Comment Rescue – “Politicians have gotten the message”

Filed in National by on August 5, 2014

Geezer has posted a tidy summary of our current political situation:

“I don’t support the (cigarette) tax. The fairest way to tax people would be on wealth, not income, not sin taxes. But thanks to folks like you — the stupid ones who side with the wealthy instead of standing for the people — we’ve made that unacceptable. Politicians have gotten the message: People with money (and their broke-ass, brainwashed lackeys) will defeat you if you tax them; poor people don’t have the juice to do that.”

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pandora says:

    Too true.

    And if I hear one more person compare government cutting/spending to a household budget my head will explode.

  2. puck says:

    I don’t agree wtih net worth taxes, but on the other hand I haven’t heard any good arguments in favor so I remain open minded. I don’t care how much you keep in your vault, as long as you paid a fair tax at a progressive rate on the way into the vault. Of course the purpose of an enormous pile of money is to drop out of the labor force and keep making more money off the returns and dividends, which for large fortunes need to be taxed a hell of a lot more than the Obama rate of 20%.

    Besides, if taxes are based on net worth, the rich will cook those books too.

    Before we start thinking about a net worth tax, I’d like to see tax reform focused on making Mitt Romney pay more than 14% before it ever turns into his net worth.

  3. Jason330 says:

    Most industrialized countries can manage that. Mexico and the United States stand alone because the wealthy have the best lobbyist and PR operations to keep the idiots and lackeys in line.

    Also, they don’t have to concern themselves with any organized opposition or legitimate media.

  4. Davy says:

    We need a progressive consumption tax. The last thing our country needs to do is provide people with a reason not to save. Wealth taxes have that effect.

  5. kavips says:

    To break the hold you need to break the hold of TV. I hear many people discount political advertising completely. Now we need to discount TV completely.

    Seeing how a boycott has destroyed RUSH, that seems to be the way to go. Fox News. Whoever advertises on that, needs to get letters saying their product will no longer be used….

    The problem with crazies, is that their arguments makes sense in worlds of no consequence. But when the top financial line dips by as little as 1 percent, the attention of those with money tied up, becomes sharply prioritized…

  6. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    Goofy discussion.

    The fundamental problem isn’t tax itself. The problem is the special interest exemptions, the credits, the incentives that are woven into the tax code. This problem is caused by the legislative and executive branches and the voters

    You’re smoking pot, again, if you think that once a wealth tax is imposed all will be good and fair across the land. The only thing that will change is the how that tax is rigged and abused for the benefit of the monies classes.

    Flat tax.

    No exceptions. No exemptions. No credits. Everyone pays the same on the same. Might be regressive, might be progressive. But fairness comes from treating everyone the same.

  7. John Manifold says:

    The flat tax gang almost universally calls for repeal of the estate tax as part of the deal. See Forbes, Steve.

  8. Geezer says:

    No, fairness does not come from treating everyone the same. The rich have a lot more to gain from protecting property than the poor do. They SHOULD pay higher taxes, because they are getting more out of the system. On a practical level, the fair or flat tax would cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class.

    Anyone who thinks that we need to “encourage saving” is working on a primitive understanding of economics, in which investing was given more incentive than “saving” on purpose. Today, of course, there are trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines because there is nothing worthwhile to invest it in, so the idea of incentivizing saving instead of spending is counter-productive. Two-thirds of the economy is consumer spending, which is why we might never escape the recession in hiring — people have so little money to spend that fast food restaurants are hurting for customers. Yet we still tax capital gains at half the rate we should (there is no sound reason to treat capital gains differently from any other form of income).

    I don’t foresee a day when we’ll have a wealth tax. I simply think that’s the least regressive way to tax people. Of the taxes we actually have, income tax is the most progressive, at least in those places with graduated tax schedules. Dana is correct in his assessment that many of our tax alternatives — the lottery, gasoline taxes, everything except the income tax.

    If we had a rational government, we would replace some of our current tax revenue with carbon taxes, which would not be progressive but would curtail fossil fuel use.

  9. puck says:

    All flat tax proposals exclude investment income and are therefore a scheme by the rich to pass taxes off on wage workers. Now if you show me a flat tax proposal that applies to all income, that could be the start of a conversation.

  10. rustydils says:

    The history of taxing people and things because they are bad has a pretty long track record in the U.S. In the 1800’s we taxed alcohol and the distillation of alcohol heavily, because it was bad. Everyone thinks you should tax people and things because they are bad, to get your revenue to run the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have over 340 million people in this country. We have and need a government. There is always a debate as to how big it should be, some say bigger, some say the same size, and some say smaller. I point to the fact that the government has spent 17 trillion dollars more than it has taken in, in revenue and say the government should be smaller. But, no matter which of those 3 positions you choose, to achieve the most effective way to come up with the maximum revenue from 340 million citizens, (only working people and businesses), we need to tax individuals and businesses fairly without harming one particular individual or group. The “only” correct way to do that is a flat rate tax on their income, that is designed so that everyone pays the same rate. The guy that makes 10,000 pays 15%, or $1500. The guy that makes $100,000 pays 15%, or $15,000. The guy that makes $1,000,000 pays 15%, or $150,000. In that way, no one is creating a disincentive to be productive.

    P.S. we have to get over this false mentality that highly productive people who make a lot of many are “bad”

  11. Jason330 says:

    Rusty –

    Maybe. It depends what you call income. I’d tax Charlie Copeland’s dividends as normal income, and why not – his creativity and productivity had nothing to do with his genetic windfall.

    “P.S. we have to get over this false mentality that highly productive people who make a lot of many are “bad” ”

    Please. I make 5 times what most of the Republican idiots here make. Probably 10 times for some. I should be be patting Dana on the back for all he is trying to do for me – but my vision extends beyond my personal circumstance.

  12. puck says:

    “Making a lot of money” is not the same thing as “highly productive.” In fact it rarely is. Progressive tax brackets are usually pretty kind to those who made their money through work, compared with those who made even larger sums by not working. Why do you think they call it “unearned income?”

  13. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    Flat tax – everything is on the table or its no better than the existing mess.

    The rich will, on the whole, not see a tax decrease under a flat tax. They will, however, lose all of the current loop holes that spare them a far share of the tax burden. The loss of that will result in higher taxes on them as a class.

  14. puck says:

    “Flat tax – everything is on the table or its no better than the existing mess.”

    Of course, that kind of honest flat tax would then be opposed by the wealthy. They would fight against it.That is why all current flat tax proposals amount to a “No tax for Steve Forbes” scheme.

    And even then, with a flat tax applied to all income, progressive logic would still hold – the very rich have benefited at a greater rate than the rest of us, and they are benefiting from our contribution to their wealth, so they should pay a higher rate. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

  15. Jason330 says:

    True. But an actual flat tax on all income would be better than the sham progressive tax structure we have now.

  16. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    News Flash: every change to the tax code will be opposed. Poor reason to do nothing.

  17. bamboozer says:

    PR and lobbyists have little to do with taxes and tax rates, it’s pure corruption on the part of politicians and a failed political system that worships money above the welfare of it’s citizens. The power of plutocracy has surged in the last four decades, another Reagan gift and one that grows more powerful with the years. As noted the poor are unable to strike back and politicians do not fear them and frequently coopt the more foolish of them into voting for the Republicans. But the Dems are precious little better. Just as it will take a generation to undo Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and a host of other Roberts court abominations so will it take many years to undo the current grip of the plutocrats and corporations.

  18. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    “PR and lobbyists have little to do with taxes and tax rates”

    “The poor are unable to strike back at them”

    Is anything left in the bottle?