isn't obvious, for one to have more [money], another has to have less". - Milton Friedman, "Money Mischief". How much less the majority should receive is still being determined.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am sure that I have not read or been able to listen to every discussion on this matter so this may have been covered elsewhere.

If a person is worth $5 billion, exactly how is the $4 billion redistributed?

leftout
Joined:
Jan. 4, 2013 11:31 am

Net worth is maintained. What gets re-distributed is current income. It's done through taxes.

Taxable income can either be re-distributed through a guaranteed annual minimum income (reverse income tax), a reduction or cancelling of lower-income tax rates or through social programs...or combinations of all three.

Under FDR, the tax rate over the equivalent of 3 million dollars was 91%. A bonus...it reduced the gambling on Wall Street...the building and collapse of economic bubbles.

Tax policy and re-distribution programs created the largest middle class the world had ever seen. Prior to that, most Americans fell into one of two classes. The very poor and the very rich. We seem to be heading back in that direction rather quickly.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Net worth is maintained. What gets re-distributed is current income. It's done through taxes.

Taxable income can either be re-distributed through a guaranteed annual minimum income (reverse income tax), a reduction or cancelling of lower-income tax rates or through social programs...or combinations of all three.

Under FDR, the tax rate over the equivalent of 3 million dollars was 91%. A bonus...it reduced the gambling on Wall Street...the building and collapse of economic bubbles.

Tax policy and re-distribution programs created the largest middle class the world had ever seen. Prior to that, most Americans fell into one of two classes. The very poor and the very rich. We seem to be heading back in that direction rather quickly.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

If a person has $5 billion of assets and in 2013 they make $200 million are you saying they pay a high percentage of the $200 million and the $5 billion of assets are maintained?

leftout
Joined:
Jan. 4, 2013 11:31 am

The question at issue was tax policy on income. If you want to go to property tax and other material values to realize the revenue needs of the society, you could begin to eat away at the dynastic establishments and not just their current incomes.

The larger question is how do we finance a good society and maximize the participation in power and productivity of the citizenry, and to that goal it seems obvious that a steep marginal tax rate and some requirements that castle taxes be levied on the Ego Dream Homes and holdings. Second and third homes ought to be taxed higher than primary residences. We could make a lot of sensible policies were the moralistic anguish of the rich not blocking good social economics.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

You're aiming too low. Why not start with trillionaires?

For example, that rapacious corporation that sprawls in the place where more wine is drunk per capita than anywhere else in the country and which gobbles up 5 trillion a year. Outlaw it, yes.

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

Well, the housing derivatives bubble nearly collapsed the entire financial system and the nation with it.

Probably billionaires upping the ante to $650 TRILLION in global derivatives is something to be concerned about. Not enough money on the planet to bail that one.

When they have so much money there is no productive use for it...if feeds financial bubbles. Bubbles pop. That was one of the reasons for the 91% multi-millionaire tax from Democartic Pres. FDR through Republican Pres. Dwight Eisenhower.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Under FDR, the tax rate over the equivalent of 3 million dollars was 91%. A bonus...it reduced the gambling on Wall Street...the building and collapse of economic bubbles.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Is this the same FDR that confiscated all the peoples gold?

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html

And, put the Japanese Americans in internment camps? http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/japanese-internment-cam...

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Yep. Same one. I never did say he was a saint.

The greater question is, why did the Supreme Court go along with imprisoning American citizens without charges or a trial?

Will it go along with new laws that provide for the same thing today? Billionaires pull the strings on the Congressional Representatives who enacted them.

Whenever any society encourages mass concentrations of wealth...wealth captures government to serve itself. When in history has that not been so?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:
Quote polycarp2:Under FDR, the tax rate over the equivalent of 3 million dollars was 91%. A bonus...it reduced the gambling on Wall Street...the building and collapse of economic bubbles.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Is this the same FDR that confiscated all the peoples gold?

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html

And, put the Japanese Americans in internment camps? http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/japanese-internment-camp3.htm

No, I believe that Polycarp2 is speaking of the FDR who rebuilt the ruined economy of the USA, was hounded by international fascists who planned to coup him out of his job, won WW2, helped start the rebuilding of the ruined world, and put the US nation on the road to progress, power, and wealth.

This thread is about outlawing billionares. Stop changing the subject.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

I commented on Japanese internment camps last night and the topic went cold and left the the 2nd amendmant debate forum. Maybe you and I are delusional and internment camps didn't really happen. I sometimes wonder if George Bush considered internment camps for certain americans of middle eastern roots, but was conflicted over certain entries in the bill of rights.Maybe the first and the second amendments for example. I do know he approved of billionaires and and we mostly had no gold to take so he took our job and then paper instead.

dialindicator's picture
dialindicator
Joined:
Dec. 15, 2012 6:44 pm

My argument about the 'concentration camp' lessons of history is the same as mine about the National "Intelligence" State going back to Arlo Guthrie's theory expressed in Alice's Restaurant, which is in that latter intel case to create enough haystacks to keep the needle hunters busy looking and handling the data. With the concentration camps, I suggest we always maintain what would have to be 'concentrated' at too broad and large a scale. BUT, that means we have to deprogram ourselves from our voluntary servitude and be in favor of something worth having.

Sure, the Empire will seek to use its favorite power, force, when persuasion and intimidation fail. It is that love of the "last resort" that brings these monsters down because it blinds them to doing what most crime bosses are humble enough to do. Keeping the Golden Goose laying those eggs may mean that you take golden eggs away from people on a regular basis for "protection" or some other ruse. What you cannot do is have a big Golden Goose barbeque, and while the mob rarely oversteps this way, empires always do.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote leftout:

I am sure that I have not read or been able to listen to every discussion on this matter so this may have been covered elsewhere.

If a person is worth $5 billion, exactly how is the $4 billion redistributed?

Opps! You have stumbled on the dirty little secret. It won't be redistributed. If everything over the cap is confiscated, it simply won't be earned; why bother. The money will simply move to where it is allowed to grow. At that point the progressives will do what they normally do when they don't think something out to its natural end, they say "But... But... That's not the way it was supposed to turn out."

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Money is growing very well. However, the economy is in the pits. Money is growing in the wrong place.

A return to the gilded age probably isn't in the nation's best interest. It seems to foment wide-spread poverty and economic collapses.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Trust busting laws could be used to "naturally" redistribute wealth- but "everyone has their price" seems to be the biggest deterrent to the American dream of society growing wealthier together.

The American Dream is fueled by Justice, according to the comic books I used to read, yet our Department of Justice seems to be in cahoots with Pepsi drinkers.

American Estate Tax law was written to prevent wealth from acummulating in intermarried families. In the New World to be exploited, without such law, a return to the Old World Order was guaranteed after a predictable number of generations.

Changes in inheritance laws have made it possible for huge holdings to remain intact instead of being divided between generations. The holdings take the form of an entity that escapes regulation as a monopoly or illegal trust, yet it has the power of a banking chain, or the dictatorship of an insurance giant.

Alas for you lawyers.

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

Thom actually aim too high. The cap should be around $10-12 million adjusted for inflation. And at the other end one should not pay much of any tax (other than a token one) until they accumulated an estate of a certain amount. That idea was floated by a 1980 third party candidate who I recall said the estate amount would be $100,000 but that would translate to around $300,000 today.

The billionaires have abused their privilege by damaging democracy and the penalty should be confiscation of their wealth.

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

"The money will simply move to where it is allowed to grow." You are saying that the wealthy will find a way to hide the cash above the cap by not 'earning' anything over the cap. That "money" will find its natural place because it will never reach the Treasury, so what dodge are you suggesting that cannot be closed? We already as generous about reinvestment in the economy, and we ought to be a lot more stringent about what we consider a productive investment, but the low cap rate is not seeing a lot of investment in anything other than Phantom Wealth. Instead, the fiscal glut is being used as a club to threaten anyone who would hold Wall St. accountable or expose its mythology. They lack "confidence," so they need to know they can get away with stealing to invest cash in our society. We think things should change, but that they have even better reasons to make the system they have done so well in alive and well. Create some damn jobs or someone else like Uncle will do the job for you!

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Wow drc, when you miss a point, you miss it big. No hiding is required. The money simply won't exist. When you hit the cap, you simply stop earning the money. No dodging, no hiding, no deceit, no money. When GM hits the cap, it will simply shut down the factories, and wait for the next fiscal year. Apple will stop producing electronics, Exxon will stop producing gas, BlueShield will stop insuring, etc. Of course, many will do what you guys want them to do and simply pick up and leave. Sure, we will have rampant unemployment, inflation, and a misery index in the quadruple digits, buy hey, at least we got to stick it to those evil billionaires; and that is all that really matters.

What, did you somehow imagine that once the cap was reached, those entities earning the money would somehow see fit to run themselves out of business in order to feed a starving gluttonous Government?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Unfortunately it was greed that built this country. If not for the greed and competitiveness of people like Morgan, Rockerfeller, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie, the industrial age would have taken decades longer and we wouldn't be the advanced society that we are now. Capping one's income is the same as capping progress. That would be a disaster. No, you must let greed create progress and make it advantageous to reinvest money into labor through a progressive tax system. There must be a "brass key" to compete for or you really hamper future progress and discovery.

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

That's called "incentive" but the current "incentive" is a little absurd and impractical.

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

Paleo wrote: Wow drc, when you miss a point, you miss it big. No hiding is required. The money simply won't exist. When you hit the cap, you simply stop earning the money. No dodging, no hiding, no deceit, no money. When GM hits the cap, it will simply shut down the factories, and wait for the next fiscal year.

poly replies: The cap applies to individual income...not corporate income.

If the CEO wants to quit and go play because he's reached his earnings cap, he'll put the corporation he is hired to run in violation of the law which requires corporations to continually make as much money as they can for their shareholders...not all of which will have reached the cap.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I'se rather live in a country built by knowledge and intelligence. Greed suppresses both.

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

If we had a wealth tax of 5% a year, nearly all the the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg would be redistributed within 20 years, a generation (assuming he won't earn more money in the future.) Eliminate all other taxes. Concentration of wealth is the cancer.

The right wing doesn't like the phrase "redistibution." But that is what all taxes are. When conservatives are in power they can spend the pot of 5% on redistribution spending they favor. And they favor a lot. We have 32 years of history with them.

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

Probably the wealth re-distribution just to feed the military/industrial complex is just one example of wealth re-distribution. The military suppliers aren't owned by janitors.

Re-distributing oil co. subsidies to Food Stamps is a no no.

Somehow, the Fed found $11 trillion to re-distribute to financiers and banksters. That's what the audit showed. However, Medicaid is in the pits....not a penney to be found.

The motto of the U.S. seems to be, "Feed the Billionaires. The poor can fend for themselves".

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

poly replies: The cap applies to individual income...not corporate income.

Says who? Now you are just making stuff up as you go along. That is too bad.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

If we had a wealth tax of 5% a year, nearly all the the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg would be redistributed within 20 years, a generation (assuming he won't earn more money in the future.) Eliminate all other taxes. Concentration of wealth is the cancer.

Really? Do you envision Mark just sitting around watching Dr. Phil, and once a year saying: "Damn, there goes another 5%"? I envision him doing the same thing you or I would do if faced with a 99% pay cut; pack our suitcase. Once again, the end result is no money, not redistribution.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The military industrial complex is a welfare recipient. Try to get that into righties heads. They seem to want to cut everything else but that. We don't need to be an "Empire" and neither can we afford it and we're already in debt because of it which makes the banksters happy because wars are supported by them for the debt they create.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote chilidog:

If we had a wealth tax of 5% a year, nearly all the the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg would be redistributed within 20 years, a generation (assuming he won't earn more money in the future.) Eliminate all other taxes. Concentration of wealth is the cancer.

Really? Do you envision Mark just sitting around watching Dr. Phil, and once a year saying: "Damn, there goes another 5%"? I envision him doing the same thing you or I would do if faced with a 99% pay cut; pack our suitcase. Once again, the end result is no money, not redistribution.

I think we used to have laws that addressed this concern. If you wanted to become a citizen of another nation, and renounce your U.S. citizenship, you had to "deem" your assets sold and pay any taxes due on capital gains, etc. IIRC you could do this without even leaving the U.S. I don't know if we do this anymore.

In my scenario Zuckerberg will effectively be paying 5% income tax. And no other taxes, no state taxes, no property taxes, no consumption taxes, no estate tax at death.

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

Actually, Paleo, if capital controls were re-instituted, billionaires could all move to low-tax Russia. They just couldn't take their money with them. It would have to be spent/taxed in the U.S.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Actually, Paleo, if capital controls were re-instituted, billionaires could all move to low-tax Russia. They just couldn't take their money with them. It would have to be spent/taxed in the U.S.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Again, implementing a little reality would be helpful. In a land where the money can be transferred in milliseconds, and the capital controls would take months to implement, the billionaires would be sipping their martinis in Russia long before the liberals muttered their usual words; "Hey, that wasn't supposed to happen."

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote polycarp2:

Actually, Paleo, if capital controls were re-instituted, billionaires could all move to low-tax Russia. They just couldn't take their money with them. It would have to be spent/taxed in the U.S.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Again, implementing a little reality would be helpful. In a land where the money can be transferred in milliseconds, and the capital controls would take months to implement, the billionaires would be sipping their martinis in Russia long before the liberals muttered their usual words; "Hey, that wasn't supposed to happen."

Let them take it with them. They aren't using or spending it here anyway. They are a huge part of the problem. It would be great if the problem decided to remove itself. The country is trudging along without use of that capital so why not remove the disease and let the country heal itself. I think it would be a much quicker rebound if done that way.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Paleo-con:Again, implementing a little reality would be helpful. In a land where the money can be transferred in milliseconds, and the capital controls would take months to implement, the billionaires would be sipping their martinis in Russia long before the liberals muttered their usual words; "Hey, that wasn't supposed to happen."

Let ‘em go. If it’s a millisecond, I guess the screen door won’t even hit ‘em.

Out of 185 countries ranked by the World Bank, the U.S.A. ranks #4 in “business friendliness,” and Russia ranks #112.

The U.S.A. ranks #6 in protecting investors, and #6 in enforcing contracts, and #22 in trading across borders. Russia ranks #117 in protecting investors and #11 in enforcing contracts, and #162 in trading across borders.

Oh, and that doesn’t even factor in the U.S. consumer economy, I’d imagine it leaves Russia’s in the dust…..

Let ‘em go. As long as they don’t use the U.S. to make, grow, or protect their wealth, let these self-important non-patriots go. And BTW….NO U.S. military contracts after you move to Russia.

I'd imagine there would still be enough rich patriots left, not to worry.

Just like Phil Mickleson – go Phil, go play your silly game that you make millions on, in front tens of rabid golf fans in Singapore. We’ll see you when you come crawling back to the good ol’ U.S..

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Actually, even if billionaires took their money with them, government could simply spend money into existence to make up for it.

http://www.modernmoneyandpublicpurpose.com/seminar-2.html

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote al3:

Let ‘em go. If it’s a millisecond, I guess the screen door won’t even hit ‘em.

Out of 185 countries ranked by the World Bank, the U.S.A. ranks #4 in “business friendliness,” and Russia ranks #112.

The U.S.A. ranks #6 in protecting investors, and #6 in enforcing contracts, and #22 in trading across borders. Russia ranks #117 in protecting investors and #11 in enforcing contracts, and #162 in trading across borders.

Oh, and that doesn’t even factor in the U.S. consumer economy, I’d imagine it leaves Russia’s in the dust…..

Let ‘em go. As long as they don’t use the U.S. to make, grow, or protect their wealth, let these self-important non-patriots go. And BTW….NO U.S. military contracts after you move to Russia.

I feel that you are missing the whole point of this tread. It started by suggesting a cap on income and outlawing billionaires. Then poly enhanced it by suggesting the Government should control the flow of private money. What exactly do you think would happen to the rankings with these things implemented? In addition, what do you think the rankings would look like after Russia has all the wealth and the US is the poor nation? By the way, Russia was just a random selection; it doesn't really matter where the target country is. Also, why would US military contracts be needed if Russian military contracts were available?

Quote al3:I'd imagine there would still be enough rich patriots left, not to worry.

Just like Phil Mickleson – go Phil, go play your silly game that you make millions on, in front tens of rabid golf fans in Singapore. We’ll see you when you come crawling back to the good ol’ U.S..

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

Ah... There it is. I was wondering who would be the first to play the patriot card. Let us try the same scenario with the numbers shifted a few decimal points. How patriotic would you feel if the government took everything you made over $1,000?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

LOL, everything over $1,000? This isn't about taking away people's money. It's about getting them to not hoard it. Hoarded money does nothing. Produces nothing. Be a gazillionaire if you like, just don't bury it in the back yard. It makes one stupid and foolish.

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

LOL, everything over $1,000? This isn't about taking away people's money. It's about getting them to not hoard it. Hoarded money does nothing. Produces nothing. Be a gazillionaire if you like, just don't bury it in the back yard. It makes one stupid and foolish.

Who the hell are you to tell people what to do with their money? What part of, it's not yours to tell them what to do with it, don't you understand?

The only one looking stupid and foolish, is you, with that last post, and you wonder why people keep firearms in the house.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

BEAUTIFUL, Thom! The operative phrase here is in the last line, "...workers who will actually SPEND it"! We know that the billionaires don't spend it; they horde it away offshore.

judynbea's picture
judynbea
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

LOL, everything over $1,000? This isn't about taking away people's money. It's about getting them to not hoard it. Hoarded money does nothing. Produces nothing. Be a gazillionaire if you like, just don't bury it in the back yard. It makes one stupid and foolish.

Who the hell are you to tell people what to do with their money? What part of, it's not yours to tell them what to do with it, don't you understand?

The only one looking stupid and foolish, is you, with that last post, and you wonder why people keep firearms in the house.

Saying it's their money is like saying that money stolen from a bank belongs to the bank robbers. When you have millions or billions of dollars then you didn't earn it yourself. You have to take it from others. Either in big chunks or in little pieces but either way you have to take it from somebody else.

These people take our labor. They take our best ideas. They take our time. They take our skills. They take our knowledge. They take our pride. They take our talents. They take our lives. They take all of that and more from us and turn it into personal cash. Then to top it all off they take our jobs. Then they get fools to believe that they are the makers and we are the takers. A quick scan of this forum will show you who the fools are.

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

These people take our labor. They take our best ideas. They take our time. They take our skills. They take our knowledge. They take our pride. They take our talents. They take our lives. They take all of that and more from us and turn it into personal cash. Then to top it all off they take our jobs. Then they get fools to believe that they are the makers and we are the takers. A quick scan of this forum will show you who the fools are.

It sounds like you have a self esteem issue. Obamacare may not cover that.

You sign on to a company as an employee, and that company has the rights to what is produced on their time, or with their equipment, using resources that belong to them. If you don't like that concept find another employer.

They take your jobs for a couple reasons. Progressives love to tell us how it was when grandpa punched in at the Buick plant and retired with a pension and life was good.

1. Pensions are fast becoming a thing of the past. We could get them back, but progressives are afraid of the "banksters", so we give it to the government ponzi scheme called SS. But don't worry Thom sez it is totally funded until 2033.

2. Hate to tell you this, but Grandpa's job at the Buick plant doesn't exist anymore. The lifetime pay guarantees, strikes, employee lawsuits, etc. have been replaced with 21st century employees called robots. Just like the ones your president likes to kill people with called drones. Or the thousands of displaced retail workers, accountants, actuaries, printers, booksellers, and tens of thousands of other now obsolete jobs, all thanks to Al Gore inventing the internet. Things change, and usually get more efficient. Thus eliminating older higher paying jobs. Get used to it.

3. They can cut costs and compete in a new world market. They even may get to pay dividends into your pension plan giving you more money for retirement. (Oh! I forgot, we don't want any of that filthy Wall Street money). Now, thanks to Obamacare, most small businesses will never excede 49 enployees, The great news is, they will have a nice short workweek. 29 hours. Thanks, Nancy.

In this country you are always free to take your labor, best ideas, time, knowledge, pride, talents, skills, and lives, and start your own gig.

Ask the tens of thousands of millionaires that came out of silicon valley in the last 40 years.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

The bottom line is that it's still not their money as you claim. It's extorted money. I'm talking about certain individuals in this world and not every man that's made something of himself.

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

Quote Paleo-con:I feel that you are missing the whole point of this tread. It started by suggesting a cap on income and outlawing billionaires.
Thom’s OP proposed reversing the Reagan tax cuts and/or taxing income over a billion dollars. The OP title was “It’s Time to Outlaw Billionaires!” which seems unrelated to his OP, which proposes tax law changes, not making billionaires illegal. An attempt at hyperbole I guess, but I don’t support that.
Quote Paleo-con:Then poly enhanced it by suggesting the Government should control the flow of private money. What exactly do you think would happen to the rankings with these things implemented? In addition, what do you think the rankings would look like after Russia has all the wealth and the US is the poor nation?
Right wing billionaires, multinationals, and many more, are complaining about taxes now, currently, threatening to move, when the U.S. comes in 4th out of 185 countries in “business friendly” ratings, not after any draconian new rules. We are 4th, and they are complaining now. Yep, we’d fall if such changes were implemented, but I believe they’d find tougher sledding in another country if they had to start ground up.
Quote Paleo-con:By the way, Russia was just a random selection; it doesn't really matter where the target country is. Also, why would US military contracts be needed if Russian military contracts were available?
I don’t believe U.S. billionaires and multinationals could just waltz in and grab choice military contracts in any non-Western, non arms-length business environment. Most “developing” economies have rampant cronyism in business dealings, and that’s why they rank lower in “business friendly” than the U.S. Putin will take care of his buddies. Why go to another country, when they already own the government in the U.S.?

The fact is, the U.S. probably provides the BEST system in the world to create that wealth, grow it, and protect it, and billionaires need to pay for it. That’s my point. Now I know most right wing millionaires and billionaires believe they, and only they, were born naked in the woods, and with little or no help from the system, on their bootstraps, made their wealth. Delusional thinking probably had part in their success.

Quote al3:
Quote Paleo-con:[quote=al3]I'd imagine there would still be enough rich patriots left, not to worry.
Ah... There it is. I was wondering who would be the first to play the patriot card.
Upon googling, first definition of “patriotism” I found was the following: “love for or devotion to one’s country.” The second was “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.” Just my opinion, but billionaires fleeing the country that enabled their wealth, to another country for tax reasons is antithetical to those definitions. I’ll stand by my statement there.

Quote Paleo-con:Let us try the same scenario with the numbers shifted a few decimal points. How patriotic would you feel if the government took everything you made over $1,000?
I think that’s a false argument. I can’t live on $1000, but the Waltons can live on $40 billion without crimping their lifestyle too much. They’re just greedy. And BTW, there are greedy, tax scheming Dems also, I aim this mainly at conservatives but Dems are also guilty.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote al3:

I think that’s a false argument. I can’t live on $1000, but the Waltons can live on $40 billion without crimping their lifestyle too much. They’re just greedy. And BTW, there are greedy, tax scheming Dems also, I aim this mainly at conservatives but Dems are also guilty.

Classic. It is okay to decide what someone else can live with, but unfair to decide what you can live with. Please don't miss my point. $1,000 was just an arbitrary number used as an example. Let us say you make $40,000 a year. Then the power of the Government bureaucrats decide that a study from the University of (some big State) proves that you can survive on $15,000 a year and you are not spending the rest correctly. Yes, they get to use their standards for spending money correctly, not yours. So they confiscate $25,000 of your money. Seriously, would you feel screwed, or feel happy? Of course, the people already making $15,000 or less will see this as fair and vote for more of it.

See? A liberals tests for fairness depends on whether or not something affects them personally. Conservatives believe something unfair is unfair regardless of whom you are. Remember that the next time someone wonders: "Why do conservatives continue to vote against their own best interest?"

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

As we move toward that predictable stalemate…

Quote Paleo-con:Classic. It is okay to decide what someone else can live with, but unfair to decide what you can live with. Please don't miss my point. $1,000 was just an arbitrary number used as an example. Let us say you make $40,000 a year. Then the power of the Government bureaucrats decide that a study from the University of (some big State) proves that you can survive on $15,000 a year and you are not spending the rest correctly.
So Government bureaucrats under conservatives are smarter, because they decided that a study from some University of (Chicago-Milton Friedman) proves that all of society needs to be wagged by the tail of the needs of a few people who need $80 billion to live on? Who says who’s University of (some big State) study is better?

Quote Paleo-con:Yes, they get to use their standards for spending money correctly, not yours. So they confiscate $25,000 of your money. Seriously, would you feel screwed, or feel happy? Of course, the people already making $15,000 or less will see this as fair and vote for more of it.
Whose standards are we using now? We’re using the University of (some big State....U. of Chicago –Friedman’s, to propaganda mills Heritage’s, or CATO’s, or AEI, BRT, etc. etc.) standard now, which pretty much turns those standards over to those who need $80 billion to live on. And it works great – for them.

Quote Paleo-con:See? A liberals tests for fairness depends on whether or not something affects them personally. Conservatives believe something unfair is unfair regardless of whom you are. Remember that the next time someone wonders: "Why do conservatives continue to vote against their own best interest?"
I don't know if I understand this statement but I believe your logic works only if I am someone that makes $1,000, or $40,000. That means my reply would have applied to me. You really don't know if I am a liberal whose ideals "depends on whether or not something affects them personally. Maybe I make more than that, but I am speaking for someone that makes $1,000 or $40K. Who knows, maybe I'm a millionaire or billionaire that wants that $1,000 schluck to get a break and wants the Waltons to pay more. So that wouldn't make me a liberal whose "fairness depends on whether or not something affects them personally..." So it may or may not even affect me personally, that's an assumption on your part.

And shouldn't it be minimum wage folks who whine about the state of things and threaten to move? No, it's billoinaires and rich multinationals.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system