We need to tax the rich and spend the money properly. .

[hedgehog]

Money is only a means of distributing the accumulated wealth of the nation. Our economy works best when the money is kept moving and is fairly reasonably distributed. To have a single person accumulating millions or billions of dollars is akin to having a backed-up sewer pipe. All too often, what money is spent goes to degrade the overall environment on such projects as building a huge mansion in an undeveloped area. It's far better to tax such an excessive accumulation and use the money for the general welfare such as spending on education, housing, transportation, recreation, libraries, parks, etc.

Go to it with your comments.

[wordpix]

1. you're right---how many rooms can one occupy all at once?

The McMansions have got to go---but local land use commissions and state environmental protection agencies are loathe to put limits on development b/c they'll be sued by the very rich property owners or developers wanting the development and most towns---and many states--- cannot afford to be sued.

Take it from one who's fought development locally for decades. This is so sad but true.

My hope is that the super rich energy, development and other corporate heads who are conspiring with BushCo to get rich quick while weakening or eliminating environmental laws will be brought to justice. Court settlement funds should be returned to the public Treasury from which the war and energy profiteers profited.

[4morewars]

2. The things that will destroy us...

"The things that will destroy us are:
politics without principle;
pleasure without conscience;
wealth without work;
knowledge without character;
business without morality;
science without humanity;
and worship without sacrifice."

~Gandhi~

We have ALL these things in the USA, and the results are evident.

[CrispyQ]

5. I had not read that before. So true.

Thanks.

[MikeNearMcChord]

3. No argument here and

I agree, it seems to me that the very rich, have not been pulling their weight since at least the 80's. We also need to increase the tax burden on coroporations. Plus eliminate the privatising of our "commons" like roads. I don't want some company from Spain or Australia controlling state highways.

[LSK]

4. but but but what about the megayacht industry?!?!

Think of all those unsold 500 foot private ships!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[hedgehog]

6. I think we do need to take a closer look at the 500ft private ships.

We may be surprised to find that they are well within the reach of someone whose annual income is a paltry million dollars a year. I think there is serious harm done to our entire economy by the fact that the few at the very top top income levels control so much money. The top 1% would consist of 3 million people. How many multi billionaires do we need?

[PaganPreacher]

7. Unintended consequences...

Who builds those "500 foot private ships"?
American steelworkers, welders, pipefitters, electricians, carpenters and woodworkers, electronics engineers, machinists, and engine/turbine mechanics.

What do those people have in common?
They belong to labor unions.

What do labor unions have in common?
They are among the largest financial supporters of the Democratic Party, using union dues to support Democratic candidates and issues.

The manufacture of ships and boats ultimately leads to financial support of the Democratic Party. Policies of confiscatory taxation will ultimately lead to reduced campaign dollars for Democrats.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[hedgehog]

8. It's my gut feeling that this extreme concentration of wealth in a few

hands is harmful to the rest of us. It's not a matter of confiscatory taxation but more a matter of restoring balance to the economic system. Thirty years ago it was still a hard sell to convince everyone that no one had the right to pollute the water and air that are held in common by all. I'm suggesting that hoarding wealth on this scale damages the entire economy.

[PaganPreacher]

9. Major flaw: No economic system is "balanced".

"Balance" does not, and indeed cannot, exist within an economic system. The act of commerce generates "imbalance", measured as profit or loss. If I pay you a dollar for a cup of coffee, the economic system becomes unbalanced; if you give me that same cup of coffee, the economic system unbalances in the opposite direction.

As I stated in my previous post, the most conspicuous big-ticket items purchased by the wealthy, yachts, are manufactured by union laborers. Remove the ability to purchase them, and union workers will lose their jobs. If union members become unemployed, the unions will lose dues, and will have less money to contribute to Democrats. The inescapeable conclusion is, increased yacht sales leads to more money for the Democratic Party.

The Pagan Preacher
I make so much sense, it even scares me sometimes!

[justice1]

10. California missed an opportunity to create union jobs.

Instead of amnesty for a $200,000,000.00 tax bill, the state should have required the tax avoiding billionaire to purchase a yacht.

[salin]

13. Far more complicated... the model you describe (per the yachts) was

how the economy was primarily fueled in the 20s - as if BIG TICKET items for the few would trickle enough $ down to run the economy. Look instead into the post-WWII era where the GI Bill led to an expansion of higher education (for the many) and an explosion in the *affordable* housing markets, and were the factories were paying decent wages and consumerism (cheaper ticket items - but for the many) fueled the economy. I believe that our economy has done better in times where there was more broad based consumerism (that is smaller ticket items) rather than extreme income disparities in which the very wealthy buying big ticket items 'fuel' the economy. Frankly there just aren't enough people who can buy those yachts to keep yacht sales and "all those jobs" (since it is a limited slice of the economy - it also isn't that many jobs) - to go on indefinitely.

Granted, in the era of multinationals outsourcing jobs and moving factories off shore - the earlier model I described per the post war era, doesn't quite work - as the consumerism of the many - no longer would equal more domestic manufacturing and thus fueling more middle class jobs. Only if fuel and transportation costs of moving goods (say from China to the US) gets so high will we see a new growth of domestic (regional) manufacturing. Back in 1992 frmr Senator Tsongas, running for the presidential nomination for the Dems, spoke of the need for greater levels of investment in our domestic industrial/manufacturing sectors as a means for rebuilding and stoking the economic engines of our country. I think he was correct - and the situation has seriously deteriorated in the past 14 years since he pushed that agenda. Don't know how we get back to it - but a broader based middle class and re-increasing the ability for upward mobility between the working and middle class is a much sounder means for ensuring that the union worker and boat builder (think less expensive/more affordable models that lead to much greater over all sales and numbers of jobs) would do more for keeping those Union jobs in place.

[PaganPreacher]

18. I agree with your point, salin, but it is not opposing to mine.

I was not describing a macro-economy. In response to the specific statement about shipbuilding for private ownership, I limited my point to that particular part of the economy. Corporate contributors, which are more likely to contribute to the Republican Party, make more of their money from offshore industries. I make the point that protecting existing union jobs in the US is more important for the Democratic Party's financial position, and overtaxing the people who reinvest and spend their money in our economy will damage the Democratic Party's finances.

Sen. Tsongas caled it right- increasing investment in American industry was, and is, important. The mechanism of that investment is private, and confiscatory taxation will reduce the amount of money available to reinvest in American manufacturing.

So, the question becomes: If the US increases taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, will the number of manufacturing jobs in the US increase or decrease?

The Pagan Preacher
Laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer.

[salin]

21. It would depend upon the size and nature of said taxes.

Targeted hikes - with incentives (breaks/cuts/etc.) for specific type of domestic investment. Ala the "targetted tax cuts" in the Clinton era - but now we have to reverse the perverse economics (deficits, increased income inequality, and shrinking investment in necessary infrastructure) so it would have to be tax increases with targetted breaks (or lack of hikes? don't have the correct terminology.)

Thanks for the explanation per the particular microeconomy.

[Tactical Progressive]

24. You have a very narrow view of economics

Isolating something, like yacht-building or Faberge egg-making, will certainly yield economic movement, but that isolation ignores, for want of a better term, macro opportunity costs. If (the equivalent economic force of) that yacht building industry was making cans of corn instead of yachts, everyone in the country could be fed. An equivalent economic force to those workers would still be bringing in paychecks, contributing to labor unions, buying stuff, etc, but everyone would be fed instead of a few rich people spending a few days a year on their sumptuous seafaring extravagance or looking at their Faberges. The balance is much more broadly beneficial to society.

I could use your isolation logic to prove that everybody's earnings, yours included, should go directly into my bank account. You wouldn't believe the amount of stuff I'd buy, and the number of jobs that that would create. Trillions of dollars in jobs, literally, building homes, cars, jets, yachts, private golf courses, a few vacation castles maybe, for me and mine. What a capitalistic boon. So very much trickle-down too, it would take too long to list it all. That's your argument taken to one extreme. Proof that a tremendous number of jobs would be created that otherwise wouldn't. I make your case. See how meaningless that is?

Now, say the poorest of the poor can't afford the corn, ie not enough monetary demand. Nothing to offer in return. Too weak to even work. Too bad, then goverment steps in and pays for the corn through taxes. Rich people still shell out ten million dollars, only now in additional taxes for corn making instead of in discretionary outlays for their extreme luxury. That is government's job, to create a balance between moral and just economics and the capitalistic drive for self-interest in all of us.

Of course, the false dichotomy of the yachting industry become corn-providers is silly. A ship engineer isn't going to start making corn vats. She doesn't want to do that and she shouldn't have to. She should be able to design yachts and I want her to do that. This isn't about trading in one industry for something more broadly functional for society. Nor is it about making yacht-buyers buy all the corn for the underfed. It is about balancing resources and basic needs though, so that if the incomes of those prospective yacht-buyers are taxed more progressively, the equilibrium in society shifts into more broadly useful things, 950 people, say can only afford yachts this year instead of 1000, and twenty million families have insufficient nutrition instead of twenty-one million. The seven, presumably least efficient, yacht designers go out of business, while two new corn-processing plants are invested.

That's economics. Not the kind of jingoistic 'rich people create jobs' claptrap that you just gave us.

And yes, you're "so much sense" is pretty scary.

[hiaasenrocks]

11. How would you define "rich"?

I'd be interested in knowing what is "rich" to some people.

Thanks.

[Greyhound]

19. Net worth >$1,000,000

and just to mollify the whiners, we could double that since everybody with a net over a million will see that double in a very few years.

[Squatch]

12. Communist much?

[salin]

14. 20-30 years of simplistic RW propoganda strikes again!

A more progressive tax system does not = communisim, unless one thinks that President Eisenhower was the head of the National Communist Party.

[Squatch]

17. "More progressive" my ass.

How about "more punitive", because that's what this proposal is.

[Shakespeare]

23. Wow. Who knew old Tom Jefferson was a commie.

He thought this country should have a heavily progressive tax system, too.

[genie_weenie]

15. We simply need to eliminate Government.

I never signed a "Social Contract".

However, I would like to point out several things:

Why not have the Government print up a Trillon more dollars and keep it moving?

Would you be happy if Bush said this back on 9-12-2001: Indeed in these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes. taken from FDR fireside chat 28 April 1942.

Who determines the best for the general welfare? Isn't that what has been at issue since before the specific words of "promote the general welfare" were coined?

[leftofthedial]

16. uberwealthy capitalists are almost exactly like a backed up sewer pipe

or its contents at any rate.

[Ishoutandscream2]

20. Stated so simply and beautifully

Wish I had said it. I think I'll steal it from you on my discussions with my many right wing co-workers.

[Yavin4]

22. What About Removing The Loopholes?

We don't need to tax more. Rather, we need to eliminate the massive loopholes that allow people to escape taxation. My belief is that if everyone paid their fair share, then everyone would pay less and we would be able to fund the social programs that you want. If large corporations get away with paying no taxes at all, then that hole has to be made up somewhere through deficits or higher taxes on everyone else. I lean towards a progressive flat tax on all income.

Also, you have to consider military spending which eats up a larger and larger share of our resources every year. We have been giving our military industrial complex a blank check since the mid-70s, and today, our soldiers don't have the necessary equipment to fight this war.