Profits are up to record highs. So what - you may well ask - are the corporations doing? They're decimating the work force. Consider this just for a minute:
When a corporation behaves this irresponsibly, it wrecks havoc on society. This is not merely my opinion in fact it's kind of a no-brainer. Call it Economics 101
A corporation that behaves this irresponsibly should be seized by the people. If you're honest with yourself, that's not such a revolutionary idea. Think about it for a minute or two. What would we do to a lone kook who was causing so much disruption within his community by means of arson, bombings etc. that his actions put hundreds - thousands - of his fellow citizens out of work? Again, this is another no-brainer - we'd throw him in prison.
Why should a corporation be allowed to take advantage of our free enterprise system for a period of years and then be allowed to dump the very workers that allowed it to accumulate its treasure? Especially when the treasure of which I speak comes out of the pockets of regular consumers who are adversely effected when they dump - like trash - their work force. Its very greed causes much disruption and heartache within the the local (and national) community.
And notice that I refer to this proverbial corporation as "it", not "he" or "she". I'm not sick enough to refer to a corporation as "a person".
When a corporation does so much damage to society, how come it cannot be legally seized by the state to keep it from committing further economic carnage?
Why is this allowed to occur?
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Getting a Grip
Tax the Rich!
by Michael I. Niman
It’s hard to organize a political movement in the age of one-minute news stories and seven-second sound bites. Reality is just too damned complex for our degraded communications culture. Vote for the politician with the flag and the baby, who will cut your taxes and buy you a new car. Stories about how casino capitalists empowered by neoconservative market deregulation took down the global economy with toxic assets, and how hegemonic market relationships shifted the pain of economic collapse to the poorest nations and people, resulting in accelerated patterns of upward wealth redistribution and the subsequent uptick in violent conflicts, just don’t fit into this news model.
It’s also difficult to propose realistic solutions to such problems when, on those rare occasions the news media actually does allow a dissident voice, they only get seven seconds of airtime or two lines of newsprint. But I think I’ve got the sound bite that addresses a fix for almost all of our social, economic and environmental problems: Tax the rich!”
It doesn’t take seven seconds to say. Perhaps two. And I can write it 13 times in two lines. Try it. Write it. Shout it. Tax the rich!
Though seemingly mind-numbingly simple, it’s a universal fix. Worried about how to pay for an economic stimulus plan—not a namby-pamby one that just bails out bankers, but one that would put Americans back to work? Just tax the rich. Worried about the deficit? Tax the rich! Want to rebuild our nation’s crumbling infrastructure? Tax the rich! How about creating green jobs and stimulating a green economy? Tax the rich! Want to guarantee each American child the right to a quality education and affordable college tuition? Tax the rich!
For our Tax the Rich coalition to work, it’s got to be a broad-based movement focusing on one and only one issue: taxing the rich. For or against abortion rights, marijuana legalization, nuclear power, gay marriage or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? It doesn’t matter, we all want to tax the rich. For or against New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws, California’s Three Strikes law, or Texas’s quest to jail everyone forever? It doesn’t matter. We can all agree that the $50,000-per-year bill to lock people up, whether we think they should be in jail or not, should be paid by taxing the rich,
For or against the War on Terror, the Drug War, the Afghanistan War or the Iraq War? We’ll have that argument someplace else. Right now we’re talking about taxing the rich. Right or wrong, someone has to pay the outstanding bill for these wars. Our current plan of borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia borders on economic treason. During World War II, we paid for the military by raising the maximum tax rate, paid only by the rich, to 94 percent. Hell, they’re the ones who profited from the war. And they’re the only ones who were able to both pay for the war and still have money left over to support their lavish lifestyles. So we taxed the rich.
This is a simple concept. Even 15 years after World War II ended, during the Republican Eisenhower administration, we kept their tax rate at 91 percent, so we could pay off the bills for that war, the Korean War, and the incubating Cold War.
Our current economic model essentially uses the tax system to take money from working- and middle-class people and redistribute it to the rich in the form of corporate welfare, tax-free loans and bailouts, and subsidies for building and operating the infrastructure the rich use in both making and keeping their money. Try this simple political theory on for size: The primary purpose of civil government is to protect private property. Want to squat an empty building, stay in your foreclosed home, or grow tomatoes and squash on the edge of some rich person’s estate? Taxpayer-funded police will enforce trespass laws and drag your butt off to a taxpayer-funded jail. I’m not arguing here for or against the concept of private property. I’m just saying the people who own most of our nation’s wealth should be the ones paying to protect their alleged rights to that ownership. This is conservative, libertarian economic philosophy: Tax the rich.
Want to print your own Swoosh shirts? Nike will have you arrested. Ditto for Disney and Mickey Mouse, or your beloved football team and its registered logo. See what happens when you offer your new Amber Swift album up for file-sharing, or try selling a homemade copy of Toy Story 3 on eBay. Taxpayers subsidize this government enforcement of intellectual property laws that benefit the rich, who take the biggest cut every time you hit the buy button on iTunes. Again, I’m not arguing here for or against intellectual property laws. Let’s keep our coalition broad. I think we can all agree, however, that if we have such laws, we should tax the rich to pay for their enforcement.
The taxpayer-funded criminal justice system, in addition to protecting the wealth and private property of the rich, also abets the rich in their chronic theft from the poor. If you stop paying the 28-percent interest on your credit card debt, or steal unaffordable medications from a drugstore, you’ll wind up in a taxpayer-funded court. If your mortgage adjusts upward to the point where you can no longer afford to pay it, you’ll wind up in taxpayer-funded court. Why not pay for these courts by taxing the rich?
The same principle holds true when we fight wars to protect property the rich claim to own, or to acquire resources the rich will soon own. And who should pay the bill for police to protect the estates of the rich, the banks the rich own, their Bentleys and their yachts? The reality is, if you steal from the poor, you will likely get away with it. If you steal from the rich, if you rob a bank, you will go to jail. So why not tax the rich to pay for this criminal justice system? They already seem to own it.
It also turns out that taxing the rich helps grow the economy. Again, the theory is painfully simple: Put money in the hands of rich people and they invest or spend it either abroad or on luxury goods that provide few jobs per dollar spent. Put money in the hands of the poor and they’ll immediately pump all of it back into the economy. If you want to stimulate the economy, take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The poor will just give it back to the rich anyway, but at least it will pass through a few middle-class hands on the way.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when we actually taxed the rich, we were able to build the interstate highway system, wage an expensive war, and fund a welfare state. Economic growth, stimulated heavily by government and poor people’s spending, allowed the “liberal” Kennedy and Johnson administrations to cut the tax rate for the rich by 21 percent, lowering their rate to 70 percent. Then greed got the better of America. Today’s top tax rate for individuals “earning” over $373,650, is 35 percent, while the rate on “unearned income” from passive investments is capped at 15 percent—which is 10 percent less than someone earning $34,000 per year would pay on their “earned” income.
We financed this historically unprecedented wealth transfer with deficit spending and cuts to government services. These cuts led to increases in public university tuitions, a plethora of fees and sales taxes, and local and state taxes, at the same time our public infrastructure began to decay and food, medical, and education assistance to the poorest Americans was cut. We didn’t cut any of the government services that protect the rich’s monopoly on wealth, however. The Great Society gave way to the McMansion when we stopped taxing the rich.
This stuff is simple, but you’d never know it since rich people own our media and our politicians. They’ve linguistically transformed their obligation to contribute to society by paying taxes into a “tax burden.” And likewise, they’ve bastardized the language to describe their endless campaign to pass the responsibility of paying off government debt to the middle class as “tax relief.” Call it what you will, those who reap most of the material benefits of our society should also shoulder most of the “burden.” So let’s tax the rich.
The corporate media also tell us that economics is far too complex for us to wrap our little working- and middle-class minds around. They even manufacture “think tanks” to lend a bought-and-paid- for academic veneer to their economic propaganda. But their “trickle-down” meme is even simpler than mine. Money we give to the rich will supposedly trickle down to the poor. After 30 years of this experiment, the data showing otherwise is overwhelming. But you’d never know this from reading, watching, or listening to the American media. They’ll say anything to avoid taxing the rich.
Let’s embrace a bit of complexity for a moment. When rich people in developed countries get tax cuts, their take-home income soars, leaving them with a surplus of money, which history has shown they will wildly and irresponsibly invest in speculative assets, creating various market “bubbles.” Then markets correct and these bubbles spectacularly burst, creating radical disruptions that crash economies. In the roaring 1920s, when the tax rates for the richest Americans decreased from 73 percent to 25 percent, the rich invested wildly, driving stock prices up to unsustainable levels. When that market corrected, it gave us the “Great Crash” of 1929 and the subsequent “Great Depression.” The next major crash came a few years after Reagan halved the maximum tax rates, creating another bubble-bust cycle. The ensuing years between these crashes, when taxes on the rich were in the 70 to 90 percent range, saw a historically unprecedented period of economic stability. Bush Senior held Reagan’s line on taxes, and the economy floundered. Bush Junior cut taxes further, and we got another bubble, followed by another big crash.
Get the picture? We can prevent this mayhem by taxing the rich.
When taxes are higher, income for working- and middle-class taxpayers also rises, even adjusted for inflation, since the labor market is modulated by real after-tax income. Inversely, when taxes are cut, real income for these same working people tends to drop. The opposite, however, has historically held true for the rich, whose income drops drastically when taxes rise, and rises at a similar rate when taxes are cut. Hence, they have a vested interest in keeping taxes low, while the rest of us have a vested interest in seeing taxes rise. The rich, however, can back up their interests with money, which they often invest in buying media organizations, which parrot their anti-tax mantras.
This is why the Founding Fathers warned against allowing a super-wealthy class to emerge, and until the late 19th century, even after adjusting income into today’s dollars, there were no billionaires. The fear was that such a class would have the financial resources to dominate a political system, rendering democracy obsolete. Political scientists point out that you cannot have both massive economic inequality and democracy.
The best way to prevent, or reverse, such inequality, and to salvage our democracy, is to tax the rich!
Of course our political class will not tax the rich for us. Politicians are deathly afraid that the rich will punish them. Our elections are little more than auction blocks where the rich can afford to sponsor candidates they like and destroy ones they don’t.
But why don’t we-the-people want to tax the rich? The bottom line is that we do want to tax the rich. Ask your friends. Who really doesn’t want to tax the rich? We just need to ignore the media messages that say we don’t.
Here’s a strategy for a broad-based Tax the Rich political movement. Call or email your representatives and tell them to tax the rich. Call them out when they refuse to tax the rich. Petition for ballot lines around the country for a Tax the Rich party, and endorse candidates with the strongest tax-the-rich commitments or track records, and oppose those who refuse to tax the rich.
It fits on buttons, bumper stickers, t-shirts, railroad bridges, abandoned buildings, and highway overpasses. You can work it into conversations. You can post it to your Facebook profile, Tweet it, shout it out your window, tattoo it on your arm. But we’ve got to get the message out loud and clear: Tax the damned rich!
Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Buffalo State College. His previous columns are at www.artvoice.com, archived at www.mediastudy.com, and available globally through syndication.
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
Tom Degan 09 Dec 2010, 07:39
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 09 Dec 2010, 10:24
If you tax the rich, we'll all be poor. They'll just go elsewhere, where their money and contributions will be treated better. Let EVERYONE have a chance to be as rich as they'd like; break all shackles off forever!
Professor Frink 09 Dec 2010, 14:41
Great article, Dr. Niman. We need to raise the tax rate back to 94% or around WWII levels. Reaganomics doesn't work. Unfortunately, this will not happen under most Democrats or Republicans. So many libs were high on Obama doing what he promised. Never happened. Why? He is just another corporate candidate, brought to you by Goldman Sachs and friends. End the wars? Ha! Close Guantanamo? Please. End Patriot Act intrusions on Civil Liberties? Not gonna happen. End tax cuts for the rich? Not on Barry's dime. A halfway decent public healthcare system that doesn't ration and doesn't benefit the insurance companies most? Gotta love Obamacare. One the other hand, It's hysterical watching conservatives praise and swoon over Reagan. The deficit ballooned on the guy's watch, and he's hailed as this great fiscal conservative. C'mon. Liberals need to stop being fooled by these corporate clowns. Same goes for conservatives. If you follow campain contributions during elections (Goldman), and watch who the candidates surround themselves with (Zbignew Bryzinski and Warren Buffett), you'll get a pretty good idea of what their policies will be like. One more thing - I find it appalling that the press fawns over these billionaires who choose to donate their money to "charity" or the U.N. Bill Gates, Buffett, Teddy Turner and others are just doing what the robber barons did 100 years ago. The money goes into some kind of trust tax free. They then collect interest on the principle and make bank - tax free. It's one of the oldest scams in the book. Why is this not being reported?
Professor Frink 09 Dec 2010, 14:45
One last thing - "Green" jobs are a scam and don't work. They decimated the economy of Spain. That's just a sad fact.
velociped jones 09 Dec 2010, 21:18
right on, brothers and sisters! let's put these parsites in their place one way or the other.
jhorn 10 Dec 2010, 02:14
from a leftie fool- gotta admit, i thought having a real live smart person who'd actually been something close to poor early in life was going to make a difference....and then the cabinet got appointed. an addition to professor frink's catalogue- remember when we we're going to "revisit" ALL the trade agreements?
Brian 11 Dec 2010, 12:16
G. K. Chesterton, conservative Catholic writer and thinker: "The rich are the scum of the earth in every country." Let them be taxed and confiscated, their factories and banks turned over to their workers, and their children invigilated in case of the plutocrat gene.
John E. Abeel, Esq. 11 Dec 2010, 14:57
Dr. Niman, I think if Atlas read your article, he'd not only shrug but he'd also give you the middle finger. You sound like the "Rent is Too Damn High Guy." You may want to stick to writing about "Media Studies," whatever that is. Your economic diatribe makes me embarrassed to say that I graduated from Buffalo State. Also I fear that some of your students might mistakenly believe that you know what you're talking about regarding economic issues. You see most of the "rich" in this country are like you and me, only they started a business, or created a new product, or a new service that others freely traded their money for because those others found it helpful. Most of these "rich" people took on tremendous risk and put in a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice to amass their wealth. In the process they bettered the lives of their customers with their businesses, services, investments, and products; in ways that government never could. Now if crooks were allowed to come along and steal 94% of the wealth generated by these activities, why would anyone take on the risk or go through the sacrifice and hard work of creating and running such a company? Most people wouldn't--and this reality of human nature is at the heart of the Capitalism v. Socialism debate. You see most people are not motivated by a need to help strangers at their own expense the way that you are Dr. Niman. Now I expect that you opted out of your State Pension plan, and that you give 94% of your annual income back to the government, right? But unlike you, most people are motivated by self interest for themselves, for their family, and for their friends. Capitalism harnesses this reality of human nature. Socialism ignores it. And that is why Socialism has always failed, while Capitalism with its free market systems has produced some of the highest standards of living per person in the history of the world. "Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." ~Abraham Lincoln
Peter A Reese 12 Dec 2010, 07:18
About time Niman caught up with me. I have been wearing my noncopyrighted "Class Warrior: Tax the Rich" t-shirt for three years now. Where you guys been?
Chris Willett 12 Dec 2010, 14:40
If our lawyer friend (see above) was right, the US economy never would have made it out of the post-war period. But alas, the very history Mr. Niman recounts proves Mr. Abeel wrong.
John E. Abeel, Esq. 12 Dec 2010, 15:35
Chris, Is the major premise to your argument that "All things done in the past are right?" Because I can think of lots of things done in the past that aren't right. Take slavery for example. That was done in the past. Do you believe slavery was right? And if the government confiscates 94% of my income, what's the difference between a slave and I? And let me ask you this Chris, do you believe in the Golden Rule? You know, "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Do you want others to take 94% of your annual income against your will Chris? Would you even go to work tomorrow if you knew that 94% of your earnings were going to be taken from you? I wouldn't. What happened to that other rule, you know: "Thou shall not steal." Putting aside the arguments about what is morally right Chris. Do you see a difference between WW II in which our very existence was threatened by the Third Reich from our current economic problems, which were created in large part by unsustainable governmental entitlement programs, pork barrel politics, and governmental intrusions into the marketplace? I do. Stop trying to punish success, hard work and innovation. Cut the liberal spending. And if you want to help, instead of trying to steal my fish to give to someone else, teach them how to fish instead.
saidan 12 Dec 2010, 17:22
The rich work hard for their money, if there are tax cuts for everyone, then everyone will feel like going out and buying more and we will thus stimulate the economy. People who are poor may have deserved it. If you drop out of school and get into a life of crime, then yeah you deserve being poor. What i am trying to say is that taxing the rich won't do good, but will only make the rich poor, or, for a better use of words, not want to spend their money. The fact is not everyone who makes over 250k is rich, i even consider it middle class.
Nick 12 Dec 2010, 21:30
So,John Abeel: The difference between a slave and you would be that 6%, for starters, and of course the fact that you're not being raped or beaten to death. If there was a 94% tax bracket that kicked in at say, $5 million a year, and I earned $5 million and paid 94% tax, that would leave me with over $300,000 cash-in-hand. I could live with that. A much more likely 75% max tax would leave me with one and a quarter million dollars in disposable after-tax income, per year. I could live with that too, especially knowing I'd be living in a more equitable society where people would have access to things like health care and education. I mean, really, John, how greedy can you be.
jhorn 13 Dec 2010, 03:33
esq.- assuming your post isn't satire, let's start with "And that is why Socialism has always failed".... have you informed those doomed scandinavians with their free health care, free college education, ridiculous vacation benefits, extended maternity leave, etc., etc.? asked these companies- nokia(finland), world's leader in cell phone technology; ikea(sweden), world's largest furniture retailer; novo nordisk(denmark), the leading company in diabetes care; statoil asa(norway), biggest offshore oil and gas company in the world- how their employees managed to create and innovate despite being handed "stolen fish" from cradle to grave? wondered how sas(scandinavian airlines) keeps their planes aloft despite 50% ownership by a government ignorant of "the reality of human nature"? now let's throw one more socialist country on the pile- america. as a self-interested, self-motivated, self-reliant capitalist untainted by socialism can we assume you've established and maintain the: abeel highway system, abeel police force, abeel fire department, abeel electrical grid, abeel gas pipeline, abeel sewage treatment plant, abeel water purification and supply plant, etc., etc.? and, of course, the little abeels have been home schooled and you've long since paid back those nys taxpayers that subsidized your fine buffalo state education. one last thought- you didn't get any of those ayn rand books you clearly treasure out of the (gasp!) public library, did you?
John Abeel 13 Dec 2010, 05:11
Nick do you think most people would pay their 94% or 75% taxes willingly? Or do you think they'd pay out of fear of being thrown in prison, where rape and beatings are pretty regular occurrences? Jhorn I don't dispute that government has legitimate functions, although I think there are a few on that list of yours that private enterprise could run better. But I think that people who are not completely physically or mentally disabled should pay their fair share towards those functions. And I do not believe that an attack on success or hard work is a fair or smart way to fund legitimate governmental functions. Food for thought: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates And I agree with you, it would be a great idea for you to move to Scandinavia. But before you go, you might want to read up on it. Here's a place to start: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 14 Dec 2010, 12:55
John Abeel to Chris Willett: "(I)f you want to help (our national economy), instead of trying to steal my fish to give to someone else, teach them how to fish instead." AMEN, Mr. Abeel. AMEN!! The old Japanese saying tells it best. GIVE someone a fish, he'll eat for a DAY. TEACH that person how to fish, and he'll eat FOREVER! See how easy, and how true, it is?
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 14 Dec 2010, 15:16
There is only one exception, in my book. Only one deserves to have his assets commandeered from him. That man is Ralph Wilson. All the years we've been giving our money, not merely tickets or merhcandise, but also tax money for whatever he has desired to have us accommodate his lousy, non-NFL-quality product. In his case, I'd gladly have his money and team taken from his hands, and put into the public domain. If this makes us like Venezuela or Cuba, if only for this one instance, *¡me encanta!*
Chris Willett 14 Dec 2010, 17:39
The comments following my original post have misrepresented my stance. In its entirety, my original post read, "If our lawyer friend (see above) was right, the US economy never would have made it out of the post-war period. But alas, the very history Mr. Niman recounts proves Mr. Abeel wrong." My statement is a response to Mr. Abeel's claim that income tax rates in the ninety-percent range extinguish a capitalist system by inhibiting people from engaging in activities (such as business start-ups and investments) that create wealth. Yet, as Mr. Niman recounted, the post-war period witnessed income tax rates that exceeded ninety percent, and the economy boomed. My point is that the situation is nowhere near as simple as Mr. Abeel claims. High taxes do not necessarily destroy capitalist systems. Now I must also knock down the straw man that Mr. Abeel and others have created: The idea of an income tax rate of "ninety-four percent." No one, not even Mr. Niman, has advocated such a plan. The context of this entire discussion is the recent deal reached by President Obama and Congressional Republicans guaranteeing a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. Failing to extend those cuts (something that I, presumably along with Mr. Niman, support) would lead to an increase in the top income tax bracket from 35% to 39.6% [1]. To reach the fantasy numbers required for his outrage, Mr. Abeel would need to nearly triple the real ones. It is also important to realize that the bracket rates are not the effective rates. Numerous exemptions and credits ensure that not all income is taxable. More importantly, the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, great sources of wealth for many of the richest Americans, is a mere 15% [2]. That is why Ben Stein can write that the current tax code favors the wealthy: "Warren Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office" [3]. Given all of these facts, why did Republicans and Tea Partiers vilify Mr. Obama's original plan to restore taxes to Clinton-era levels as a "socialist takeover?" To quote Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" To address the moral claims made by Mr. Abeel in his December 12 response, I do not believe that taxes are theft. Taxes are a method by which a society purchases needed goods and services, such as national defense, border security, law enforcement, infrastructure, economic regulation, and organized governance. The existence of countless different interests in a democracy ensures that not everyone will agree with the use of every penny he pays in taxes. Mr. Abeel objects to the use of his taxes for entitlement programs; I object to the use of my taxes for unjustified warfare. That is why we exercise the vote and the right to free expression – to advocate for our respective ideological preferences. Mr. Abeel and Mr. Marshall cite the well known "fish analogy" to argue against entitlement programs. Although offering a nugget of wisdom concerning the dangers of dependency and the empowering effects of education, it cannot be used to oversimplify the complex issue of socio-economic disparities in America. Issues of wealth and poverty cannot be drawn neatly into the black-and-white dichotomies favored by many conservatives: Thousands of poor rural and urban schools have failed to provide the lessons required for students to "fish" in a global, information-based, service-dominated economy. And even though "[corporate] profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history," unemployment remains high, meaning that there are no fish for millions of Americans to catch [4]. Until and unless we address these key issues, eliminating entitlement programs (a key, repeatedly stated objective of conservatives) means leaving millions of our fellow citizens without access to adequate food, shelter, and health care. Where is your Golden Rule now, Mr. Abeel? [1] The Washington Post. 2010-12-08. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/comparing-the-tax-plans/ [2] The New York Times. 2010-12-06. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/us/politics/07cong.html [3] The New York Times. 2006-11-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html [4] The New York Times. 2010-11-23. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 14 Dec 2010, 18:02
Chris, just let things run the way they more or less deserve to; it all works out in the end.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 14 Dec 2010, 18:06
One more exception, come to think of it. Tom Golisano deserves to have his lackluster excuse for an NHL team, not to mention his billions of dollars, commandeered from HIS grasp as well!
jhorn 14 Dec 2010, 23:27
lloyd- two down, so many to go. step gingerly, or soon you'll be raving about the "undeserving rich" and they'll take away your tea party merit badges. chris w.- great effort, hope you're not expecting anything on point in return.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 15 Dec 2010, 07:20
JHorn: Messrs. Wilson and Golisano are the only two exceptions to this. They put out lousy products and claim to be doing us a favor. I say take their money and sports fanchises from them and put it into THE PEOPLE'S hands who actually GIVE A DARN about seeing a WINNER! As for Chris W... he doesn't need to expect anything "on point" in return; his rantings have NO point!
Chris Willett 15 Dec 2010, 12:09
Thanks jhorn. Mr. Marshall's Tea Party credentials are already long gone: He has now twice advocated for a totalitarian confiscation of private property from two wealthy individuals for a vaguely-defined public good. He complains that these individuals "put out lousy products." As a capitalist, I can only respond with the following: Buyer beware.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 15 Dec 2010, 12:29
C. Willett begins: "Mr. Marshall's Tea Party credentials are already..." And I finish: "...beyond reproach. They are so impeccable, it's a wonder not too many are like himself." Thanks, Mr. Willett; glad to pick up the slack.
Jason 15 Dec 2010, 14:05
One way or another, all of us either work for rich people, sell to rich people, or buy products from rich people. If we tax the hell out of them, they will pass that on, or move to another country (as history has proven), or stop investing because it just isnt worth it. Throughout much of history, economics was nearly zero-sum. That is, to make the king rich, you must steal the wealth of the peasants by force. In a modern capitalist system (but, not a corporatist, fascist, or socialist system) one can only get richer by providing a product that consumers value more than the money in their pockets. This enriches everyone as more, better, cheaper products are produced. In a true free market, deflation (the good kind) makes goods cheaper and your dollar goes much further. Governments are good at taking and destroying wealth. Most of the money for social services is consumed within the system itself, instead of reaching the people it was intended for. Let the people, rich poor or middle class, keep what they earn. To deny one the fruits of his labor (or investment for that matter) is not only immoral, it is a recipe for disaster as every system that has tried it for extended periods has failed.
Jason 15 Dec 2010, 14:18
"This is conservative, libertarian economic philosophy: Tax the rich." Bull.
Chuck Culhane 15 Dec 2010, 15:03
My late brother Paddy used to talk about the noveau poor. He resigned from a good job at an airline when Ican or Icon took over and slashed salaries; had he worked one more year he would have, among other benefits, been able to fly practically for free anywhere in the world, anytime, and if married his spouse would have enjoyed the same benefit. He never married but while he worked there my mother was able to benefit from the travel bonus. He resigned from the airline becuase he had principles and a sense of fairness and it stuck in his craw that some bozo with a billion bucks could come along and say, "We're cutting your salary by 20%," or whatever it was. He found work as an ironworker, broke his ass for years and had to fight to get a piddling pension of 300 dollars a month out of them. The concept of the noveau poor, he would explain, is that you work hard but you don't let them kill you or kill your spirit, and with heavy grinding work you put as many months in as you need to qualify for unemployment benefits, enough to lease a car, buy food, and share a mortgage with our Mom and brother on a house in Florida. He died of prostate cancer at the age of 62 because the noveau poor budget, unfortunately, couldn't cover such luxuries as a routine medical exam. Tax the rich? That train left the station a long time ago. Franz Fanon wrote that where you find great disparities in wealth, there you find oppression. Oppression lasts only as long as the oppressed choose to bear it. When democratic and equitable processes are subsumed by corporate imperatives, some folks are going to have a real problem defending the indefensible. Good luck to them, the masters of Wall Street and builders of big walls; they'll need luck because there's some things greater than money, greater than guns and bombs, greater than greed and arrogance. And that be, in a nutshell, people, like my brother, people who aren't fooled forever. Have a blessed holiday; don't take any wooden nickles.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 15 Dec 2010, 15:09
People need to be left to be the masters of their own destiny. This isn't Cuba or Venezuela, where Big Brother does it all for you, à la McDonald's.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 15 Dec 2010, 22:22
One more thing... In Erie County, Commonwealth of Niagara, we're having the same "tax-raising" issue with the cultural groupls wanting their piece of funding. Thankfully, Chris Collins' vetoes were upheld. In a community that has only seen its population decline and decline, ANY kind of tax hike is unconscionable and irresponsible! Just stick with the basic needs that are vital to the health and safety of the community. When households and businesses come upon hard times, they curtail, or cut out altogether, certain things. Government should ALSO face this same reality of life. Last I checked, government is supposed to REFLECT us... not work against us!
Jamie WL 17 Dec 2010, 23:21
.....OR we could jusk ask, no, DEMAND that the gov't spend the taxpayers money more responsibley? Maybe we should allow people to be rich, and allow people to be poor? Yes, all children should have access to a GREAT educational system. It's the leading road to a successful future, ALONG with a stable homelife, and the drive, the desire, to do the best one can do. What incentive do I have to live beyond mediocrity if I know the gov't will bail me out if my income level falls under a certain line? Um, also, what about taxation without representation? I left NY State, because my taxes were going through the roof, but the quality/standards of life weren't being improved. Um, HELLO???!!!!! Did you know that the upper 5% of money-makers pay 90% of our taxes? That's why so many wealthy people are leaving areas of high taxes and/or finding ways to hide the money that they EARNED!!! I should have the FREEDOM to make as much, or as little, as I CHOOSE to make! What happens when we've taxed the rich to death? When all of their money is exhausted, but the many problems in our nation aren't solved? Then what? Then we will have chaos. Then we'll have a revolt, a war, so ugly, none of us can fully comprehend the ramifications of the already irresponsible spending of our gov't. And you want to make it WORSE???!!!! "The problem with Socialism, is eventually, you run out of other people's money." Taxing the rich is lazy, it is wrong, it does not reflect the principles this country was founded on. I am a very giving, loving person. I donate to charities, because that is my CHOICE! Feels a hell of a lot better than being FORCED to hand over my money for things I may or may not agree with. Charities = yes. Gov't programs = no.
Chuck Culhane 18 Dec 2010, 08:09
"What incentive do I have to live beyond mediocrity if I know the gov't will bail me out if my income level falls under a certain line?" Jamie wrote. Let's assume we're not talking about some single-parent family of three or four, a mother driving a school bus or a crossing guard making peanuts, and also doing hair grooming and such at home to supplement money needed to buy some decent clothes at Good Will, and food, and the basics. No, let's talk about Banks dealing in junk bonds and default swaps, etc., because they surely fit the description of who knows "the gov't will bail me out." In fact they who caused the recent ongoing crisis got bailed out. Could it be that these huge vastly wealthy banks and their cousins, the corporations, suffer because they pay "90% of our taxes"? I don't doubt that you're a "very giving, loving person," but I'm hearing a reflexive defense of capitalism. As for the principles this country was founded on...don't forget the genocide and the slavery and the residual forms that even today push real people and dreams into a meat grinder. Capitalism, as state religion to which many bow and make obeisance, may well be the repository of the false idols the early prophets warned us about. Do you doubt that staunch capitalists put money before love? In modern parlance, the cart before the hobbled horse, maybe the dead horse. In any event,don't lose your charitable way in these dark times. Peace to you and yours, and real prosperity; and not so much the American Way but the human way. Or is that hoping for too much?
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 18 Dec 2010, 18:23
@Chuck: Let's forget about nuances. The one fundamental fact is that we live in a country where each one is supposed to be FREE. Free to live their lives according to the dictates of their consciences. Free to pursue their dreams and ambitions without unwanted intrusion. Free to decide for themselves how their earned and well-acquired resources are doled out. Last I checked, this is NOT Castro's Cuba, Chavez's Venezuela, Ceauscescu's Romania, or Hitler's Germany! Remember: it's not charity if such *giving* is under duress.
Chris Willett 18 Dec 2010, 19:59
"Let's forget about nuances." - Lloyd Marshall, Jr. Ah, the refuge of conservatives - black and white dichotomies. As I explained above, the world isn't that simple. The redistribution of wealth is what governments do: I don't want my tax dollars enriching private contractors murdering civilians in Iraq. I don't want my tax dollars paying for our senators and representatives to spend most of their time in their home districts posing for photo ops and running for re-election. I don't want my tax dollars paid out in farm subsidies to the very people who claim to despise welfare programs. But this is a democracy, in which many interests are given a voice, so I grow up and deal with it. I may advocate and vote according to my beliefs, but I refuse to run around making wild, unfounded accusations ("Castro, Chavez, Hitler, Oh My!") or try to dumb everything down into a soundbite-friendly good versus evil dichotomy that serves no purpose when discussing issues that are inherently complex.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 18 Dec 2010, 21:18
From C. Willett: "I refuse to... simplify everything into a good versus evil dichotomy that serves no purpose when discussing issues that are inherently complex." The real problem is that liberals like yourself, Mr. Willett, have ignored the simple answers; that's why things have become complex.
Chuck Culhane 19 Dec 2010, 23:44
@Lloyd: Nuances as in let's not fog up the issues with facts? There is a difference between being simple and being a simpleton. And who are you, Jamie's white knight? Let who will take a position defend their position. But even as an ally or surrogate you contribute little or nothing to a meaningful debate, unless you think tossing around tired cliches counts as something. Dr. Niman is usually right on target with his observations and analysis. You should spend more time enjoying your "earned and well-acquired resources" and less time flaunting your ideological bankruptcy. Gabeesh? Or is that too complex?
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 21 Dec 2010, 07:18
I know that you, Chuck, should spend more time enjoying YOUR "earned and well-acquired resources" and less time flaunting YOUR ideological bankruptcy; what about ME? And ai also see that you, Chuck, tend to contribute little or nothing to a meaningful debate, so what about me?
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 21 Dec 2010, 07:21
When "giving" is done through threats of imprisonment (or other infringement on fundamental freedoms) for not following along, it's called extortion... or do people not understand that?
Chuck Culhane 21 Dec 2010, 10:14
I enjoy every day, and I don't whine about the poor having it too easy and the rich being put upon by big bad government. You can't see the forest for all the green stuff; stick with your stocks and Fox news, they'll get you somewhere. Have a great holiday. Class dismissed.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 21 Dec 2010, 18:42
Chuck, please learn a little something... The Constitution's Preamble says it was written "in order to PROVIDE for the COMMON DEFENCE, PROMOTE the GENERAL WELFARE..." Today, it seems that too many confuse the terms PROVIDE and PROMOTE. To PROMOTE means that you give moral or ethical support, and even vocal support. It DOESN'T necessarily imply having to give materially in order for A, B, or C to happen. To PROVIDE, OTOH, means that one HAS to give materially for something to happen. When this country was founded, the founders knew that we all needed to be protected from those who would harm our freedoms. That's why they so wonderfully stated that "we will provide for the defence of the nation." They also knew that there was a balance between NEEDS and WANTS. Thus, why do some in government believe we need to fund "arts and culturals," and other things we may not agree with? Should that not be left up to those who ACTUALLY want them to be supported? That's why we have the Oshei Foundation, the Grange, Salvation Army, and other charitable groups that have the money to support things that aren't on the public "needs" agenda. Then again, buy a ticket yourself! Make SOME voluntary contribution, if you're so inclined! The Constitution, however, does not give YOU the right to MY money for things I may not agree with. If you want the culturals supported, contribute to your heart's content; don't look for my help with your altruism, however.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 21 Dec 2010, 18:48
One other thing... I am nowhere near "rich" myself. However, if I want to work and save my money and be rich someday, should that not be MY right? Should that not be MY choice? Should I not be free to decide how MY money gets used? This is America... not Castro's Cuba, not Kim-Jong-Il's North Korea, not Hitler's Germany, not Stalin's Russia, not Mao's China, and MOST CERTAINLY NOT Chavez's Venezuela! I know... you'll try to mock my "not a socialist nation" maxim as "the 'black and white' refuge of conservatives." Guess what? It's merely stating an obvious TRUTH!
Chris Willett 21 Dec 2010, 22:04
"The Constitution, however, does not give YOU the right to MY money for things I may not agree with." Mr. Marshall, how many times are you going to miss the same point? By your contorted logic, I could stop paying my taxes right now because I don't agree with the bailout of the financial industry, the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq, or a whole host of other government programs to which my tax dollars contribute. Your bizarre claim that the US Constitution backs such a notion only underscores your seemingly complete lack of understanding concerning how democratic societies operate - through the will of the populace. What you seem to desire is total, unrestricted liberty, i.e. anarchy - a system in which you're not required to contribute to any government function that you don't find personally compelling or beneficial. Have you ever stopped to imagine what society would look like if individuals could withhold their taxes every time the government did something that they didn't like? We understand that you want to whine about socialism (even while living in a capitalist society with one of the least regulated economies in the industrialized world). But to imply that an increase in the top income tax bracket from 35% to 39.6% (the context of this entire discussion) makes the US akin to the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Chavez is not good argument - it's hyperbole to the extreme and it only serves to diminish your credibility in this debate.
Chuck Culhane 21 Dec 2010, 23:01
I can't argue with capitalized TRUTH! As for the "culturals," the constituents of culture such as education, religion,the arts, etc.,are deserving of support; public education with state funding, religion by its own members, and the arts by both public and private sponsors. If we didn't spend tons of money on less than useless war machines, and prisons galore, there'd be plenty of money to help not only the big museums, musical entities and theatrical companies but fledgling artists and smaller groups currently scrabbling for survival. Altruism has nothing to do with my point of view, but common sense my friend, of which I'm afraid you've been short-changed. That's not an attempt at mocking you, but maybe a hard truth you'll have to discover for yourself. Good luck in your pursuit of money and the American Dream. You're going to need it. As for all those "bad" guys you mentioned, you omitted George Bush, a war criminal; and I haven't heard of Cuba or Venezuela trespassing on other nations, or waging genocidal war against nations (Vietnam, Iraq) a tenth of the size of our country.
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 22 Dec 2010, 12:52
"I could stop paying my taxes right now because I don't agree with the bailout of the financial industry, the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq, or a whole host of other government programs to which my tax dollars contribute... Have you ever stopped to imagine what society would look like if individuals could withhold their taxes every time the government did something that they didn't like?" The above works well in private enterprise... people withhold their money from entities that don't function as they should (or that otherwise don't do right by those supporting them), so why not try this in government? After all, those in government work for US... at OUR pleasure! That needs to be remembered ALWAYS! Maybe if they put out forms asking, "What do YOU want YOUR taxes supporting?", they would be able to stick with those things necessary for the whole of the nation, and weed out those things that don't serve too well. Works for me, and it can work for you also.
Chuck Culhane 22 Dec 2010, 15:41
I can't think, I'm exhausted. Could be we're more in agreement than not. Have to zzzz -- enjoy the holidays/ Peace, Chuck Culhane
Sandy Staats 22 Dec 2010, 21:32
Your theory is interesting, but you forgot to think about what the rich do when taxed too much. They employ less, charge more, and pass it back on the poor, and then nobody works and we all pay to keep them. A productive society works.
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v9n49 (Winter Food Issue, week of Thursday December 9) > Tax the Rich! This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |