Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
D.A.M. -- Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear Al Franken answer those questions. We need to send him an email.
DAnneMarc -- I responded too fast to your last blog. I agree with you. I was only trying to express how terrified Jefferson was of accumulated wealth and its generational transfer. Did you know that the 1%percentile in wealth in the US is $12 million.
For entertainment's sake and to illustrate how non-linear this problem is I have a question for you. Do you think a $5M inheritance tax free with cost basis at time of inheritance is more fair than a $12M inheritance tax free with a cost basis of zero? Do think inheritance above the limit should be taxed as ordinary income or have its own special rate (I like 92%; Jefferson likes 100%)? All I can say is that the people (congressional staffers) who have to write the tax code must go crazy.
chuckle8: Starting in 1960, if minimum wage had kept up with workers producing more, the minimum wage would be $22 an hour today. Instead the missing $14.75 an hour has gone into the pockets of those complaining they pay too much business tax. The thought that they might be screwing their employees doesn't even cross their mind.
You too! Happy New Year!
And we are, Marc. Have a great weekend. - AIW
Sandlewould: It feels good, the days are finally moving back in the right direction, longer lasting light.
Regarding the future of global energy needs, and the threat resource shortage presents to all of us, my first thought is, why do we still have the combustible gas engine? I know, the obvious answer is because of big oil. But that said, the price of endless oil wars and climate change should have been more than enough to force the new paradigm you desire. In my opinion change hasn't occurred because of a capitalist system that allows a few to accumulate wealth way beyond the point at which it becomes a threat to our democracy. Private power has become stronger than the democratic state itself....the definition of fascism.
With their control of most of the wealth, the fascists have also gained almost total control of the media. This gives the corp. billionaires a strong pimp hand, and thus the Republican message of deregulation and austerity becomes the acceptable answer to voters who have no exposure to the truth. They watch Fox or maybe Meet the Press and see Rove's last minute lies on TV ads. This all stands in the way of a new paradigm you desire.
I want what you want Sandlewould, environmental sustainability, peace, liberty, good jobs ......true representative government can give us all of this. In my opinion, the Social Contract is a lost paradigm/ model of governance, that we need to reinstate. With citizens like yourself facilitating workshops on environmental sustainability and how it relates to economic truth, and thus how to vote accordingly, we can peacefully get there.
2950-10K ~ Oddly enough, I was asking myself the same question recently. It was during a televised town hall meeting with Senator Al Franken. I couldn't help but imagine that if I was in the audience and given the mike I would have asked, "So Al, now after some time being able to mingle with the other side, how would you describe the experience? Are there any saving graces at all in their character that you respect? Are they really the way they appear though their public statements? Is there more to what is going on then that which we observers perceive? Please tell?"
I would so like to hear the response from any of our decent legislators concerning that question. Inquiring minds what to know!
Aliceinwonderland ~ Like I said before, the cut off is negotiable. $1.5M sounds fine. Of course you realize that any amount will have to be adjusted over time due to deflation and inflation of the dollar. Hell, if the Grantor could not see fit to grant a greater amount during his lifetime to said heir, that says much about the situation, doesn't it? My simple philosophy is put the money where it will do the most good; encourage, don't discourage, poor or middle class people; and provide everyone a shot at upward mobility. Let everyone have a slice of the pie; and, like you said before, spend that taxable mega inheritance on free public education. That would be a fine way to start.
I personally know of several people who have decided that they don't want their personal fortunes to go to their own families for personal reasons. They would prefer to leave that money to charity. Two of my oldest friends decided long ago that that charity would be the National Animal Wildlife Federation. I see nothing wrong with any charity that betters the situation for humanity or the planet. If that estate is so huge that falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to decide that is fine. Just leave the 95% alone is all I ask; and, we are in full agreement.
DanneMarc: Sanders, Warren, Grayson, Schakowsky, Lee, Ellison, Defazio.....are just a few of the growing number of elected officials... who know what time it is. As you already so aptly put it.....they understand the yellow brick road and how to get us back to Kansas. Although I really don't know how they're able to put up with knuckleheads like Boehner, Cantor, Paul Ryan, Bachmann, Turtleman, not to mention all of the other Teabagger numbnuts. During discussions and debates I wonder how they're able to fight back openly laughing at all of the intermittent insanity?........It can't be easy.
I also agree with your propaganda machine assertion. Profit now almost totally trumps truth in reporting. The ultimate goal.....massive wealth for a few in place of liberty for the many...... our founders are weeping!
Marc, now you are making more sense. But I still think five million is too high to be at the low end of "excessive". I would bring it down much lower than that; like maybe between one and two million. Anything in excess of what can be reasonably expected to cover a comfortable, stable retirement should be taxed, in my opinion. If our tax system were the same as it was prior to Reagan's presidency, we might not even be having this conversation.
Let me repeat a point I made earlier: that with few exceptions, modest inheritances are not taxed. My husband and I were blessed with inheritences, from both sides of our family, and have not paid one thin dime of it to the IRS. So a situation such as Marc described, with $100K divided among four siblings, isn't even an issue. No one is proposing that such inheritances be taxed. - Aliceinwonderland
chuckle8 ~ Now we're talking apples and oranges. When I speak about wealth transfer it is in reference to the vast majority of Americans--the 99% if you will. You can even call it 95%. I am not talking about excessive wealth in the Billions of dollars. In fact, anything over $5M I could consider to be excessive. As I stated before, the 1% have to be treated specially. Now if you want to limit wealth transfer in that group to say $5M per heir then I agree. Tax the rest, it would be good for the heirs and good for the country. I just don't think you should tax regular citizens anything. Everyone should have the ability to climb the same tree that the Koch family did. This rule does not apply the people who occupy the top of the tree. There should always be room at the top.
I now see the gift giving of Christmas as the most important part of the ritual. It's akin to the potlatch, and I figure that, as currently practiced, it's a mere vestige of a redistribution of wealth that was conducted to make sure everyone could survive through winter. The feasting covers the food-related part.
I make the least money in my family, so I give little (but some) and receive much.
It turns out that the idea of low calorie intake leading to low metabolism leading to long lifespan goes back at least as far as the 1959 B movie The Killer Shrews. This sci-fi concept had very little to do with the plot, which was pretty much the same as Jurassic Park.
I happen to have found this out only because the movie was sent up by Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I watched it on DVD recently.
Marc (if is fun to change your name on each reply and you are such a good sport in responding) -- You say so many things that I enjoy responding to. Please do not give up on repeating yourself.
Too bad Brewster is not trying to get rid of that million today. With the electronic trading he probably could have got rid of that money in a few milliseconds. Of course, the repugs would probably bail him out.
Jefferson was pre-Emancipation, but he also was post "Emancipation". He was looking at 7000 years of Western Civilization. He was looking at Greek democracy and the Roman republic. He noted that the generational wealth transfer was the key cause of the demise of those societies in which the 99% had some power. This battle between the 1% and the 99% has gone on for that 7000 years and continues. The move to amend action is the 99% trying to get back the power they once had until the billionaires took it away. I was listening to the second hour of Thom's radio broadcast (on podcast) of Dec 11 today. Thom was reading from a 1949 article by Albert Einstein, an article which Thom had been unaware of until a caller earlier in the hour told him about it. Einstein describes how the 1% destroy a democracy.
Do you want me to describe to you how the wealth of the "Koch brothers" (inherited from Daddy Koch) very much determines the fortune of the Mexican gardener?
I just had a thought for messaging. Republicans call high taxes on rich people punishing success. I would call it punishing excess. Success is getting ahead in the race. Excess, is getting ahead and then building a wall blocking everyone else from competing.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Agreed!
Marc says "It is the 100K that if distributed amongst four siblings that is going to make the difference between four burger flippers and four professionals in the future." Fair enough, Marc, if all inheritances were so modest. But when it comes to inheritances involving millions or billions, this is where we part company. I would also like to add that if education was part of tax-supported infrastructure in this grrrreat country of ours, no one would be condemned to a lifetime of burger flipping, inheritance or no inheritance. - Aliceinwonderland
chuckle8 ~ Not at all! The truth of the matter is that I have already make my statement on the matter. In fact, I am at the point of repeating myself. I do not like to repeat myself. Therefore I am though. What more could I possibly state to support my statements that I have not already stated. This is a matter of upward mobility. I don't care about the Waltons or the Koch brothers adding to an already opulent fortune. Really, what is a Trillion Dollars compiled upon 45 Billion to anyone? Do you seriously think it is going to make them any stronger or right in their agenda? Do you really think it is going to make us any less formidable in ours? Face facts my friend, it means nothing. It is the $100K that if distributed amongst 4 siblings that is going to make the difference between 4 burger flippers and 4 professionals in the future.
chuckle8 ~ For the fourth time, yes I think Jefferson was wrong. At the time Jefferson made that observation--in the pre Emancipation Proclamation era--the statement held a different significance. Today, when we are on the verge of Vigorous Campaign Finance Reform, the statement holds no water whatsoever. Don't you realize that once Move to Amend and Campaign Finance Reform are enacted that regardless of whether you earn $25K/year or $60B/year, everyone will be a full fledged member of the ruling elite?
chuckle8 ~ All very good points. However, I must say that yes, the Walton family does need to do a lot of work to sustain its fortune. I'm sure you had a chance to check out the old movie "Brewster's Millions" with Eddie Murphy. Eddie (Brewster) was charged with spending several millions of dollars in a short period of time. It was very difficult. All he had to do was waste the money. That is nothing compared to having to maintain the money and make more money. The Walton's have there hands full. They have been successful by contemporary standards; yet, by humanitarian standards they have failed miserably. Hiring sociopaths to maintain a fortune is a very real outcome of such an inheritance... for what it is worth. Do you really think that anyone you hire when you are that wealthy is going to be trustworthy? If you cannot hold a short leash on your help at that level you are nothing more than a fool and his money; and, you know how that turned out...
Of course I agree that the Mexican gardener in LA works much harder; and, deserves much more respect! Therefore, when that gardener works extra hours and socks away extra money I don't believe that any of his savings should be used for anything else then his final wishes. If that Mexican gardener wants to spend his earned money to push his children into the law profession, the engineering profession, or the medical profession that should be left to the wishes of the worker and his family. In no respect should the fortune of a family like the Waltons or the Kochs in any way affect the inheritance of that Mexican gardner.
Have I made myself clear?
sandlewould -- You say there isn't enough energy. Does anyone know how many terawatts of energy would be produced by solar arrays on every roof in LA county? I know Thom said Germany, with hardly any sun, replaced 8 nuclear power plants by voluntary (but financially rewarding) homeowners putting solar arrays on their roofs.
D.A.M. -- Very well said and good food for thought.
10K -- The less obvious parallel (and perversely encouraging) is the Robber Baron era. Thom mentions from time to time that the median income in 1900 was $9000 adjusted for inflation (2008 timeframe). That is far worse than today and we recovered from it with a Republican President whose hand was somewhat forced by the 3rd party candidate Teddy Roosevelt.
D.A.M. -- The statement I disagree with the most is "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one". When I read that statement I just read, "I have run out of time and energy to find the facts that support my statements", If you say it that way, I can accept it. If I find the time and energy to find the facts to support my statements I will continue to harass (LOL) you with those facts, and even truthiness.
Do you think Jefferson was wrong that generational wealth transfer was the key factor in keeping a ruling elite (1%) in power?
Do you think the Walton family does a lot of work to sustain their financial empire? I think they just use all the inherited wealth to hire the best sociopaths to run their business. I think the Mexican gardener in LA works much harder.
Sandlewould ~ Agreed! Greed knows no satiety. Greed is spiritual sickness. There is no fulfillment through the worship of money. Therefore there is no amount of money that can bring contentment. The greedy few will push until the dam breaks. There is no doubt about that in my mind either. Also, most of us have known you are a woman for some time. From your thoughts I'd say a most fascinating woman at that.
Sandlewould ~ I must ask, have you every considered the substitution for fossil fuels with Hemp? I've stated the advantages of a Hemp based economy on this blog site:
http://thehempsolution.blogspot.com/
It seems to me that Hemp is the only natural solution that would sustain 7+ Billion people on our planet. Not only that, it would provide lucrative jobs for such people; and, most important of all for humanity, reverse the green house effect. Perhaps if you are not aware of the scientific aspects of Hemp, you are also not aware of the Biblical aspects as well. In the Bible, Hemp is described as the Tree of Life. The Herb bearing seed that God created so that Mankind may live...
Since this utopia is already foreseen in the literature of our own most dominant contemporary Religion, isn't it a promising and practical way to approach solving our greatest problems? After all, "...the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Perhaps violent revolution, permanent dependence on fossil fuels, or a massive die off is not necessary to resolve our problems? What do you think?
A very Happy New Year to you too!
DAnneMarc... I'm not bucking for destruction of the systam...just preperation for it's collapse and how to AVOID violence and destruction and how to reestablish a system that is far less and indeed hopefully un- , corruptable than the one we have now.
Happy New year to you...
Hey 2950,
Merry day after solstice...
First up, just to clarify if it matters, I'm not a guy...except in the generic sense...I am a woman.
I am in the process of putting together a workshop as to how we can approach this peacefully...not that I claim to have any answers. Revolution will happen violently if we DON’T figure out how to get to a new paradigm. Those in power will deprive the masses of resources until revolt erupts...my goal is to avoid that...unrealistic though it may be. The earth cannot sustain, and as of now without fossil fuels there isn’t enough energy, to grow the economy by providing jobs in the conventional sense to help 7 billion people achieve stability....UNLESS access to the basic needs for survival are no longer attached to income...perhaps. I respect your faith in the process of the current paradigm and while I hope I’m wrong in the near term, I can’t help thinking I’m not...at least when considering population growth curve over the last 100 years as compared to the previous 12000...all thanks to energy derived since 1900 from oil.
Happy New Year...I truly hope...