Collection of random comments from the blogs of a frustrated liberal.

LOWER TAXES on the RICH INCENTIVIZES GREED.

GREED, is the result of low taxes on the rich. For decades in America the tax rate on any earned income over $200,000 the equivalent of 2 million dollars today, was taxed at 90% the result CEO's would not take vulgar salaries knowing it would be taxes heavily.

GREED. 'In America the tax rate from 1934 till into the 1970's was 90% on any income over the equivalent of 2 million dollars a year in 2018 dollars.'
IT'S interesting to note from 1934 till January 1969 there was ONLY ONE PUBLICAN elected President of America. The left wing dominated politics for decades, especially under FDR. And that domination would have continued had John Kennedy not been assassinated.

GREED. What used to happen, CEO's knowing they would be taxed at 90% on income over the equivalent of two million dollars a year, would cycle the excess money back into the business, with better incomes for employees, health care, prescription drugs , generous paid holidays , pensions, even company cars, beautiful work facilities ANYWHERE but giving it to the tax man.

ALL that ended when the right wing conservatives did a huge snow job on the public, claiming lower taxes for the rich would TRICKLE DOWN which decades later turned out to be a total lie perpetrated on the workers.

Low taxes on the wealthy CEO's meant they no longer had to share that wealth , now thanks to the snow job the conservatives did on the public they could keep all for themselves.

YES low taxes on the wealthy meant they could keep it ALL ,they no longer had to look for ways of diverting all the wealth these companies created, no longer did they have to use employees salaries as a device to avoid the tax man, now these CEO'S did just the opposite, because now they could keep all that wealth with low taxes. These CEO'S started paying less and less to their employees, because now salaries were taking money out of the pockets of the bosses.

Of course the TRICKLE DOWN the greatest tax CON JOB of the twentieth century carried out by the REAGAN conservatives. The only thing that trickled down was all the good salaries of employees into the pockets of GREEDY CEO'S who now knowing with low taxes on their income they could keep it all for themselves. Employees became the obstacle of their cash grab, the result cutting staff, cutting salaries, cutting all frills paid employees. Work places became more Spartan and harsh as CEO'S knew every penny spent on the work place, was money out of their pockets. Employees became the necessary evil in the eyes of CEO'S .

Even company products suffered the greed of CEO'S, as all aspects of their business came under the scrutiny of the bosses, who now seen all aspects of their business as potential cash cows, including costs of creating their products. Now these CEO'S were looking for cheaper ways of making their products, that combined with stripping the work force to bare minimums , paying minimum incomes, cutting all employee frills, including all costs even safety, CEO'S knew that under these new LOW income tax rates, every penny saved would end up in their pockets. The employee hard fought incomes, safe work environments, unions became the impediment of CEO'S stripping bare their companies of all wealth.

In the 1950's US health care was not profit driven , greed was heavily taxed.The growth of the middle class reached the highest rates in the history. Democracy, the judiciary weren't under the attack by oligarchs. The tax rate was 90% on excessive wealth. Therefore it benefited NO ONE to be greedy, because that greed would end up in the tax mans hands and ultimately society to be used on infrastructure, including schools, roads hospitals which benefited us all.

Despite the right wing mistruths ,propaganda and outright lies, the real TRICKLE DOWN that stimulates economy growth is the spending of the working class, without whose spending and purchases, goods do not get bought and economies grind to a halt . Virtually every dollar earned by the working class gets spent and recycled back into the economy. That contrasted with the endless hoarding of the excessive wealth by the rich.

TODAY these rich American right wing conservatives are Cutting Seniors and Disabled from 'MEALS ON WHEELS' JUST to add a few miserly dollars to their wealth. An added wealth to these greedy that doesn't proportionately even amount to pennies on their income, YET they'd let seniors and disabled suffer just to keep these pennies, which in reality mean NOTHING to their total wealth. This is a SICKNESS beyond rational comprehension.

GREED of the American right wing conservatives are prepared to let tens of thousands of their own uninsured countrymen DIE yearly from treatable illness just to strengthen their bottom line take home income.

The GREED of these wealthy compels them to take millions of KIDS OFF HEALTH care coverage , some with life and death heart ailments others in the process of being treated for cancer , JUST to add a few more bucks to their year end incomes. This is despicable behavior , BUT the right wing crowd appear to applauding this outrages behavior.

Low employee wages, excessive accumulation of wealth by the greedy, the use of that wealth to distort society, income disparities ALL would go away if high taxes on any income over two million dollars a year were brought back .

Images

RANDOM RANTS from a FRUSTRATED LIBERAL

Comments

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 6 days ago
#1

Great wealth doesn't come from income, it comes from the rise in the value of an asset.

Bezos has never took a large salary, last year it was 81 grand. His wealth comes from the rise in the value of Amazon.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2 37 weeks 5 days ago
#2
Quote gumball:

Great wealth doesn't come from income, it comes from the rise in the value of an asset.

Bezos has never took a large salary, last year it was 81 grand. His wealth comes from the rise in the value of Amazon.

"...never taken" sweetheart. Your ignorance on display.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 4 days ago
#3

Also, for gumball, it seems that per recent studies, the most significant metric for the economy is economic inequality. Economic inequality causes all the problems that zapdam describes. If that inequality is caused by large income or great wealth it still causes the same problems.

Gumball, do ever ask yourself why in the past (pre-Reagan) why great increases in asset value did not cause such large economic inequality?

You should listen more to Thom if you blog on his website.

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 4 days ago
#4
Quote chuckle8:

Gumball, do ever ask yourself why in the past (pre-Reagan) why great increases in asset value did not cause such large economic inequality?

Trade policy. With globalization, high paid union workers in a relatively high regulation country have a hard time competing with low wage workers in a relatively low regulation country.

Also, skyrocketing compensation on the healthcare side held down compensation on the paycheck side.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 4 days ago
#5

In Dylan Ratigan's book "Greedy Bastards" he gives details of what that greed does. At the end of his book he ponders the differences in greed. He notices that pre-Reagan the greed was long term greed. That long term greed increased the size of the middle class. He did not realize (or at least point out) that the corporate world became short term greedy due to the tax code. Larry Beinhart correlates, in every such instance since the income tax started in the early 1900's (1914?), that low top tax rates hurt the economy as measured by GDP, the DOW, number of jobs and median wage. Larry is not even an economist. Like Thom he is brillant, politically aware and an author, "Wag the Dog".

On the wonky side, I would like to know how the French economist, Thomas Piketty, derived his optimal top tax rate. He believes the top tax rate should be 83%; why not 91% (FDR) or 78% (JFK).

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 4 days ago
#6

As I said, gumball you need to listen to Thom more. Globalization created the great economic inequality due to the lowering of tariffs. Of course, the tariffs were lowered by the oligarchs, like Bezos, buying congressional Republicans and all the presidents since Reagan. The high healthcare costs are due to the bought out Republicans making sure that medicare-for-all never happens. Even without medicare-for-all, the Republicans are drilling holes in Obamacare so insurance companies can make huge profits again. For example, Marco Rubio drilled the hole in the risk corridor feature of the ACA in December of 2015, so the Republicans could complain about the high cost of obamacare in October 2016 to win the election.

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 4 days ago
#7
Quote chuckle8:

Larry Beinhart correlates, in every such instance since the income tax started in the early 1900's (1914?), that low top tax rates hurt the economy as measured by GDP, the DOW, number of jobs and median wage.

Really, look at gdp growth since the 80's

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2 37 weeks 4 days ago
#8

"The rich get rich..." one way or another. What the hell will it take to get people riled up enough that they finally take to the streets to demand, as starters, a wealth tax and a severe limit on inheritance???

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/commander-in-thief/

January/February/March 2018

Commander in Thief

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 4 days ago
#9

Gumball if you do not want to slog through all my sentences, please just read the last one.

I could ask you, gumball, to read the book "Greenspan's Fraud" where he shows that the GDP decreased in the decade of the 80's vs the 70's. He mentions that there are external events that cloud the correlation between policy and GDP. Because those external events were occurring (the oil boycott), a decade averaging is a more reasonable way to determine the correlation between policy, like top tax rate, and the GDP. I could mention that the economist who came up with the GDP metric said never to use it as a measure of the economy. I could repeat the words of Thom who points out that tripling the national debt, like Reagan did, always gives a boost to the GDP. I could point out what Thom always says that when the Reagan top tax rate took effect, the biggest crash since the great depression occurred. I could spend time going to the link you provide (which I probably will after writing this response), but all those points are a distraction from what I was trying to say. The measure we should look at is economic inequality. Larry's metrics are easier to get than the distribution of wealth. Larry's metrics need to be taken together. Gumball you missed that point. If the GDP increased by a significant amount and the median wage remained stagnant, that seems to me to imply an increase in economic inequality.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 4 days ago
#10

Gumball, that link you provided must be right wing website. There seems to be no accounting for inflation.

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 4 days ago
#11
Quote chuckle8:

Gumball, that link you provided must be right wing website. There seems to be no accounting for inflation.

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

Here is an inflation adjusted table (2009 dollars)

Between the 35 year period of 1981 and 2016 GDP increased 10.26 trillion dollars.

Between the 35 year period of 1946 and 1981 GDP increased 4.63 Trillion dollars.

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 4 days ago
#12
Quote chuckle8:

As I said, gumball you need to listen to Thom more. Globalization created the great economic inequality due to the lowering of tariffs. Of course, the tariffs were lowered by the oligarchs, like Bezos, buying congressional Republicans and all the presidents since Reagan.

Yes, I know. That is why I stated globalization as the cause of stagnant wages. The crappy trade deals were done by the establishment of both parties.

Remember this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fi8OOAKuGQ

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 3 days ago
#13

Thanks for the link

Quote gumball:

Here is an inflation adjusted table (2009 dollars)

Between the 35 year period of 1981 and 2016 GDP increased 10.26 trillion dollars.

Between the 35 year period of 1946 and 1981 GDP increased 4.63 Trillion dollars.

Another way to look at the data is see how the policies of the New Deal compared to Reaganomics.

FDR took office in 1933 and his policies were driving our economy until the election of Ronnie. Ronnie's economics are driving us today. The key policies seem to me to be tariffs (as you point out), the top tax rate (as zapdam points out), trust busting (Sherman Act), and Buy American Act of 1933 (or 6).

From the table of the link

GDP increased 8.33 fold (47 years) during New Deal policies and 2.5 fold (35 years) during Reaganomics.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 3 days ago
#14
Quote gumball:The crappy trade deals were done by the establishment of both parties.

Thom has pointed out that every trade deal since the China MFN deal has been opposed by a majority of the democrats in congress.

What is meant by the establishment of a party?

zapdam.'s picture
zapdam. 37 weeks 3 days ago
#15

Love reading this stuff chuckle8 , keep it up, i learn something everyday.

zapdam.'s picture
zapdam. 37 weeks 3 days ago
#16

Wealth tax on any income per year over two million bucks at 90% and it would stop all the greed in its tracks. Like Thom pointed out everytime a republican wants to do whats right and not whats expected of him or her, they get threats of being primaried paid for some rich SOB , who'll bury the poor republican for stepping out of line.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 37 weeks 2 days ago
#17

zapdam - Thanks for the kind words and back at you. Thanks for providing all the details of how the top tax rate destroys us. I seem to never to have enough energy to provide a lot of details.

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 21 hours ago
#18
Quote chuckle8:

What is meant by the establishment of a party?

The Reagan/Bush people and the Clinton/Obama people.

gumball's picture
gumball 37 weeks 20 hours ago
#19
Quote chuckle8:

Thanks for the link

Quote gumball:

Here is an inflation adjusted table (2009 dollars)

Between the 35 year period of 1981 and 2016 GDP increased 10.26 trillion dollars.

Between the 35 year period of 1946 and 1981 GDP increased 4.63 Trillion dollars.

Another way to look at the data is see how the policies of the New Deal compared to Reaganomics.

FDR took office in 1933 and his policies were driving our economy until the election of Ronnie. Ronnie's economics are driving us today. The key policies seem to me to be tariffs (as you point out), the top tax rate (as zapdam points out), trust busting (Sherman Act), and Buy American Act of 1933 (or 6).

From the table of the link

GDP increased 8.33 fold (47 years) during New Deal policies and 2.5 fold (35 years) during Reaganomics.

Why did GDP continue to climb after the 80s?

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+gdp&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS779US779&oq=us+gd...

What is also interesting is tax collection as a percentage of GDP

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/taxrevenuepercentG...

Note when the post war high came.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 36 weeks 6 days ago
#20

Why do you keep bringing up the GDP when looking at the GDP alone misses the point?

I agree the tax collection chart is interesting, I think it is more interesting that when the top tax rate was cut from the JFK/LBJ level (78%?) to the Ronnie level (35%?), tax revenue from the top bracket tripled. Which correlated with the greatest crash since the republican depression of the 1930's.

gumball's picture
gumball 36 weeks 6 days ago
#21
Quote chuckle8:

I agree the tax collection chart is interesting, I think it is more interesting that when the top tax rate was cut from the JFK/LBJ level (78%?) to the Ronnie level (35%?), tax revenue from the top bracket tripled. Which correlated with the greatest crash since the republican depression of the 1930's.

Here are some more interesting numbers;

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax...

Note the average top total federal tax rate for the 1 percent in 1980 was 33.2 percent. In 2014 it was 34 percent.

Yet the top income tax at that time when Reagan came into office was 70 percent. In 2014 it was 39.6 percent. That just shows how meaningless tax rates are compared to all the complexity in the code that gives the accountants for the rich so much to work with.

gumball's picture
gumball 36 weeks 6 days ago
#22
Quote chuckle8:

Why do you keep bringing up the GDP when looking at the GDP alone misses the point?

GDP is the total production of goods and services in a nation, if the assertion is made that low top end taxes hurts economic growth then we need to look at GDP. When we do we can see that it does not.

It seems to me though that the discussion is really about wage stagnation and the primary driver of the stagnation; You believe the primary factor is top end tax rates.

I would submit that trade policy is the primary factor.

monday's picture
monday 36 weeks 3 days ago
#23

I agree. Isn't the point of contention here not the growth of GDP but how the benefits of that growth is distributed throughout society?

zapdam.'s picture
zapdam. 36 weeks 3 days ago
#24

Totally agree with you Monday. GDP is indicator of the performance of businesses and services and their market value based on their performance, the largest of course owned by the wealthiest, who Trump just rewarded with in excess of two billion dollars in tax cuts, including himself. So basically the GDP is a score card of just how well the weathy are doing , nothing more. Mcdonalds doubles it's business, that $7.50 worker sees no more money. Low taxes on the wealthy incentivizes greed and conversely high taxes put a stop to it.

zapdam.'s picture
zapdam. 36 weeks 2 days ago
#25

So much for the fraudulent trickle down BULL****. WALMART just laid off ten thousand workers.

https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-bonus-layoffs-ed187882b011/

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 35 weeks 4 days ago
#26

gumball, you said the following:

Quote gumball:You believe the primary factor is top end tax rates.

What I said was that when Reagan lowered the top tax rate the GDP decreased (I gave you references.) I would agree with you that our small tariffs have a stronger influence over wage stagnation.

Once again, my main objection, to what you are saying, is that it is myopic to look at a single metric (GDP). Larry Beinhart wrote a series of articles for Alternet suggesting a group of metrics that we should observe when evaluating an economic policy. Of course, the policy he was looking at was high taxes. The metrics he suggested were the GDP, the DOW, the number of jobs, and the median wage inflation adjusted. Based on this group of metrics a low top tax rate was damaging.

If I was being myopic (it is so seductive to a lazy mind like mine), I would chose economic inequality.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

The Thom Hartmann Program - Aug 30th 2018

It seems it's all racism, all the time w/the GOP...Neo-Nazi robocall hits Iowa on Molly Tibbett’s murder: “KILL THEM ALL. ” Richard Wolff drops by about the National Debt. Is it a disaster or an OK thing? Also - Trump & The National Enquirer - Is the Economy Here To Serve Us Or Are We Here to Serve the economy?