It's the Revenue, Stupid

[Scuba]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#43980643


Chris Hayes of the Rachel Maddow show asks if the Country has lost its ability to generate tax revenue.

With guest Rep Jan Schakowski, D-Ill.

Runs about 9:48.


<img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

[alsame]

1. k&r

[IndianaJoe]

2. Seems like we have this problem:

Fewer and fewer people have any wealth and those that do don't pay their fair share. Accordingly, there's a practical reason the rich should pay more. They have all the wealth. Squeezing the poor just won't raise enough to keep the edifice going.

Taxing the rich isn't "class warfare". It's also a question of basic fairness. The rich benefit more than the rest of us from government.

Consider defense spending. Defense theoretically benefits everyone, but it benefits the rich more because they have more that needs protecting. It's just like insurance. If you have a bigger house or more expensive car, you have to pay proportionately more to insure it.

Consider infrastructure. Spending on airports, highways, interstate commerce certainly benefits those that can or need to travel for personal or business reasons. There is more benefit here to those that own things than to ghetto dwellers that can't afford to travel or own businesses providing them with a need to move goods.

The financial bailouts directly benefited the well-to-do. There was little direct benefit to those that owned little in the way of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments. If you had an investment portfolio, you won because of the government spending. If you didn't, the bailout didn't affect you that much.

And there's "corporate welfare" to consider. The subsidies to oil, agribusiness, etc. The "little" people don't benefit from the government doles to these sectors. The poor derive no benefit from this. The rich unquestionably do.

As for the social spending we do in this country, well to me it's a pittance in the overall scheme of things, especially given the way wealth is presently distributed in this country. The rich benefit from social spending too -- albeit indirectly. If the poor didn't have the meager safety net social spending provides, there'd probably be a revolution in this country. The rich benefit from social spending in the sense that its an insurance policy against their being guillotined.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. The rich also got the lion's share of the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts.

They need to give it up.

[IndianaJoe]

4. Agreed. Putting the tax load on the needy is impractical

The poor simply do not have the money to pay.

Balancing budgets this way is also unfair, inhumane, and extremely bad social policy.

[Scuba]

5. Brilliant. Saved for future use. Thank you. Please consider as an OP.