Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[Brian4Liberty]

Big lie of the Democratic machine: "we can keep doing what we have been doing if we can just get "the rich" to pay their fair share."
Big lie of the Republican machine: "we can keep doing what we are doing if we can just kick the lazy bums off welfare and cut waste."

Both are lies designed to divide the country into factions fighting each other while the special interests that profit from government continue to fill their pockets and the country continues to spin down the drain.

I'm tired of having the "how should we tax the rich more" argument. Why doesn't anyone talk about how they got that money in the first place? We could solve the problem by putting an end to our centralized banking system that literally prints up money and puts it in the hands of the rich and their friends.

+reps

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We have a dilemma. For most people, a political donation is an expense. It's money you will never see again. If you are lucky, it might help to promote your political message. When a connected person makes a political donation, it's an investment. They will make money based on it. A donation of $20,000 could very well result in $2,000,000 in additional money from government, either through favorable law or government contracts.

With such economic incentives for donations to corrupt politicians who will create necessarily complex and unfair tax code, how can the situation be changed? The rich get richer, the politicians more corrupt. Is it inevitable?

 

[erowe1]

Is it inevitable?

I think it probably is.

 

[Acala]

We have a dilemma. For most people, a political donation is an expense. It's money you will never see again. If you are lucky, it might help to promote your political message. When a connected person makes a political donation, it's an investment. They will make money based on it. A donation of $20,000 could very well result in $2,000,000 in additional money from government, either through favorable law or government contracts.

With such economic incentives for donations to corrupt politicians who will create necessarily complex and unfair tax code, how can the situation be changed? The rich get richer, the politicians more corrupt. Is it inevitable?

Strict limits on government functions and strict liimits on taxing powers. But we had those and they were eventually eroded away. I think the only check on government power that might work in the long run is the radical right to secession at every level with swift and harsh punishment for anyone who interferes with that right.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/27



Just my two cents, but the Top 1% of this country controls 50% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% of the country controls just 1% of the wealth. Figures might be a bit off, might be like 2%, but its close enough for Govt work. So it doesnt matter if the Govt were to take EVERYTHING from us, it is only equivilant of just 1% of what the rich already have! So how is it they can expect to take more and more blood from us turnips?

Of course the real solution would be to cut the Income Tax period. The people at the bottom should be able to take their wealth back from the rich because it was effectively stolen from them, and the Theft should be reimbursed!

Who controls the other 49%?

 

[angelatc]

But after tax the top 1% still has more wealth than the bottom 90%

I hate liberals. There's no legitimate economic reason to fucking cry about a wealth gap, unless you're trying to incite class war.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/11/the-myth-of-record-high-inequality/

 

[Cowlesy]

Worst thread of the week.

 

[Acala]

I hate liberals. There's no legitimate economic reason to fucking cry about a wealth gap, unless you're trying to incite class war.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/11/the-myth-of-record-high-inequality/

Yup. Envy is universally considered a human vice. Crying about income differential is pure envy.

It is a different matter if you can show that the rich are getting rich through crony-capitalism and therefore at the expense of others. But then the solution is to eliminate crony capitalism, not to tax the "rich".

 

[Pericles]

Big lie of the Democratic machine: "we can keep doing what we have been doing if we can just get "the rich" to pay their fair share."
Big lie of the Republican machine: "we can keep doing what we are doing if we can just kick the lazy bums off welfare and cut waste."

Both are lies designed to divide the country into factions fighting each other while the special interests that profit from government continue to fill their pockets and the country continues to spin down the drain.

Undisputable fact.

 

[shocker315]

The first guy sounds like a bit of a tool... but he makes a good point.

 

[Roy L]

Envy is universally considered a human vice.

But greed, somehow, is good...?

Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil. When you choose to rationalize and justify greed, or falsely to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries, you are serving evil in its most fundamental form. It's that simple.

Crying about income differential is pure envy.

No. Opposition to injustice is the most fundamental human virtue. Your claim is therefore pure dishonesty and pure evil. A human being can commit no more evil act than to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries.

It is a different matter if you can show that the rich are getting rich through crony-capitalism and therefore at the expense of others.

I have shown that they mainly get rich through privilege, and therefore at the expense of others:

Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html

Almost all the wealth of almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real estate":

1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."

2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges

3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources

4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges

5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!

6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources

7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!

8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!

9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
productive

10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...

11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"

12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."

13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership

14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege

15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!

16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege

17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege

18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive

19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)

20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege

21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges

Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made" billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) actually made the bulk of their money through actual productive contributions. The rest were
all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.

But then the solution is to eliminate crony capitalism, not to tax the "rich".

The problem is not "crony capitalism," but rather the mechanism by which it is enshrined in law: privilege.

 

[Roy L]

Who controls the other 49%?

The 51st through 99th percents. Duh.

 

[angelatc]

Land ownership isn't a privilege. A career in media isn't a privilege. Owning a copyright isn't a privilege.

Who in the world are these people?

 

[Roy L]

I hate liberals.

Like the Founding Fathers?

There's no legitimate economic reason to fucking cry about a wealth gap, unless you're trying to incite class war.

That is a deeply evil lie, as Warren Buffett told you:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/11/the-myth-of-record-high-inequality/

Check this masterpiece of dishonesty and illogic from that article:

"While many people cite inequality as a cause for the recession and joblessness, inequality was actually higher during the boom times of 2007 and 2008, when unemployment was under 5%."

"A caused B" means that A must have happened BEFORE B. Hello? The record high inequality of 2007 and 2008, followed by the collapse, is therefore excellent reason to think that inequality DID cause the recession and joblessness.

 

[Roy L]

Land ownership isn't a privilege.

It is indisputably a privilege, as it removes others' rights to liberty without just compensation.

A career in media isn't a privilege.

It might or might not be, depending on what that "career" involves. A "career" in owning broadcast spectrum allocations is indisputably a privilege.

Owning a copyright isn't a privilege.

It most certainly and indisputably is a privilege. A copyright is created, issued and enforced by government.

Who in the world are these people?

The only hope you have, for one.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil. When you choose to rationalize and justify greed, or falsely to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries, you are serving evil in its most fundamental form. It's that simple.

Define greed, Roy. Not how you feel about it, which, who gives a rat's butt except you. And not your preferred biblical non-mistranslation (you said how it was mistranslated, but didn't provide an alternate translation). No empty or ill-defined sentiments. What definition are you going by?

Is it:

a) intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.
b) an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth...
c) a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.
d) Other (please elucidate, spell out with specificity)

I am curious to see just how widely you cast your righteously indignant condemnation net where "greed" is concerned.

The problem is not "crony capitalism," but rather the mechanism by which it is enshrined in law: privilege.

While you're at it, give us your definition of privilege, yeah? And the criteria for that.

 

[torchbearer]

are they talking about a 2 trillion dollar deficit or a 100 billion dollar deficit?

 

[Roy L]

the problem isn't revenue. it's spending.

It's both: the unjust and harmful ways government obtains revenue necessitate unjust, wasteful and excessive spending to try to undo the harm the unjust revenue system causes.

But the basic question is very simple: if you think spending is the problem, why do you want to pay for government twice?

 

[angelatc]

I have better things to do than sort through your liberal gibberish.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-20-cover-generation-wealth_N.htm


Bottom Line: Income typically peaks at age 57 and wealth at age 63, according to the Federal Reserve. Therefore it may not be so much that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," as much as it is that as the older baby boom generation enters their peak years of earnings and wealth, the older baby boom generation (especially the college graduates) is getting richer. Ergo a generation gap contributes to income inequality (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/search?q=Wealth+Gap)

 

[awake]

In other words, your neighbors corvette could pay of your friends Larry's gambling debt? Your neighbor wont miss it...He has a second car anyway.