How much is enough? A call for the largest tax increase in history.

[godhatesrepublicans]

Originally posted at http://blog.myspace.com/godhatesrepublicansdotorg

How much is enough? A call for the largest tax increase in history.

Last week on THE DAILY SHOW, Louis Black did a segment on what rich people are doing with their money, now that the Bush Administration has cut taxes for the top 1% to amazing lows. One of these wealthy soulless fools spent four million dollars on a customized Ferrari.

It's not Christian of me to say this, but in all honesty I hope this fool's car gets totalled when a $500 rust bucket plows into him.

How much is enough for these people? Seriously. There's only so much stuff in the world to have, and these greedy scum want it all for themselves. It's like one person going to a pot luck dinner, and hauling all the food they can carry out to their car and driving off with it before anyone else can get a plate full.

I personally think any income over say, $5 million a year should be taxed at about 95%. Any taxpayer in that bracket will get a gold plaque thanking them for their service to the nation, and a life time guarantee that if they manage to lose their fortune, society will give them medical care, room and board for life.

And with that money generated with my "More money than any sane person needs" tax, we could give a life time guarantee of medical care, room and board for every American. Think of the good that would do for all Americans.

And to people who say that such a "More money than any sane person needs" tax would take the incentive away from wealthy businesspeople I say horsefeathers. Imagine the life-long bragging rights one could have by flashing a gold plaque saying "This person was rich enough to fund all of American society." That will get people a lot more respect than a customized Ferrari, and for good reason.

By Brian Davis, author of http://www.godhatesrepublicans.org

[Deep13]

1. Yep. All the wrong priorities.

Production is not the problem. The problem is distribution.

[napi21]

2. I actually think 95% is too much.

Believe me, I'm not and never will be in a position to worry about such things in MY life.

I think a better way to go would be to remove the loopholes from the tax code so that taxes ARE PAID on all income! Most of the people who fall into the catagory of the top 1% pay Tax Attorney's a VERY NICE salary to find all those loopholes so they don't pay AnY taax at all! The same with estate taxes. an estate can be structured so it escapes all inheritance taxes.

Sunday, on Wolfe's show, Howard Dean said he wanted to recind all the tax breaks this admin has given to the oil, pharmaceutical, and defence industries. Howard said that would recover $35 Billion/yr, and it's nothing but corporate welfare anyway!!!!!

I really believe that would be a much better way to approach thetax needs of the Country, and would aggrivate the least number of people!

[Ravenseye]

15. Yeah remove the loopholes

Even when the top tax rate was much higher than today, thanks to creative accounting, most of the people who fell into the ultra-rich bracket paid, percentage wise, less than nearly every other bracket. Unfortunately the tax code is so convoluted at this point, that it would almost make more sense to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, except that wouldn't work.

My father tried to talk me into a flat tax as being the simplest way to go (he's a libertarian). Besides being a regressive tax, which wouldn't get any traction with him, I asked him how likely it would be that the tax code of the United States would become one page. Even if it was proposed as a 1 page flat tax, or any new tax system progressive or not, it would be hundreds, if not thousands of pages long before it was passed with tax exemptions for everything from farm equipment sales, to penthouse apartment rent credits. The wealthy would have more sway over these ammendments, and would probably end up paying even less than before.

So I'm with you. A progressive system with a higher top brakcet, where people actually have to pay their due. I just have no idea how to make it happen with our current system.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. One person's loopholes are another's mandates, even lifeline

The so called loopholes are actually incentives put in place to encourage behaviors. Home ownership, charitable giving, renewable energy, conservation are all "loopholes". Which do you eliminate, which do you keep?

[BlueEyedSon]

30. Yeah, like the Hummer tax deduction. That encourages a behavior.

A bad one.

[Solo_in_MD]

38. Do you understand the so called Hummer Loophole?

Originally designed as a way to help business recover cost of delivery vehicles, mostly used by small businesses and mostly made in the USA with union labor. It was aimed at trades like farmers, plumbers painters, catering services and the like. Many would call that reasonable.

Per the article there were 38 SUV type vehicles eligible (not just the Hummer). Its also a classic case of an incentive being created that then gets misused...AKA the law of unintended consequences. To characterize it as a tool just for the rich is ignorant at best. Note also that the changes to the law did nothing to eliminate the regular depreciation process.

Link: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/tax-incentives-suv-loophole-vs-clean-vehicle-credits.html

Again, just about every deduction has its good side and yet can be misused. Its the risk we take when we use taxes for social policy.

Eliminate all the deductions, greatly simply things, fire most of the taxation infrastructure (IRS/Accountants/tax lawyers...) and go to something very simple and you have Forbes and his fair tax scheme. Is that where you want to go?

[BlueEyedSon]

40. Yeah i guess the guys making the laws are too stupid to make them

CORRECTLY.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

[jmowreader]

39. The Hummer deduction was a "truck deduction" at the start

That was a very good thing.

This is a truck:


This is not:


The first one provides jobs. The second does not.

What went wrong is that the IRS decided to rate vehicles as "car" or "truck" based on gross weight alone. Penis extensions are all pretty heavy, so they passed as trucks under the Weight Uber Alles rule.

[Solo_in_MD]

41. Was the 6K weight IRS policy or was it in the statute

I thought it was in the law.

[genie_weenie]

3. Do we really want more money in the hands of a Nation-State

which is spending more than 500 billion on Weapons of Death & Destruction?

[WCGreen]

5. Oh give me a break...

They are sluffing off the bill to future generations...

[genie_weenie]

18. Those billions are being taken today and given

to the War profitteers. Halliburton, Northrup Grumman, Boeing all receive billions to make a variety of weapons or provide services to the MIC. War is big business and the unending War in Iraq is good for business. Look what Lieberman is running on in CT, the fact he "saved" the Naval Submarine Base in New London from closing (all the Government money). I don't see how you can dismiss me with give me a break?

[WCGreen]

20. Your post seems to say that the government should starve

because they are spending money on arms....

[genie_weenie]

26. Well, yes...

Starve is an interesting word. Is the budget to small or too big or just about right (but improperly distributed) in your estimation?

Is it an acceptable tradeoff for the government to do some good with the money it collects of dollars if it also does some evil?

US spending V. the World (2002 data)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/%7Ejephrean/classweb/In%20Context.html

http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html

[WCGreen]

28. I'm not a big old fan of war now....

And I do agree that the military industiral complex are planning for wars that are not gonna happen and spending billions on ridiuclous weapons systems...

But that can be changed with new leadership...

[genie_weenie]

32. New Leadership, meet the new boss same as

the old boss... While I agree it was lower than the Bush Warriors, spending under President Clinton was ridiculous high as well.
http://first.sipri.org/non_first/milex.php

[WCGreen]

33. Well then....

give up on the system

[nam78_two]

27. Isn't that a problem with bad govt rather than big govt.?

I have always wondered if it would make sense to ave a tax system where people can have some measure of control on where their tax dollars could be directed to.
So say, I could pick for my tax dollars to go towards social programs instead of defense. Of course taken to an extreme, that could mean some programs end up severely under-funded and so on.

So the details would have to be worked out with care.But it just always seems to me that if people could see their tax dollars going to work on something they support and approve of, rather than see it as being thrown into some huge gobt machine they don't trust, there would be more enthusiasm over higher taxes.

[genie_weenie]

31. You have hit upon the universal debate.

Isn't it unfair to force people to support programs and spending which may clash with their beliefs? Unfortunately some people do not think so. If a program is good or promotes a cause they believe in, then it should be funded with stolen monies.

And I don't think a change in leadership is going to lessen the military expenditures (Hillary supports the Iraq war for example, most likely because she believes she needs to be a tough enough broad who is willing to send men to their deaths in order to have a s hot a president.)

But, I would agree with you, that people should be able to direct where their money goes but that has not been the view of the Government at any level since it accepts as axiomatic that if you live in the US you are explictly agreeing to all the spending which goes on by the Appointed Leaders of the Nation.

[brentspeak]

4. Humorous, sort of. But -- no.

Taxes should always be based solely on a) properly covering government-administered programs, which exist (solely) for the public good (everything from roads to Social Security to education to national defense); and b) a fairly-distributed system, according to one's financial situation. The taxes levied on an individual should never be excessive, and the amount should never cause any kind of financial hardship or handicap on the individual, either. Conversly, no one should be unfairly freed from their obligation of paying their fair share of taxes.

An equitable, sound taxation system is always the best way to go. The progressive income tax, based on Keynesian economic theory, is the model for that.

Both supply-side, lower-the-taxes-too-much-on-the-rich practice, as well as your 95% suggestion, are ridiculous and harmful.

[WCGreen]

6. The best argument for a progressive tax system is this...

The people who derive the greatest benifit from the US Government should pay the most...

Simple as that...

Rich people have more to lose if their is instability in the system...

The regulations in place protect the wealthy much more than they protect the rest of us...

They need to pay for that protection...

[godhatesrepublicans]

12. Thank you!

I had a bet with myself that no one would bring this up before I did.

[EVDebs]

13. "Marginal Propensity to Consume" should be common knowledge

by now; the basis of Keynesian economics and, hopefully, tax reform. As David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal points out in glowing detail, the tax system is rigged for a super-wealthy elite (modern-day "patricians") while everybody else (modern-day "plebes") get the shaft.

Kevin Phillip's book Wealth and Democracy shows us what happens to economic empires throughout history the concentrate wealth in small minorities and it isn't pretty. Spain, Netherlands, Great Britain, and now US.

[Vexatious Ape]

7. good idea

You know of course that all those thugs on the right wing radio will convince a third of the country that they to are being taxed unfairly, and need to vote republican.

[catmandu57]

8. They want it all

All the hotwheels, all the track. I'd love to see a cap, if a person can't live on ten million during a lifetime then something is wrong. If they lose it all, tough tittie, at least they'll be taken care of like everyone else, getting along on what they have. no more fucking paris hiltons no more lifestyles of the rich, the poorest of the poor have a right to life as well as the fabulously well to do.

[Deep13]

9. The 95% is just on income in excess of $5M per annum.

Seems like a good idea to me considering the free ride they have been getting.

[jobycom]

10. Too extreme

First, I wouldn't call someone "scum" just because they are rich.

Second, I don't really care that someone buys a $4 million Ferrari, if they are paying their fair share. The fact that they aren't paying their fair share now is due entirely to bad government, not to any moral failings of the rich.

Third, a gold plaque is not a good incentive, and maybe not Constitutional. If what you suggest is to have any real incentive to it, the government would have to do more than issue a plaque, there would have to be some higher level of prestige behind it, and that would come close to violating the anti-nobility clause of the Constitution.

Fourth, curbing income would not only kill incentive, it would kill wages, and you and I and the poorest amongst us would receive lower wages. Money is nothing but a measuring stick--the real value of money is relative to the rest of society. I can give you a million dollars, and if a million dollars only buys a loaf of bread, I've given you a loaf of bread. Capping income will drive the value of money down, will drive actual wages down, and will kill incentive to become rich, which would have wonderful side effects of causing the wealthiest to seek their compensation elsewhere--through power, through control of governments, through a further distancing from the great unwashed.

The relationship between rich and poor at its most effective is symbiotic. At its worst, its predatory. Predatory class warfare, on either side, leads to a bad economy. Right now the wealthiest are preying on the rest of us--they have too few regulations, and they are not paying their fair share of the tax burden (especially considering the much greater resources they consume to sieze their wealth). But simply shifting that predatory relationship to the poor will not help the economy. It will destroy it further.

We need an equitable system, that lets the richest get as rich as they can dream, and prevents the poor from falling below a certain level. The issue isn't whether some rich guy drives a $4 million dollar Ferrari. It's whether a family of four can survive off a full-time job. It's whether all children have access to health care. It's whether anyone goes hungry. It's whether those born into the poorest segments of our economy have the same access to pursue their dreams.

Our government should not be into holding people back, it should be into lifting people up. So should our party.

Just my HO.

[Ian David]

11. I also propose a Top-Bracket Tax Lottery

The wealthiest 400 people in America should have the option of either being taxed at 90%, or entering their name in The Top-Bracket Tax Lottery.

Those 400 wealthiest people who choose to enlist in the lottery would be taxed at only 75%, but one of them would be chosen at random to have 3/4 of all their assets and net worth appropriated by the government.

[havocmom]

16. Can we add, their firstborns all go into the military

and lead the charge in case of wars without due provocation?* They get to wear helmets with big red ornamentations for the job too.


* those wars,created by their paid puppets in government, where many in the top 1% make LOTS of profit

[freedomchips]

14. My favorite way of putting it into context is to take a guy worth

$5 billion and compare him to Bill Gates, who, we'll say is worth $50 billion. Do you think the guy with $5 billion ever says, "I'm sure living the life! But if I had Gates' money, THEN I'd really be living it up!"

[DireStrike]

17. I think we need a maximum wage.

The only thing people that rich actually spend money on is a) getting more money, and b) status symbols. The status symbols will be as expensive as there are people willing to pay for them. If you simply lower the maximum amount of wealth that people can get, all that excess wealth can be applied to the good of society and the world... they can still have their stupid status wars, just with cheaper icons. It's all in the comparison.

It's not like anyone even deserves to be that much wealthier than everyone else.

The only problem is, it's completely unenforceable. Rich scum will always find ways around it. They have the money to do so.

Disincentive? Oh NOES, I can only maek 5 million dollars?!!?111one

[Taoschick]

36. Okay, but

Do you really believe someone who works 40 hours a week deserves to earn as much as someone who works 100+ hours a week?

I don't think arguments that seek to limit personal wealth are a positive direction for us. I work about 16 hours a day as a small business owner, providing jobs and a needed service in my community. I'm making the sacrifice now and busting my ass so that some day, I'll have the time and resources to do what I want. If, by my hard work and sacrifices, I'm able to make 5 mil in the future, why should someone who didn't make the personal sacrifices have a claim on my life's work?

I'm not at all opposed to progressive taxation but we need to be very careful when we start to use it as punishment.

[DireStrike]

43. Of course I don't believe that

I'm not talking about communism here, just reducing the wealth gap.

I argue from the point that wealth is valued for the comparative differences it grants, rather than some absolute. After needs for food, shelter, and security(physical and financial) are met, most everything else is a luxury.

Hard-working people can still be rewarded by getting more. But at a certain point you have diminishing returns on incentive provided by profit. Some obsessed few will try to still gain wealth, as a form of competition. Most will fail - who becomes wealthy is determined largely by luck and connections. It doesn't matter how much wealth these people gain really, just that they are allowed to compete with others like them.

Work is certainly not rewarded in our current society. Working 80 or 100 hours will not make you rich. You'll be able to slowly claw your way ahead of others in your situation... unless EVERYONE starts working that hard. Our society rewards first of all HAVING wealth already, second those who have connections, and finally a lucky few randomly determined by market forces.

[rinsd]

21. Cool, I see DUers are hard at work looking to cost us an election

And ya wanna know how well this tactic is working.

Phil Angelides is proposing a modest tax increase on millionaires and he is getting his ass kicked by Ahnuld....in CA for crissakes.

[WCGreen]

22. You're right....

Don't propose something different so that the people will continue to vote for the Ass whips in power right now....

[rinsd]

29. Yeah because taxing the rich is so cutting edge....

...no one has ever suggested it. :eyes:

Actually I should say no one has suggested it and won. I don't even think Clinton did in the election at least.

"Don't propose something different so that the people will continue to vote for the Ass whips in power right now"

The OP is proposing punitive taxes based on the mindset that someone should not be allowed to acquire so much wealth. That goes over like a turd in the punch bowl in this country. Surely you are aware of that.

To boot Angelides is not even saying that. He is making a sensible argument about a modest tax increase(I believe its 1%) to balance out our budget deficits. I do not believe that he is losing because of that per se but it does allow for the "he's gonna raise taxes" fodder.

[nam78_two]

23. Just some things that always bother me

I am no economist and I have no idea what exactly can work to fix the many problems facing the world.
But Hunger Facts International puts it at 852 million people world wide that are at the edge of starvation. Many of the people live on less than a dollar a day.

http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html

In particular the plight of the elderly in many of the poorest countries in the world is particularly pitiable because their needs get much less attention than those of young people:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3025289.stm

Meanwhile in this country we have recreational shows on tv where people throw food at one another :shrug:-we have contests where brides climb over giant wedding cakes to win a wedding dress or whatever (saw headline on MSN-made me sick to think how many people it would feed in an impoverished country). The amount of food wasted in this country makes me really sad.

Does that make any sense :shrug:?

Thus its not just the rich in this country, its just the lifestyles in affluent nations taken altogether.

Invariably some "sensible", "practical" libertarian has an argument about how more wealth needs to be created to fix every effing problem in the world. I don't understand how without some degree (a huge one imo) redistribution and curtailing of waste this is going to be taken care of.

[RB TexLa]

24. Yes, how much

How much is enough? A call for the largest tax increase in history.

At a homeless shelter instead of a TV show some people were just talking about taxing the rich. One of these wealthy soulless fools spent twentyfive thousad dollars on a Ford.

It's not Christian of me to say this, but in all honesty I hope this fool's car gets totalled when a $15 shopping buggy plows into him.

How much is enough for these people? Seriously. There's only so much stuff in the world to have, and these greedy scum want it all for themselves. It's like one person going to a pot luck dinner, and hauling all the food they can carry out to their car and driving off with it before anyone else can get a plate full. And then they go on their electronic toys with their electricty and bitch that others are at better potluck dinners.

I personally think any income over say, $15,000 a year should be taxed at about 95%.

[buddysmellgood]

25. First, we enact something called Bush's War Tax. It's a fraction of a % on

every electronic transfer (ET) of money. The account spending the money, pays the tax. No exceptions. Religion too. Keep it simple. Corporations will pay the biggest share of this tax. They move the most money. This will generate enough that we can cut taxes for the poor and middle class. After the war is paid for, we take Bush's name off it. Then increase it ET and cut taxes on the middle and lower class each election cycle. The rich will have their taxes cut last as we move everything over to this system.

[FormerDittoHead]

34. Taxes are complicated, however...

I think a lot of our problems would be solved by:

1) a small wealth tax over a certain amount (like $2M) (rate: like 2% below what the government pays in bonds, so even if you invested in gov't bonds, you'd have money left over)

2) a limit to inheritance (ie: 100% tax over a certain amount, say, $30 million)

[FormerDem06]

35. Consumption tax on non-essential items would do it for me...

I say levy a 30% tax on anything other than food, gas, clothes (up to a $ amount), cars (up to 30K) and utilities.

Homes ($300,000 and up adjusted for market prices of course), Cars (over 25K), clothes (over say $5000 per year per household), Food (over a $ amount per household per year). Everything gets taxed up front and you get a rebate each month for food, gas, clothes, cars and utilities.

This would truly get people who are spending on art, expensive clothes, cars, 10 different houses, etc. etc. a way to pay into the system. I personally think it would work.

That guy who spent $4 million on the Ferari could afford to fork over another 1.2 million in taxes on it. Buy a $800,000 house in a market where the average home price is 300K, then you pay about 300K in taxes since you don't need that 800K house.

People who rent and live a modest life wouldn't be affected too much since they'd get their rebate every month. IF you have to over consume, then guess what, you get to pay for it.

[nam78_two]

37. I like this idea

:thumbsup:

I kinda try to use it personally- I have a rule that anything I spend on myself thats not a necessity-I will give 30% of the amount spent on the non-essential to a charity.
I know 30% isn't much but eventually I hope to work my way up from that.

[Cleita]

46. They tried it a few years back, putting luxury taxes on yachts

jewelry, Rolls Royces and so on. Well the greedy bastards found a way to buy those things and register them in other countries. Sales dried up in many sectors here in the USA forcing some businesses into bankruptcy. The law was quickly repealed.

How about if they taxed property instead, like second homes and vacation homes? Many many uber riche multi-billionaires in my state own several properties, many very luxurious properties as well as out of state multi-billionaires who keep homes here in this state for business purposes. Yet, they pay the same 1% in taxes that the young family with a two bedroom, one bath starter home pays.

I'm all for keeping the 1% property tax for the middle class and working class people, but once they can afford extra homes, it's time to raise that property tax to 10%. In California this would be a huge source of tax revenue. It would also maybe put a lot of those vacation homes and condos that go empty most of the year back on the market so that people who actually needs them might have a chance of buying them.

[ComerPerro]

42. This especially needs to be done, since we are at war

[jmowreader]

44. Thank you for killing the Democratic Party

The main effect of this proposal would be to destroy the Democratic Party.

Here's what you should do.

First, exempt every American's first $25,000 of "earned income" from taxation. This is a term from back in the old days when money you got from working was "earned" and money you got from investment was "unearned." So if you made $20,000 working at Wal-Mart and $200,000 shorting its stock, the $20,000 is yours but the $200,000 is taxable...although, come to think of it, if you were actually doing this you deserve a special award for Testicular Fortitude.

You note the "every American" and not "every family." If your spouse works, you get to exempt $50,000.

Limbaugh is going to have one hell of a time convincing his listeners that their taxes are going up (his will be) if they can see their taxes have really gone down.

Next, eliminate the FICA cap. We hear all this shit from Numb-Nuts and the Publicans about how Social Security needs to be privateered if it's to survive. Any rational observer will note that privateering the SS system will just eliminate it, which is really the Publicans' plan all the time. If we were to apply the FICA tax, without cap, to these multimillion-dollar incomes, the SS problem would just about disappear.

And third, give the rich--anyone who makes over $1 million per year--two ways to pay their taxes. They can choose the full array of tax deductions and credits they now enjoy, but with a flat 60-percent tax on all income over $25,000, or a flat 25-percent tax on all income over $25,000 with only charitable deductions up to 10 percent of gross income allowed. I would consider modifying the deductions to allow donations to church-owned accredited educational institutions and church-owned healthcare facilities, but not to churches themselves. (If you allowed unrestricted donations to churches, there are churches like Falwell's, Swaggart's and Robertson's that would start laundering money.)

It would be more palatable than just whacking the rich with 95-percent tax brackets or other stupid shit like that.

[godhatesrepublicans]

45. Some interesting replies

To those who think the upper 1% would suddenly lose their motivation, I'd like to point out that competitiveness and job satisfaction are the real motivating forces at work. After the first 5 or 10 million dollars in the bank, a yearly total just a way to keep score.

And to those who say my plan is too simple to work, etc. you may be right. I'm a preacher and a fix-it man, not an accountant. But my main thesis that the log jams of cash need to be broken up so that the cash flow can be put to good use still stands on solid ground I think.


a section from You Can Complain, or You Can Make Money By BEN STEIN
Published: October 15, 2006
Snip
In other words, look at two recent business stories and decide which side of them you want to be on. Sumner M. Redstone, the chairman of Viacom, recently fired the company's chief executive, Tom Freston. Mr. Freston was a pioneer at MTV, immensely well liked — people on the Paramount lot literally wept when he said good-bye — but Mr. Redstone decided that he had to go because he had not done a good job for the stockholders and the stock had languished.

In the last paragraph of an article about his departure, The Wall Street Journal dryly noted that Mr. Freston's severance package would be about $60 million and his pay this year was about $20 million.

An even more recent story has been about Brian Hunter, a commodities trader for the large hedge fund called Amaranth Advisors. Mr. Hunter made big bets in natural gas trades and had been getting good returns for his investors. Then the market turned against him and he lost roughly $6 billion — yes, billion — for his investors within a few weeks. He's no longer at Amaranth, and the fund is being dissolved. However, it was noted that his pay for 2005 would have been between $75 million and $100 million. Yes, you read it right.

That is, Tom Freston, an undeniably great guy, gets $60 million for leading a company whose stock performance was deemed unacceptably poor (although it's been good lately). Brian Hunter is presumably still a wealthy man despite leading his investors to disaster.
snip