Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Governor David Paterson and the leaders of the Legislature have struck a deal to create two new tax brackets for those earning above $300,000 and $500,000. The new tax structure would raise an estimated $4 billion annually.
This is largely due to the work of State Senator Eric Schneiderman, the Working Families Party, and others who responded to the state's $15 billion budget deficit by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share and demanding an end to the injustice of people earning $20,000 per year paying the same tax rate as Bernie Madoff, Donald Trump and the hedge funders -- 6.85 percent. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was instrumental in making progressive tax reform part of the final budget negotiations.
Initially, Gov. Paterson proposed the same tired conservative economic policy that has dominated the past thirty years--$9 billion of harsh cuts in education, healthcare and social services, and $5 billion in new taxes that would hit the struggling poor and middle-class the hardest. No sacrifices for the wealthy. Although there are still cuts that will cause a lot of pain for working people and the poor, this budget will be vastly improved.
Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, told the Times: "It's a profound breakthrough for tax fairness." In the perennial balancing act between a transformative politics aimed at a more humane and sustainable society, and the necessary compromises to begin addressing people's immediate needs, progressives have scored an important and timely victory.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Now, this will bring on a torrent of our neocon friends telling of how they will be parachuting out of the republic.
In fact, judging by this site, I can't believe there's so many still here!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/30/2009 @ 10:10am
KvH: .....asking the wealthy to pay their fair share....
Can Libs stop using "fair share".....as if somehow, that is actually provable beyond reasonable doubt.
Be honest, just flat out and state you want the rich to pay MORE, and MORE, and MORE.....
Liberals are so oxymoronically illiberal.....and everyything you want, you cloak it in opposite & BS language......
Employee Free Choice! What's wrong with a vote?
Great Society! Well, are we there yet?
Stimulus Bill! I'm NOT stimulated, are you?
Posted by Happy at 03/30/2009 @ 10:12am
"...by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share..."
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/30/2009 @ 09:57am
Oh my, but you teed that one up. (I am gritting my teeth to keep from knocking it out of the park)
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 10:27am
"The new tax structure would raise an estimated $4 billion annually. "
That $4 billion will disappear like a morsel of cheese down a dog's throat. Then the gluttonous bureaucrats will continue merrily down their same old road.
Posted by WRoss at 03/30/2009 @ 10:44am
well...
if the wealthy were asked to pay the same rate as the poor...sans countless legal deductions...
perhaps their rate of taxation could remain lowish yet result in more collected revenues than a higher tax rate and a thousand deductions...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/30/2009 @ 10:44am
People should be taxed according to their ability to pay. Period. The ONLY fair way to tax is to tax progressively.
Progressive taxation is the ONLY remedy for the greatest disincentive to work ever created: the fact that it is easier to make more money from money than it is to make more money from work.
There are other reasons why progressive taxation is the only fair taxation.
(1) Progressive taxation does not make us all middle class. It simply brings the superrich closer to the middle class and increases their incentive to work by diminishing their ability to make more money from their excess money. If we tax appropriately (I would make it a smooth curve, with no more brackets), we do not change anybody's position in the income hierarchy and therefore do not affect the universal incentive of jealousy that conservatives find so extremely important.
(2) Extra money has less and less value for people who have more and more of it to begin with. This is the "principle of diminishing marginal utility." A person who makes only $10,000 a year benefits much more from an extra $100 than a person who makes $100,000 a year. Giving tax breaks to the rich to create more "incentive" for them makes as much sense as giving free refrigerator-freezers to Eskimos.
(3) Money generally should be distributed from where it is in excess to where it is needed. Investment needs to be directed toward things that we all need, but are not willing to buy, such as infrastructure, the stewardship of the environment, and healthcare.
(4) As Wendell Berry has observed, most of what we produce is superfluous. Yet we fail to produce many things that we need. Progressive taxation is the solution.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 11:02am
Why shouldn't the poor pay their fair share of taxes too?
Posted by abell12ct at 03/30/2009 @ 11:07am
... when I was younger I would have applauded a statement like, "The new tax structure would raise an estimated $4 billion annually" as a good thing.
But now, with some life experience under my belt, I realize how foolish that statement really is. It doesn't raise the money, it steals the money.
Punitive taxation was a root cause of the American Revolution.
This new tax structure neither progressive nor a victory. It is just another step on our road to a collectivist society.
And inevitably another war.
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 11:12am
"That $4 billion will disappear like a morsel of cheese down a dog's throat. Then the gluttonous bureaucrats will continue merrily down their same old road," groaned "WRoss."
This is a classic formulation of what I call the "Black Hole Theory of Government." Money that goes to the government gets sucked up into a cavernous black hole (like a dog's throat), NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN. Oooh, be afraid, everybody.
What complete nonsense! The government SPENDS every penny it gets, as we all know or ought to know. The result is that we get it all back, in one way or the other. This is a corollary to the "trickle-down theory" that the plutocrats don't want us to know.
Of course, we may disagree over how our elected representatives decide to spend our money. But I believe it is better when people whom you and I both have ELECTED make this decision than when the superrich make this decision themselves -- without our input.
There are of course many ways that we should make the government more responsive to our input when it makes spending decisions, and I have discussed these ways at length in these threads: campaign finance reform, instant-runoff voting, and so on. But the fact remains that you and I have more influence over how the government spends money than we will ever have over how Bill Gates and his income class spend theirs. Therefore, I support progressive taxation -- and you should, too.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 11:19am
'Market share of U.S. second-home sales fell in 2008: NAR
Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:19am EDT NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sales of vacation and investment homes in the United States slipped to 30 percent of all transactions of existing and new homes in 2008, the National Association of Realtors said on Monday.
However, more than four out of 10 investment buyers and more than three in 10 vacation-home buyers paid cash for their properties, with large percentages indicating that portfolio diversification was a factor in their purchase decision, the NAR said in a report.
The market share of homes purchased for investment was 21 percent last year, unchanged from 2007, while another 9 percent were vacation homes, compared with a 12 percent market share in 2007, the NAR said.
The total share of second homes declined from 33 percent of all transactions in 2007, while in 2005, the peak year for home speculation, 40 percent of sales were second homes, the NAR said.
(Reporting by Julie Haviv, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)'
Goodness - Bush tax cuts work their magic - 40% of transactions are "second homes" (or more like John McCain) for purchaser in 2005, but now down to 30%. For "second homes" 30-40% pay all cash.
Just astounding. The contribution to the housing bubble immeasurable. The amount of risk and fun money that the wealthy have inflates the price of just about everything for working families, including necessities like shelter.
Our tax policy is just plain ridiculous. Written by the wealthy, for the benefit of the wealthy.
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 11:24am
"This new tax structure neither progressive nor a victory. It is just another step on our road to a collectivist society," moaned "freiheit1."
I have two things to say. Firstly, whether or not you believe progressive taxation is a step in the right direction or a step backward, it can always appropriately be called "progressive" because it is gradated, like a staircase, consisting of different levels of taxation. The word "progressive" therefore belongs to its definition, just as the word "flat" belongs to the definition of the flat tax.
Secondly, there is nothing collectivist about pooling our common wealth if we do it in the context of political pluralism, that is, with two or more political parties arguing over how our money should be spent. Collectivism ensues when one political party takes absolute control over all the others or simply bans them.
The principle of political pluralism is so important that I favor Constitutional reforms to make our electoral system more proportionally representative (by means of instant-runoff voting), so that there would be three, four, or five parties wrangling over how to spend our money, rather than only two. Unfortunately, our Founding Fathers, who had no experience with republican government when they created it, did not recognize the importance of political pluralism. We should remedy this.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 11:33am
I've made what I call a modest proposal for Federal income tax....return to Reagan.
Yep. Return to the top marginal rates that we had under Ronald Reagan when his "Reagan Recovery" was starting, i.e. 1983-1984.
Surely, as evidence by HISTORY, such a rate would give us monumental prosperity that The Gipper gave us. And only you Reagan-hating liberals would object.
Oh, by the way, that rate?....
50%
(on incomes of $175,500, adjusted for inflation, call it $190K)
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 11:40am
Should be a 3rd class, even higher for over a million.
Posted by sloper at 03/30/2009 @ 11:44am
"it steals the money."
so i suppose reagan himself was also a thief, because i he had a tax structure further to the left than The Great Marxist, obama.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 11:48am
"We should remedy this"
we can, and i tried myself by voting Green and/or Socialist for 6 straight federal elections (except in 2008).....
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 11:50am
"Liberals are so oxymoronically illiberal.....and everyything you want, you cloak it in opposite & BS language...... Employee Free Choice! What's wrong with a vote?"
What a fine example of BS language you have provided, "Happy"! The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to enable workers to vote to unionize with a minimum of coercion from their bosses. It by no means takes away their right to vote. The bosses' campaign against this progressive reform is the purest BS.
Unions are an important element in our strategy to create a strong incentive to work, because unions defend the rewards of work (that is, wages and benefits) against the bosses, who would like to roll back these rewards in order to increase the rewards of mere ownership. When it becomes more profitable to own something than to work, the incentive to work is undermined, right? Unions make it more profitable to work, right? So why shouldn't we make it easier for workers to unionize?
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/30/2009 @ 10:10am
I'd be very worried if I were you, as it stands now, the GA legislature has voted to phase out all coporate tax. Our state will make a wonderful prospect for all those entrepenuers flushed with all that money.
It'll be interesting to read a year from now how that "progressive tax" is working for the state of NY.
Posted by ACook at 03/30/2009 @ 11:53am
"[…] the GA legislature has voted to phase out all coporate tax. Our state will make a wonderful prospect for all those entrepenuers flushed with all that money," warned "ACook."
Yes, but there are two problems with this scenario. First of all, relocating to Georgia is a move that costs a lot of money. Secondly, after you move, you have to live in GEORGIA, a state whose infrastructure leaves much to be desired, and where it gets really, horribly hot and humid every summer.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:00pm
If you want to know what I mean by Georgia's infrastructure problems, google "Atlanta, GA" and "traffic congestion" and see what you get.
For comparison, try googling "Portland, OR" and "public transportation."
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:06pm
Posted by JakobFabianSocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 11:02am
Your (1) (2) and (4) are gems. But (3) is worth repeating.
"(3) Money generally should be distributed from where it is in excess to where it is needed. Investment needs to be directed toward things that we all need, but are not willing to buy, such as infrastructure, the stewardship of the environment, and healthcare."
No further comment, really. Just amazed how oblivious you are of the threat to your own liberty encompassed in that statement.
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 12:07pm
"Just amazed how oblivious you are of the threat to your own liberty encompassed in that statement."
Sorry, "freiheit1," you'll have to go into some detail here. I don't see how well-maintained infrastructure, a clean environment, and universal healthcare are threats to my personal liberty.
Many people assume that my moniker, "JakobFabian," is a reference to the British Fabian Society, but this is not so. It refers to the main character in Erich Kästner's tragicomic novel of 1931: FABIAN: DIE GESCHICHTE EINES MORALISTEN.
Not that I have anything against the Fabian Society or its goals. My favorite socialist utopia, however, is that of the Austrian Socialist Karl Kautsky (1854-1938), who believed that people should be paid according to the distastefulness of their work. In other words, people with the least desirable, but still necessary jobs should be paid MORE than those with cushy jobs.
The two gravest errors of the world socialist movement is that it has failed to appreciate the necessity of political pluralism and has fallen victim to the temptation of monopartisan loyalty. In all that I do, I try to promote political pluralism, above all through the advocacy of proportional representation. I believe this will guard the socialisms of the future from the disastrous failures of socialisms past.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:25pm
"Not that I have anything against the Fabian Society or its goals. My favorite socialist utopia, however, is that of the Austrian Socialist Karl Kautsky (1854-1938), who believed that people should be paid according to the distastefulness of their work. In other words, people with the least desirable, but still necessary jobs should be paid MORE than those with cushy jobs." --JakobFabian.
Well, because I actually think you are being serious with that paragraph, I suppose we don't have much to discuss.
I don't know where to begin with someone who claims socialism just needs to be more pluralistic. I feel like I'm being punked if I respond to that! :-)
Hey, have a great day!
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 12:45pm
JakobFabian,
In various posts above, you demonstrate that you believe opposite to how things really work or really are.
On taxes, you say "....(1) Progressive taxation does not make us all middle class. It simply brings the superrich closer to the middle class and increases their incentive to work by diminishing their ability to make more money from their excess money......"
Comment: For one thing, other than to satisfy the leftist class envy and the leftist greed towards coveting what others have, what is accomplised by "bringing the superrich closer to the middle class"... It would make things more "fair", as the Left sees it. It accomplishes nothing else and penalizes success, which is how growth in business and technology and the advancement of our standard of living have occurred over the years.
You say that "Progressive taxation" diminishes their [the "superrich"] ablilty to make more money from their "excess" [as you see it] money. In that regard, you are right. It would penalize the rich and then inhibit business growth and job creation, which is what happens when the rich "make money from their excess money".
Who are you on the left going to blame for the high unemployment and business stagnation?
You say "...The government SPENDS every penny it gets,..."
You should mean (but you don't) WASTES A GOOD PORTION. You apparently have no familiarity with government bureaucrats who shuffle paper all day, if they work at all, yet have a lifetime guaranted job and pay raise every year. NO, NOT EVERY GOVERNMENT WORKER is like this, but far too many are.
to be continued... running out of room
Posted by sjchermak at 03/30/2009 @ 12:50pm
Stimulus Bill! I'm NOT stimulated, are you?
Posted by Happy at 03/30/2009 @ 10:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
More bad news Happy. AIG's venerable insurance arm joint ventures in real estate are in trouble. Part of the commercial real estate market pain that you know is coming. You suppose BO is going to bail em out on this, or have we already - man.....problems look like they stretch beyond the financial products division.............
'AIG Real Estate Deals May Impact Banks 03/30/09 - 12:40 PM EDT
, AIG Lauren Tara LaCapra American International Group (AIG Quote - Cramer on AIG - Stock Picks) has slashed or delayed payments to partners in some of its real-estate ventures, potentially hurting several banks and developers, according to a news report.
More on AIG US Eyes Tighter Rein on Hedge FundsToday's Outrage: Feds Do GM's Dirty Work3 Stocks I Saw on TVThe Fed Shopping NetworkBankers Vow to Work With ObamaStock Search: Qualcomm Leads 3GCongress Takes New Shot at Curbing BonusesAltucher Vs. AltucherThe Fed Shopping NetworkTop Risk Officers Still at AIG: Report Market Activity One deal concerning shopping center developer Alex Baker may put 15 banks at risk of exposure to bad debt, according to the Wall Street Journal. Affiliates of another developer, Mitchell L. Morgan Management, sued AIG in February, alleging that the insurer fell behind on payments. AIG Global Real Estate has over $23 billion worth of ventures, according to the paper, creating a similar situation -- on a smaller scale -- to the counterparty risk that led the government to step in and shore up the struggling insurance giant with $180 billion in public funds.'
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 12:51pm
JakobFabian,
You then said, "....The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to enable workers to vote to unionize with a minimum of coercion from their bosses...."
Comment: You of course forget coercion from other workers who are anxious to unionize. The concept of no secret ballot for a situation like that is unacceptable. Without a secret ballot, such coercion will exist, which is probably what you want anyway.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/30/2009 @ 12:52pm
"Sjchermak,"
The only real coercion at the workplace is the right to hire and fire. That power resides with your boss, not with your co-workers.
Whoever fears his co-workers more than his boss can only be an outrageous sycophant.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:58pm
"Sjchermak" also cannot get over his rage against "the leftist class envy and the leftist greed towards coveting what others have."
But this class envy -- which knows no political orientation, neither left nor right -- is precisely what give us all our incentive to work, isn't it? And aren't you conservatives pleased to tell us all how "greed is good"?
The only class that is free of class envy is the uppermost income class. This presents the rest of us with a problem. How do we motivate the richest of the rich to work, particularly since they can more easily make money by investing their money than by working?
The solution is: Tax all income progressively.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 1:05pm
'Head of P&G blasts Obama tax proposal Head of Procter & Gamble says budget plan would cost Americans jobs and companies billions
Terry Kinney, Associated Press Writer Monday March 30, 2009, 1:57 pm EDT
CINCINNATI (AP) -- The chairman of the world's largest consumer products maker says a provision in President Barack Obama's budget proposal regarding income made overseas would cost American jobs and give foreign businesses an unfair advantage.
A.G. Lafley, chief executive officer of the Procter & Gamble Co., said a proposal to limit or end deferred payment of taxes on foreign income would lead to job cuts and higher prices for American consumers and would cost companies billions.
U.S. companies now are allowed to defer payment of taxes on foreign income until those funds are brought back into the country. Requiring immediate payment of taxes would give an edge to foreign competitors, such as L'Oreal, Unilever, Nestle and Kao, Lafley said.
In a guest column in Sunday's editions of The Cincinnati Enquirer, Lafley decried "the unintended consequences of a proposal that may sound good on the surface but could undermine American companies, workers and consumers."
"At P&G, we support efforts by the Obama administration and Congress to promote job growth, improve infrastructure and invest in innovation," Lafley wrote. "And we take our responsibility as an American corporate citizen seriously. We dutifully pay among the highest corporate tax rates in the world as a U.S.-based company.
"We also understand the need to produce new revenue to help pay for economic stimulus plans designed to produce or preserve jobs. But if the budget proposal to eliminate tax 'deferral' is adopted, it would have the opposite effect."'
Don't think so Lafley - hahah..
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 1:06pm
Punitive taxation was a root cause of the American Revolution.
This new tax structure neither progressive nor a victory. It is just another step on our road to a collectivist society.
And inevitably another war.
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 11:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
-------------
Had to discuss with those who never actually read and comprehended the real substance of the U.S.A. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. Understanding of their own plight escapes them especially those totally dependent on the handouts recieved from the nanny state without the total commitment to jobs and labor and economic advancement.
They exist only to conquer and destroy our nation, but in return failed to percieve that they will be conquered, enslaved, and possibly destroyed.
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:37pm
"They exist only to conquer and destroy our nation, but in return failed to percieve that they will be conquered, enslaved, and possibly destroyed."
comanche, you're a genius. i just drool over your every word.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:58pm
Generally, I think you (and snowball666) have absolutely schooled our house conservatives on this thread. Bravo!
However, one small caveat: I was a shop steward in an open shop for eight years, and I never coerced a worker to join the union; however, our union, while nowhere near perfect, was not corrupt, nor was it run by organized crime. Coercion by a mobster masquerading as a union official or officer is not unknown in such situations.
Now, before our conservatives rejoice over such an admission, I will repeat what I have said elsewhere on this site: There is far, FAR more coercion over unionization in today's workplace by the bosses and their multi-million dollar "Keep the workplace union-free" industry than by unions and the workers who are trying to form them. The EFCA, while imperfect, should cut down on the number of pro-union workers fired (up to 50,000/year) and workplaces threatened with closing if employees even breath a word about unionizing and result in the speedier negotiation of first contracts.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2009 @ 1:46pm
P&G has an accounting staff & outside accountants who do nothing but devise methods for P&G & many of its US execs abroad to avoid paying US taxes.
There's a reason why P&G bases its eUROPEAN hq IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND ... AND IT'S ALL ABOUT TAX AVOIDANCE.
Posted by sloper at 03/30/2009 @ 1:48pm
comanche, you're a genius. i just drool over your every word.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thank you, for someone who openly established themselves as anti-american and a traitor on Nichols afganistan thread its good to see you've made some amends!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:58pm
They exist only to conquer and destroy our nation, but in return failed to percieve that they will be conquered, enslaved, and possibly destroyed.----Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:37pm
Who exactly is "they"?
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 2:05pm
I'm schocked. A socialist victory in a socialist state led by the efforts of a socialist political party.
Meanwhile, the socialists here are proudly describing how stealing the fruit of a person's labor is a good thing. they hate the mafia, they hate corporations; but the govt stealing your money is a good thing.
And Jakobfabian tells us Govt run healthcare doesn't take away liberty? Such as when leftists like John Edwards said that doctor visits would be mandatory under his UHC plan..and Edwards was widely praised here for his views on UHC.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 2:14pm
JakobFabian,
I have not presented any "rage".
I have pointed out the propensity of the left to engage in that and in destructive forms of class envy.
You attempt to flip it around by saying that class envy or greed is what gives us our incentive to work.
Sort of true, but non-liberals would not phrase it the way you have. People see what is possible in America and they work towards achieving the American dream.
You on the left promote the exact opposite of this concept. Class envy by the left, and you see it on this thread and elsewhere, is envy of what others have, and rather than aspiring to do the same, the left condemns them and attempts to bring them down in the principle of "fairness", or a non-liberal would phrase it punishing success.
Many on the left preach envy and destructive rage and anger towards those successful in our country, forgetting that it is those who are successful who are putting forth the capital and the investment and energy that creates jobs and opportunity and growth.
Also, the left forgets that those who are successful are in a much better position to help others that need help, rather than all people who need help being cared for by a condescending government that only makes them lifetime wards of the state.
Many of the "richest of the rich" do work, and work hard to build and maintain successful businesses.
I have seen over and over again, however, where those on the left that promote that anything other than blue collar or lower level white collar work is not work.... that those working to maintain businesses are not "working".
cka2nd says you have "schooled" house conservatives. Maybe in leftist school, but not otherwise.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/30/2009 @ 2:20pm
There's a reason why P&G bases its eUROPEAN hq IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND ... AND IT'S ALL ABOUT TAX AVOIDANCE.
Posted by sloper at 03/30/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sloper, you should get a kick out of this one too.
'Ford Takes a Tax Holiday for 'Jobs Creation'
By Allan Sloan Tuesday, January 24, 2006; D02
It's almost enough to make you laugh -- bitterly, of course. Here was Ford Motor Co. announcing yesterday that it had cut 10,000 jobs last year and that it will cut up to 30,000 more. But shedding jobs at muscle-car acceleration rates didn't stop Ford from pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars courtesy of the American Jobs Creation Act.
No, I'm not making this up. Right there, on page 2 of one of its news releases yesterday, Ford said that "repatriation of foreign earnings pursuant to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 resulted in a permanent tax savings of about $250 million."
Hello? How can you simultaneously cut jobs and benefit from the American Jobs Creation Act? Welcome to the wonderful world of Washington nomenclature.
Ford, understandably, declined to expand on its news release. But my calculations indicate that Ford last year brought into the United States about $850 million of profit that it had earned overseas but did not have to share with the Internal Revenue Service.'
The Washington Post
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 2:30pm
Overseas Income
Another proposed change that could impact industrial stocks is language within the 2010 proposed budget to increase taxes on overseas corporate income. The U.S. federal corporate tax rate currently stands at 35%, which is at the high end of global rates. To circumvent this, many of the industrial companies we cover employ assets (factories, service organizations, administrative facilities, and even corporate domiciles in some cases) in lower-tax jurisdictions. Under current law if a company sets up a factory in a lower-tax jurisdiction, it pays corporate tax at that country's rate and is able to defer paying the difference between that lower rate and the 35% statutory U.S. rate until it repatriates the earnings back to the States. Most companies choose to defer repatriating these profits indefinitely (or until a tax holiday is declared, such as when repatriated earnings were taxed at a one-time rate of 5.25% under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004), and as a result enjoy materially lower taxes. Over the past several years, a large number of the industrial companies in our coverage universe have materially reduced their effective tax rates by locating in low-tax jurisdictions.
Obamanomics' Effect on Industrial Stocks -- Two proposed legislative acts could be detrimental to industrial stocks.
By Eric Landry | 03-18-09 - Stock Strategist Industry Reports
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 2:32pm
You do know what will happen if the wealthiest get taxes raised again? They will pick up and move out. Then who will pay all the freight? Even Bloomberg said there are only approx. 45,000 people paying taxes in NYC for the 8 or 10 million people who live there. That is stunningly unbelievable. I'd leave too.
Posted by peppermint at 03/30/2009 @ 2:35pm
Even Bloomberg said there are only approx. 45,000 people paying taxes in NYC for the 8 or 10 million people who live there. That is stunningly unbelievable. I'd leave too.
Posted by peppermint at 03/30/2009 @ 2:35pm
Got a cite to that quote from Bloomberg Pep?
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 2:47pm
JakobFabian,
When I made my last post I forgot to mention that the wealthy pay most of the tax in this country now.
Were you aware of that?
Pull down the numbers and crunch them for yourself at www.irs.gov
When tax rates were lowered by President Bush, some of the wealthy, even though they were taxed at a lower rate, wound up paying more in actual tax, because of the success of their businesses because of the improved economy because of the tax cuts.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/30/2009 @ 2:54pm
"Sort of true, but non-liberals would not phrase it the way you have. "
Indeed. The practice of non-liberals, particularly those who serve plutocrats, is to phrase things so that the truth remains obscured. The practice of liberals is to phrase things so that the truth becomes CLEAR. That's the difference.
Liberals do not hate business. Under progressive corporate taxation, big corporations would be taxed more, small ones less. Therefore, it would become possible, as a small business owner, to avoid corporate taxes, namely by REMAINING SMALL.
Let me point out once again, should you have missed it the first time, that unionization increases the rewards of WORK compared to the rewards of mere ownership. It also increases the rewards of WORK compared to the rewards of mere public welfare -- which have always been and will always be meager, contrary to plutocratic legend.
"You do know what will happen if the wealthiest get taxes raised again? They will pick up and move out. Then who will pay all the freight?" asked "peppermint."
Remember this, because I'll say it again: When the plutocrats run out of arguments, they resort to threats. All right, "peppermint": Where are all those wealthy people going to move TO? You don't seriously think they would prefer to live in some banana republic, do you? And there are ways for us to levy taxes from territories and commonwealths (such as Puerto Rico), just as we do from states. In fact, considering that territories get less representation than states, taxing them should be even easier.
For the record, of course, I believe states, territories, and commonwealths of the United States of America should all get EQUAL representation, in proportion to their respective populations.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:01pm
Katrina,
How do you define "fair share"? Who are you or anyone in Albany to determine what percentage of their hard earned welath are free citizens are obligated to forfeit? The Bolsheviks under Lenin confiscated 90 percent of the wealth. Was that fair? If so, then why did Russia immediately plunge into famine that lasted well until 1924. The Volga famine ended in 1924 after Lenin and his cronies put in place NEP (the New Economic Policy). The gist of that policy was that the Soviet government grudgingly acknowledged the importance of private enterprise and let the small businessmen to keep most of their wealth. However, that interval of relative prosperity came to an end as Stalin launched collectivization in 1928 to once again extract "fair share" from the "rich" i.e. people who had enough means to engage in small time commerce. The result was millions of dead once again from another famine that lasted well until 1935.
You leftists don't like comparisons with Bolsheviks and their ilk. But your philosophies stem from the well of same erroneous ideas -- That it is not only desirable but imperative for a bunch of bureaucrats, rather than free entrepreneurs whom you both demonize, to distribute wealth and determine production in a society. You both fundamentally misunderstand how economy functions. As such, the result of your confiscatory ideas are always more penury, destitution and ultimately, inequality.
Now, let's wait and see what wonders extracting the "fair share" will accomplish in New York...
Posted by bdraiser at 03/30/2009 @ 3:03pm
"When I made my last post I forgot to mention that the wealthy pay most of the tax in this country now."
It's not the actual amount of taxes that the rich pay that matters, "sjchermak." It's how much they can AFFORD to pay compared to how much the rest of us can afford to pay.
This is as true of the lower end of the income spectrum as it is of the upper end. This is the meaning of the parable of the Widow's Offering, which you can find in the Gospel of Mark (chapter 12, verses 41-43). No doubt you know the story, so I'll repeat only the punchline:
"Truly I tell you," said Jesus of Nazareth, "this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury (including your plutocrats, "sjchermak"). For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
For the record, I believe the poor, and lower-income workers as well, should of course be exempt from all taxation, though they are free to give to charity if they wish. But those who live in abundance should also be taxed abundantly. This is a simple concept of fairness, and it dates back at least as far as the New Testament, and probably much farther.
For another example of the New Testament's (admittedly inconsistent) endorsement of radical wealth-redistribution, read Acts chapter 4, verses 32-37 and chapter 5, verses 1-11. Similar endorsements can also be found in the Old Testament and in the Quran.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:21pm
Oooooooh, now you've done it Jakob!
Don't you know the Bible proves that libertarian economics and neo-conservative foreign policy are "God's will"....not that socialist or pacifist stuff you THINK it means!
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 3:25pm
"Bdraiser" opined: "the result of your confiscatory ideas are always more penury, destitution and ultimately, inequality."
Such as in Western Europe?
It's not so much that we liberals don't LIKE comparisons to Leninists. It's just that the alleged similarity between us and them DOES NOT EXIST.
Progressive taxation is NOT the same thing as a Leninist revolution followed by the imposition of a single-party dictatorship. You can insinuate that it is all you like, but this does not add any truth value to what you say. It remains at zero.
Especially for those of us who've actually BEEN to Western Europe.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:28pm
Oh, by the way, that rate?....
50%
(on incomes of $175,500, adjusted for inflation, call it $190K)
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 11:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
that commernist!!!
and they wonder why there's a deficit...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/30/2009 @ 3:30pm
It's not so much that we liberals don't LIKE comparisons to Leninists. It's just that the alleged similarity between us and them DOES NOT EXIST.
Progressive taxation is NOT the same thing as a Leninist revolution followed by the imposition of a single-party dictatorship. You can insinuate that it is all you like, but this does not add any truth value to what you say. It remains at zero.
Especially for those of us who've actually BEEN to Western Europe.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:28pm
I've yet to see you or any other leftist demonstrate how it ISN'T Marxist.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 3:40pm
It's true, "Mask," the Bible doesn't prove anything -- except that socialist ideas are a lot older than V. I. Lenin. Of course, it also proves that political ideas of nearly every variety (including the good, the bad, and the ugly) are older than most of us think.
Of course, I believe Jesus of Nazareth offered a rather nice illustration of why we should judge contributions to the commonwealth according to what each contributor can AFFORD, not according to the actual amount contributed. Jesus's parable of the Widow's Offering neatly skewers and deflates a commonly repeated plutocratic argument that I find tiresome.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:42pm
Liberals do not hate business. Under progressive corporate taxation, big corporations would be taxed more, small ones less. Therefore, it would become possible, as a small business owner, to avoid corporate taxes, namely by REMAINING SMALL. Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:01pm |
Exactly that is why Obamanationa and the Demoncrats porkulus and centralization of economic control by the government will stifle creativity, economic development, and any and all business incentive!
----------------
, that unionization increases the rewards of WORK compared to the rewards of mere ownership. It also increases the rewards of WORK compared to the rewards of mere public welfare -- Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:01pm |
I suppose that is why GM and Chrysler rather than Ford are begging from the government and considering bankruptcy over sound business and labor relations practices of Ford and the union? What is the incentive of the "owners" to continue the business for little or no reward? Who makes the jobs?
--------------------
Remember this, because I'll say it again: When the plutocrats run out of arguments, they resort to threats. All right, "peppermint": Where are all those wealthy people going to move TO? You don't seriously think they would prefer to live in some banana republic, do you?
Wake up dude, Obamanation and the Demoncrats are making the U.S.A. a bananna socialist state not a republic! Most American jobs are moving overseas now and THEY are destroying any incentive that big money investors and corporations have in remaining here, don't you get it?
You need to read the business news, headlines nationwide, and what is happening politically rather than just read about all the socialistic ideas that have created failure!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 3:44pm
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is EXACTLY what you are proposing," said "antisocialist."
Not quite. What I am proposing is, precisely, PROGRESSIVE TAXATION. This recognizes differences in both abilities and needs and distributes wealth to some degree according to BOTH differing achievements at work AND differing individual needs.
I am NOT proposing the equalization of all income (or its distribution according to need-based criteria alone). In other words, I am NOT suggesting that, say, $50,000 should be the absolute maximum income and everything in excess of this should be confiscated by the government. What I AM suggesting is that people who make less than $50,000 a year should be taxed LESS and that people who make more should be taxed MORE. The same principle holds for every income level that we deem high enough to tax.
The result of progressive taxation is NOT that we all become a classless society. The result is that all the income classes come closer together. Do the math. You'll see that it works out, regardless of the actual level of taxation.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:53pm
"Stimulus Bill! I'm NOT stimulated, are you?"
Sure. I sold the AIG I bought....made a tidy multiple of my CA rent.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 11:57am
Hat to tell you this, you arbitraged against the Bailouts (or TARP), NOT the Stimulus (ie Pork) Bill! Get with the informed!
Posted by Happy at 03/30/2009 @ 4:01pm
"laissez faire" is a term of art co-opted and promulgated by Adam Smith, a paid apparatus of the British East India Company, and, therefore, springs from that operation the American colonies rebelled against to begin with.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/30/2009 @ 4:01pm
CORRECTION!!! Jeremy Bentham, not Adam Smith. Repeat, Bentham, not Smith. I don't think Smith actually used that term, perhaps "invisible hand", but I don't think "laissez faire".
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/30/2009 @ 4:10pm
Wasn't Bentham the "octogon" guy too, designing a more efficient prison system?
I think he was.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/30/2009 @ 4:13pm
"Who makes the jobs?" asked "commancheamerican."
Contrary to plutocratic legend, I believe most genuinely new jobs are created by SMALL businesses, not by big ones, which make a lot of their money by "restructuring" and relocating abroad. Most businesses start small. As they grow, they create new jobs. This is, I believe, where a lot of job creation happens. Remember that under a progressive system of CORPORATE taxation, which I also favor, smaller corporations would be taxed at a lower rate than big ones.
Beware of the "Golden Goose" fallacy, which is that only plutocratic private investment creates new jobs. We can do the same thing by means of PUBLIC investments. We can create new roads, new public transportation, new health clinics, new schools, anything. All of this investment creates jobs -- and it creates them where WE WANT them, not where the plutocrats would find it most profitable to place them.
As to the size of government, what matters most is how this size compares to that of corporations. The bigger the corporations are, the bigger the government needs to be. On the other hand, if all corporations were reduced in size, so that they could not as easily move abroad when we tried to impose more responsibilities on them, government could safely become a lot smaller.
It really is an obvious case of plutocratic one-eye blindness when you hear somebody scream about how big the government is, while uttering not a peep about how big the biggest corporations are. Doesn't the size of the biggest corporations make it difficult for small-scale challengers to compete, and doesn't it lead to oligarchic and trust-like behavior? Doesn't it in fact undermine Adam Smith's utopia of small-scale cobblers? I would say that it does. Wouldn't you?
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 4:13pm
Sorry, again.
It was Bentham's "panopticon". See, even then, these guys were trying to score a buck off the prison system!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/30/2009 @ 4:19pm
"We can create new roads, new public transportation, new health clinics, new schools, anything."
Let me add that whereas we may fund these things at the federal or state level, the ownership may then pass to a lower-level government, such as county or city government, or even ultimately into private hands. It all depends upon what we decide to do democratically.
In other words, I am NOT suggesting that our federal government should simply become like a gigantic corporation that OWNS everything. I would like it to be more like a democratically-run foundation that merely FUNDS those things that we find needful, even if they are not immediately profitable (and therefore fail to attract private investment). The administration of these things could then be highly decentralized and localized, if we wished.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 4:21pm
"Another proposed change that could impact industrial stocks is language within the 2010 proposed budget to increase taxes on overseas corporate income."
Thanks for the good news, "OneVote," and thanks to Eric Landry, too! Down with loopholes! Up with corporate responsibility!
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 5:00pm
Jacob,
You tout Western Europe as a model for America. But you fail to note, or perhaps simply do not realize that, Europeans are much poorer than Americans both on individual and national level. The reason for the disparity is precisely because the Europenans subscribe to your ideas on "progressive taxation" which in reality amounts to confiscatory taxation.
Again, most progressives like yourself reject the constitutional restrains on government authority and hack away at individual freedoms in the name of imaginary "social justice." This is a philosophical question. Where are the limitations to the government's authority to take away one man's wealth and give it to another? As you water down those limitations by "progressive taxation" you control people economic wealth, and subsequently, their political freedoms.
The Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime because they went to the utmost extreme in abolishing private property. But don't tell me that the policies you advocate fall too far from that tree of poisoned apples.
Posted by bdraiser at 03/30/2009 @ 5:04pm
"Europeans are much poorer than Americans both on individual and national level"
evidence?
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 5:07pm
Paying taxes is not a corporate responsibility JakobFabian. Taxes are paid by the individual in the form of higher prices for goods and services.
Or do you somehow think that corporate tax burdens are not passed on to consumers?
How strange if you don't understand that... But explains a lot of what you've been writing today.
Let me ask, if the government raises taxes at the gas pump, those greedy oil companies have to pay it in your world, right?
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 5:10pm
Thanks for the good news, "OneVote," and thanks to Eric Landry, too! Down with loopholes! Up with corporate responsibility!
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Can you believe that this asshole from P & G earned $27.70 million in CEO compensation last year?
Just GD unbelievable.
Like this cat got no skin in the game.
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 5:12pm
"Beware of the "Golden Goose" fallacy, which is that only plutocratic private investment creates new jobs. We can do the same thing by means of PUBLIC investments. We can create new roads, new public transportation, new health clinics, new schools, anything. All of this investment creates jobs -- and it creates them where WE WANT them, not where the plutocrats would find it most profitable to place them."
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 4:13pm
JakobFabian,
Your mention of public investment creating new infrastructure points to another great plutocratic fallacy, for which I don't have a pithy name, but which goes something like this: It's my money. I earned it, and therefore I should be able to keep it – all of it. (Or damn near all of it.)
This fallacious argument neglects to point out that private corporations rely heavily on publicly-financed infrastructure. Image Sam Walton creating the Wal-Mart empire without being able to use the interstate highway system, which was paid for through taxes levied on all US citizens. If Sam Walton had to build all his own roads in order to distribute Wal-Mart goods to his big box stores, he never would never have made it out of Arkansas.
Then there's the use of other public resources and utilities: water, clean air, electricity, waste disposal, sewage treatment, advertising over the public airwaves, the reliance on public health care and social services to provide care that the Wal-Mart corporation will not provide, and so on.
So when plutocrats whine that it's "their" money and that they should be able to keep it, just remind them how much of "our" money they pilfer, poach, and plunder from the public treasury without so much as a "Thank you."
Zosima
Posted by Zosima at 03/30/2009 @ 5:14pm
My problem with progressive tax in the past was that it's after-the-fact. Essentially it redistributes income to the government to create a safety net for the fallen. The poor stay poor (and voting for dems) but they don't starve or revolt.
A better answer is to make businesses pay people a decent wage, and allow workers to organize in order to achieve that.
Even as a pro-capitalist I can see that Marx's definition of profit as the surplus value derived from unpaid labor is on point. I'm not for "to each according to..." But we have shock capitalism here where the capitalists have horded so much of the unpaid labor for themselves that the largest industries are the ones that are completely parasitic and non-producing. Those industries, the financials - I think there's a legitimate argument for taxing their tighty whities off.
As for the industries that produce, we should be careful not to dis-incentivize these, and should consider tax policies that would promote decent pay for workers.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/30/2009 @ 5:15pm
'Reuters
By Jessica Wohl
CHICAGO, Aug 28 (Reuters) - Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N) said on Tuesday that 70 percent of its top executive's $27.7 million in compensation in the latest fiscal year came in stock, restricted stock or stock options. Chairman and Chief Executive A.G. Lafley's salary of $1.7 million was the same as in the three prior fiscal years, and his $3.5 million bonus, which is based on company performance, was unchanged from the previous two years.
Among other compensation, Lafley received $9.2 million in stock and $10.3 million in options. Most of his compensation stemmed from long-term incentive programs.
A year earlier, Lafley earned $5 million in restricted stock awards and $5.9 million in long-term incentive plan payments.'
Like Obama should give a rat's ass what self serving Lafley thinks - a guy who doesn't mind one little bit about stealing shareholder equity.
Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2009 @ 5:16pm
You're right, "Zosima," the "it's-my-money" fallacy belongs right up there at the top of the plutocrats' treasury of fallacies.
If you like, I'd propose to call this the "Bounderby fallacy," after the character from Charles Dickens's novel HARD TIMES. In that story, Josiah Bounderby, a greedy factory owner, is so eager to make himself universally admired as a "self-made man" that he hides away his mother, who has lovingly supported him and funded his education, as if she were a shameful secret. Near the end of the novel, his mother appears and identifies herself, so that at last the big windbag gets his long-deserved come-uppance.
In truth, there is no such thing as a self-made man; every man or woman who succeeds does so as the beneficiary of an immeasurable natural and cultural inheritance. And as you point out, "Zosima," many of us have benefited directly from past public investments. We should not be ungrateful.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 5:43pm
"Let me ask, if the government raises taxes at the gas pump, those greedy oil companies have to pay it in your world, right?"
A tax on gasoline is a CONSUMPTION tax, "freiheit1," not an income tax. Consumption taxes are notoriously less progressive than income taxes. This is why I generally do not favor consumption taxes, such as sales taxes, unless we are seriously trying to discourage people from buying something, such as cigarettes or (perhaps) gasoline.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 5:47pm
I do not suddenly become demotivated to pursue excellence when someone else is given a helping hand.
Perhaps it's a trait unique to you?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No you will probably enjoy working for 50% less while the nonworking live off your other 50%! How much are your charitable contributions as a percentage of your income currently? Same as Biden, Gore, Clinton etc.?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
Yes, I'm aware of it being a consumption tax, Jake, but I was addressing your comment about "up with corporate responsibility."
I do find it odd that you seem perfectly comfortable underplaying consequences of higher personal income tax rates ("Where are all those wealthy people going to move TO? You don't seriously think they would prefer to live in some banana republic, do you?"), but are quick to point out the behavioral consequences of an increased consumption tax... Hmmm, as if rich people behave different than the rest of us somehow.
With collectivism gaining influence in our current "crisis managed" environment, no one will have to move to live in a banana republic!
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 6:32pm
"My problem with progressive tax in the past was that it's after-the-fact. Essentially it redistributes income to the government to create a safety net for the fallen. The poor stay poor (and voting for dems) but they don't starve or revolt," said "gangpapist."
EVERY tax is after-the-fact, "gangpapist." We can't very well tax things BEFORE the fact, can we?
I also cannot share your hopeful belief that we can make lower-income people more likely to revolt by seeing to it that they starve. People who starve are more likely to DIE than to revolt -- though I suppose starvation IS a sure-fire way to stop people from voting for Democrats (or Republicans, or anybody else), if this is all you want. I myself would prefer non-violent and humane means of achieving this end, such as reforming our electoral system so that third and fourth parties become more electable.
Moreover, it is generally NOT true that hardship and suffering are educational, or that they make a violent revolution (God forbid) more likely to be progressive in its outcome.
Let me give you a historical example: The German Leninists were overjoyed when the Great Depression hit Germany in 1929, because they believed that this would make the mighty German proletariat rise up in revolt and bring their dear leader, Ernst Thälmann, to power. Well, in a few years -- in 1933, to be precise -- there was indeed a revolution in Germany, but it wasn't the one that the Leninists wanted. Instead of Thälmann, they got Hitler.
In short, I do not have any faith in the necessary progressive effect of human-rights disasters. Sometimes, things do not get better after they get worse. Sometimes, they just keep on getting worse.
So please, let's avoid misery, suffering, and violence as much as we humanly can, okay?
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 6:52pm
Max Fraser (in his NATION article "Global Labor's G-20 Agenda") wrote:
'"The summit may agree on minutiae like tax havens (none of which will be represented) and bankers' bonuses," THE ECONOMIST grumbled recently. "But on the important stuff, the stage is set for disappointment."'
Disappointing though the summit may be, I note with glee the first clause: "The summit may agree on minutiae like tax havens (none of which will be represented)."
Wow! This means that the G-20 nations may close the great loophole that allows corporations to escape their corporate responsibility simply by moving away! That would be no small thing at all; that would be a VERY big deal!
I'm not saying that it will happen, but the mere possibility that it may happen seriously weakens the threat that the plutocrats (and their spokespersons, like "freiheit1") repeatedly raise -- and it is a threat, not an argument -- that progressive taxation will cause all our precious Golden Geese to fly the coop. There's no reason why we need to let them. Hear this, plutocrats: The day will come, and it's not too far off, when leaving the country whose workers made most of your wealth will require you to leave a fair share of this wealth behind.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 7:10pm
"So when plutocrats whine that it's "their" money and that they should be able to keep it, just remind them how much of "our" money they pilfer, poach, and plunder from the public treasury without so much as a "Thank you.""
so true!
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 7:13pm
"The day will come, and it's not too far off, when leaving the country whose workers made most of your wealth will require you to leave a fair share of this wealth behind."
I see, JakobFabian, and that's an argument, NOT a threat, how? :-)
Hey, this has been great fun, but the truth here is we are deep into the usual hegelian dialectic. We are both wrong and the ultimate result will be something entirely different.
Seriously, what do taxes really mean anyway when we have a system of fiat currency? The powers that control wealth are calling the shots. And they're doing an amazing job keeping us focused on everything but.
See you in the workers relocation camp!
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 8:06pm
""So when plutocrats whine that it's "their" money and that they should be able to keep it, just remind them how much of "our" money they pilfer, poach, and plunder from the public treasury without so much as a "Thank you.""
I know, but is it fair to single out Congress like that?
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 8:12pm
On the difference between a threat and an argument:
An argument appeals to the listener. A threat intimidates the listener.
So whether what I said about plutocrats soon being required to pay their fair share is a threat or an argument depends entirely on YOU. If what I say appeals to you, then it's an argument. If it intimidates you, then it's a threat.
I believe most readers of these posts will find what I have written to be appealing rather than threatening. The plutocrats may find it threatening rather than appealing, but I can't help that.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 8:38pm
I find it misguided.
Posted by freiheit1 at 03/30/2009 @ 8:43pm
I met a real patriot the other day. A man who loved his country so much that he gladly pays higher taxes(not taking every deduction possible) to ensure that the way of life and freedoms of the U.S remain vibrant. He wants good roads, good schools and adequate healthcare for all his fellow U.S citizens. He is willing to sacrifice his taxes for the good of his fellow citizens. Where is his parade or medal of honor? That is what is lacking in this debate. People who pay higher taxes should be regarded as heroes because they are sacrificing their money for the good of all. We need a Tax Patriot movement.
All this talk of fairness is meaningless. Volunteers in the armed services who protect the country never complain that it is not fair that they have a higher burden than everyone else.
If you make more money than the average person. Be Patriotic and pay higher because higher income people benefit more from a stable and secure society. But I do agree that higher earners should get an award or at least some recognition.
Posted by kfuro at 03/30/2009 @ 8:45pm
YOU want them to settle for being polite slaves.
I won't stand for it.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 6:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Then you had better stop voting for the Demoncrats! They created generations of welfare slaves and now are reinstituting them again since that is where their voter base has always been since LBJ!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 10:36pm
How about exchanging progressive personal income taxation with progressive corporate taxation (along with labor unions where appropos)?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 5:30pm
Interested.
How about a sliding scale for corporate tax? A corporation that pays a higher wage for similar work relative to other corporations (geographical cost of living factored in) pays less tax then the latter.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/30/2009 @ 11:39pm
If you were truly interested in fairness,comrade,you would favor a FLAT TAX for all. What you want is CONTROL. God help us all.
Posted by BCslp at 03/31/2009 @ 06:50am
The flat tax, "BCslp," is favored by two kinds of people:
(1) people who just don't want anything too complicated, and
(2) the selfish rich.
I'll leave it to you to figure out why.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/31/2009 @ 08:03am
Regarding a "sliding scale for corporate tax," I like the idea of progressive corporate taxation just as much as I like any other kind of progressive taxation. However, this has to be keyed to the SIZE of the corporation, not its compensation to its workers or shareholders. This would discourage aggressive takeovers and encourage corporations to remain relatively small -- and competitive with each other.
We shouldn't give tax breaks just because a corporation gives everybody a raise. Yes, I do believe a corporation should pay its workers well, but it has a lot of other responsibilities too, like providing quality products and services, saving energy, and reducing pollution. This gets harder for smaller corporations to do, which is why I believe it's only fair to tax them at a lower rate.
With real competition among corporations and a high rate of unionization, I believe executive compensation will go down and worker compensation will go up, without having to mess with the tax code to make this happen.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/31/2009 @ 08:13am
I guess I'm not finished with "BCslp." The more ominous -- and jaw-droppingly non-sensical -- part of his comment was the following: "What you want is CONTROL. God help us all."
As a socialist, I have to say that this happens to me a lot. People get all frightened of me and invoke God's power to save them, when all that I have done is defend progressive taxation. I feel like Casper the Friendly Ghost!
The task remains to clear up why "BCslp" believes progressive taxation will give me "CONTROL."
Actually, progressive taxation does give all of us control, because all of us exert some control over the government, provided that we all vote. The nice thing about this control is that it is equal for everybody. My control over the government is exactly the same as yours (or should be -- I'll save my rant about the un-representative Senate and Electoral College for another time). So the control over our common wealth that "BCslp" finds so scary when I obtain it by progressive taxation is exactly balanced by the control that "BCslp" also obtains by progressive taxation.
Maybe "BCslp" doesn't WANT to have any control and would rather leave everything to God.
Unfortunately, by favoring a flat tax, "BCslp" actually leaves real control not with God, but in the hands of the very rich.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/31/2009 @ 09:29am
Dear "snowball666,"
What is the "everybody works in CA" problem, exactly? I live in Minnesota, which is presently either the most prosperous Midwestern state or belongs to the top five. I understand that there are grave differences in investment from place to place, but I also understand there are vast differences in the endowment of natural resources and in the quality of life that this endowment makes possible. For example, everybody loves southern California weather, but there are also serious water shortages and earthquakes. In Minnesota, we have famously changeable weather, including a healthy crop of tornadoes every year, but on the other hand, we have 10,000 lakes, not counting Lake Superior. And we get rain, which means that our water comes for free (though we do have to pay to keep it clean). Given the choice between southern California and Minnesota, I'll take Minnesota.
I would like to make the pattern of geographical distribution of investments as fair as possible, of course, but no amount of investment can make it rain in southern California or get rid of the tornadoes in the Midwest. A certain amount of geographical unfairness is, well, geographical. The best solution may sometimes be simply to move.
Thank you so kindly for your postings, by the way. It means something when prosperous workers step up willingly and generously to pay what they know they are able to pay to make our country a better place. Truly, you are "traitors to your income class," but you are also true patriots, and I salute you.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/31/2009 @ 09:44am
How about exchanging progressive personal income taxation with progressive corporate taxation (along with labor unions where appropos)?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 5:30pm
I see. You want a return to high inflation, high unemployment, double digit mortgage rates, and tripling the cost of a gallon gas.
Thanks, but no thanks. Some of us already lived through that once with Carter.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:55am
Resistance is futile!
Posted by abell12ct at 03/31/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by bdraiser at 03/30/2009 @ 3:03
The Bolsheviks under Lenin confiscated 90 percent of the wealth. Was that fair?
--Yes, it was, given the extreme inequality, exploitation and oppression experienced by the Russian peasantry and working class over the centuries. Hell, in the countryside, it wasn't the Bolsheviks doing the confiscating; they just stayed out of the way of the peasantry, who could no longer be denied.
If so, then why did Russia immediately plunge into famine that lasted well until 1924.
--Um, mainly because Russia went straight from a devastating world war and a confiscatory peace treaty with the Central Powers to a civil war where the other side was supported by foreign money (mainly the U.K. and France), espionage (especially the U.K.) and armed intervention (Japan and another dozen or so!). I will admit that a secondary reason was the lack of experienced administrators in the Bolshevik camp, although a few were developed, such as Trotsky and Frunze.
However, that interval of relative prosperity came to an end as Stalin launched collectivization in 1928 to once again extract "fair share" from the "rich" i.e. people who had enough means to engage in small time commerce.
--And the brutality, inefficiency and lack of planning of his policies were denounced by far truer Bolsheviks than Stalin, the gravedigger and great betrayer of the revolution.
To be continued.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/31/2009 @ 3:57pm
Posted by bdraiser at 03/30/2009 @ 3:03
Response Part 2
You leftists don't like comparisons with Bolsheviks and their ilk. But your philosophies stem from the well of same erroneous ideas -- That it is not only desirable but imperative for a bunch of bureaucrats, rather than free entrepreneurs whom you both demonize, to distribute wealth and determine production in a society. You both fundamentally misunderstand how economy functions. As such, the result of your confiscatory ideas are always more penury, destitution and ultimately, inequality.
--I am probably the only regular (well, semi-regular) poster here who considers his politics to fall within the Bolshevik tradition. As I've said many times to the conservatives (and some of the centrists) on this site, please do not lump revolutionary socialists in with liberals (who in any country with a mass labor or social democratic party wouldn't even be considered "of the left" anyway) and social democrats (or democratic socialists).
--Liberals are capitalists. They may believe in reforming and regulating the capitalist system, but they can be just as market-oriented as right-wing capitalists, sometimes more so (check out a few humanist magazines if you want to see this phenomenon). They also were mostly solid Cold Warriors, contrary to some myths.
--Social Democrats traditionally have thought that Capitalism would peacefully evolve into Socialism. In practice, they have behaved like liberals with a mission; reforming, regulating and coordinating privately owned economies. I must admit that the results, contrary to your line about "penury" above, have often been impressive, but they are built on a foundation of sand (i.e., privately owned means of production).
To be continued.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/31/2009 @ 4:11pm
What's your humbug with the period between say '50 and '70 when we grew the middle class despite corporate taxation?
Corporations aren't citizens. Enabling their largess at the expense of Americans is no better than sympathizing with our enemies in the former republics.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 10:39am
High corporate taxation produces inflation. Coupled with union coercion, we used to have an endless battle against inflation in this country. It was Reagan that broke the back of inflation with his tax reductions and the stand against the air controllers (which inspired many to then stand up to the unions).
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:32pm
Posted by bdraiser at 03/30/2009 @ 3:03
Response, Final Part
I am a Trotskyist, so although I consider Stalin a criminal and a traitor - to the working class, to socialism, to Lenin, to the Bolsheviks and to the Russian Revolution - I have to answer for his crimes because he too emerged from the far left and becasue of the stench that he has left on our traditions and politics.
Would that you apologists for capitalism took the same level of responsibility in addressing the crimes of capitalism: the daily exploitation of labor; the daily immiseration of the peasants and workers of the Third World; the imposition of "Free Trade" and neo-liberalism by military dictatorships on the one hand and the threat of fiscal armageddon on the other. The mass suicides of Indian farmers. The murders of trade unionists in Columbia and Latin America. The glorification of the parasites of Wall Street and their stock, bond and pork belly casinos.
Don't give me that "we are the economic experts" crap. You are fetishists of the free market, and your kinks brought us the Great Depression 80 years ago and have been driving wages and benefits down across the globe for the last 35, economic growth be damned. And you have only been able to do so through undemocratic means, by military, economic or political coup, because most of us want more security and leisure, not less; quality education and health care for all; and a decent job and benefits, not a kick in the teeth. You capitalists have promised us all of these things and delivered none of them to most of us, unless you were dragged kicking and screaming into it by an organized working class.
I'll deal with the failings of socialism. If you can't even address those of capitalism, then just go to hell!
Posted by cka2nd at 03/31/2009 @ 4:48pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:32pm
High corporate taxation produces inflation. Coupled with union coercion, we used to have an endless battle against inflation in this country. It was Reagan that broke the back of inflation with his tax reductions and the stand against the air controllers (which inspired many to then stand up to the unions).
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:32pm
I thought we didn't have particularly high inflation in the U.S. in the post-war period until the late 60's, when the combination of the Vietnam War, social spending and the rise of OPEC kicked it into high gear. Anyone have the numbers on this?
As for breaking the back of inflation, sorry anti, but Paul Volcker, the Democratic head of the Federal Reserve (appointed by Jimmy Carter, and now an advisor to Obama, "brrr"), gets the credit for that. Of course, it took a huge increase in interest rates and a deep recession to do it, but they did the trick, not Reagan's tax cuts or his union-busting.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/31/2009 @ 4:54pm
because most of us want more security and leisure, not less; quality education and health care for all; and a decent job and benefits, not a kick in the teeth. You capitalists have promised us all of these things and delivered none of them to most of us, unless you were dragged kicking and screaming into it by an organized working class.
I'll deal with the failings of socialism. If you can't even address those of capitalism, then just go to hell!
Posted by cka2nd at 03/31/2009 @ 4:48pm
this conservative has promised none of those things because I don't believe govt is supposed to have any part in them.
We haven't had real capitalism in this country. Nor have we had a real conservative govt yet. It hasn't been tried.
Since the turn of the last century, the left has driven this country further and further into marxism.
Plus the addition of the Federal Reserve abrogated our control of our monetary system. That change was not implemented by conservatives or true capitalists.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:56pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 4:59pm
We never had a single year during Bush's term where inflation even approached 5%. yet we had double digit inflation during Carter.
And as you say, you were a child during Carter, I was raising a family and speak from my experience.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 5:09pm
Who needs a fiat bubble when the credit money bubble can suffice?
Do you think I don't have parents who were alive and raising me in the 70s? Or did it just feel better to try to talk down to me?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 6:30pm
I'm not trying to demean you. But it's hardly the same to say your parents went through that period as the same as actually having the responsibility of raising children during that time.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 6:57pm