Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.

I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.

Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are de facto more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

 

[Andylusion]

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

But.... they didn't. They didn't back then, nor today.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 1—Winter 2007—Pages 3–24
How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
System? A Historical and International
Perspective

The larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.

The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.

This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.

You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.

But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates. If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.

The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics

The basic fact of the Federal taxation is that it raises about 20% of GDP despite wild variation in the statutory tax rates. In 1960 Federal tax receipts (NIPA table 3.2) divided by national income (NIPA 1.12) were 93.9/2013.9 = 19.8%. In 2004 this ratio was 2013.9/10534.0 = 19.1%.

The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time. It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.

Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.

Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?

The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today. Never.

The same has been true of other countries. They raise taxes and capital leaves. There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.

Do we really want an authoritarian rule? Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are de facto more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.

Look... You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that. But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?

 

[georgephillip]

Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.

I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.

Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are de facto more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, Chris Hedges used Wolin to make the point that democracy in America is a useful fiction; however, the corporate state is firmly cemented in place:

"Inverted totalitarianism represents 'the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,' Wolin writes in 'Democracy Incorporated.'

"Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state.

"The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure.

"They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible."

The conflict between oligarch and democracy has gone on for thousands of years; today's multinational corporations serve as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected individuals.

I don't see how it can change as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their congressional representatives.

Chris Hedges: Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

 

[Andylusion]

Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.

I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.

Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are de facto more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, Chris Hedges used Wolin to make the point that democracy in America is a useful fiction; however, the corporate state is firmly cemented in place:

"Inverted totalitarianism represents 'the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,' Wolin writes in 'Democracy Incorporated.'

"Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state.

"The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure.

"They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible."

The conflict between oligarch and democracy has gone on for thousands of years; today's multinational corporations serve as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected individuals.

I don't see how it can change as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their congressional representatives.

Chris Hedges: Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

Good. I don't want a democracy. A democracy, is just the tyranny of the majority.

We were never supposed to be a democracy, and turning into one, would destroy the entire country, and doom everyone to a tyrannical hell.

So if this guy doesn't see how it could happen...... GOOD.

 

[georgephillip]

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.
In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.
What's your choice?

 

[Andylusion]

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.
In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.
What's your choice?

We are supposed to be a Republic.

The difference between us, is that what you want would cause the very tyranny that you think you are trying to stop.

This idea that right now we have dollars buying government... is just wrong. It's just not true. Bernie Madoff tossed around tons of money. Still went to jail. World Com was lobbying all the time. Still went bankrupt, and Bernard Ebbers, former CEO, is in prison to this day.

Enron's Skillings, is in prison to this day, and he personally met with Clinton, and Bush. Didn't buy him a get out of jail free card at all. Nor did it save Enron.

It's simply not true! All blathering crap about how corporations own the government, not true. Just not true.

Remember ObamaCare had massive opposition from companies, and although they were invited to discuss health care reform at the beginning, the insurance companies walked out. It was still passed!

And despite the mass of opposition from business throughout the entire country, Obama was reelected President.

Where is this great 'ownership of government' by the supposed corporate oligarchy?

See as far as I can tell, the only basis the left has to claim this "corporate oligarchy", is that businesses haven't gone bankrupt, and left the country like they did in Greece and Venezuela.

What real evidence of this do you have? Well Exxon gave $10,000 to a already pro-oil senator last year. Well hell... I gave money to a pro-gun senator last year. I guess I own government too?

 

[MikeK]

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

But.... they didn't. They didn't back then, nor today.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 1—Winter 2007—Pages 3–24
How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
System? A Historical and International
Perspective

The larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.

The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.

This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.

You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.

But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates. If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.

The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics


The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time. It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.



Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?

The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today. Never.

The same has been true of other countries. They raise taxes and capital leaves. There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.

Do we really want an authoritarian rule? Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are de facto more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.

Look... You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that. But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?

You are right -- almost.

The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all. But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places. As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC make-work programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.

Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions. In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence."

Androw Androw Androw. How do you say such absolute and utter insane comments, passing them off as resembling facts? How do you lie with such ease? You need to teach me to be a terrorist just like you so we can destroy large areas of land and water and then say it never happened.

Decades of litigation is not a valid counter argument. It's cowardice and evasion of moral culpability based in the vast treasury of Chevron and nothing else. I have family and friends who live in Ecuador and have seen the devastation like former watering holes that families depended on for life totally annihilated.

Either those pictures are real and thus deserve reparations or those pictures are fake. It's such a shame that a literate person like you says things that even an illiterate tribesman knows to be flat out false.

 

[MikeK]

I wish to push the premise of my previous message a bit further by saying I believe the preservation of the America we've known and loved depends on the following actions:



1)
Impose a maximum $20,000,000 limit on allowable accumulation of personal assets and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount.

2)
Finance all federal, state, and municipal elections with public money and prohibit any incumbent official or candidate from accepting any form of material gift or contribution from anyone for any reason. And impose severe criminal penalties on any violation or attempted violation by donor or recipient.

3)
Purge all members of Congress whose personal assets exceed two million dollars. And disqualify candidates for public office whose personal assets exceed two million dollars.

4)
Require annual disclosure of all personal assets and sources by all elected public officials.




Comments are invited.

 

[gnarlylove]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to? Personally I think to really address our crisis I would think no more than 1 million. Naturally few half millionaires would agree. But this would have to come concomitantly with an increase in open society where we value supporting one another over personal greed. It's a definite socialist model. I tend to agree with Marx though, socialism cannot be the end of history either. Eventually money will be abolished or we won't survive (well).

2. I recently heard that if we do public finance that it would likely get scooped up by the rich just as charter schools gobble up public funds. I don't quite know what to make of that argument.

3. Some argue constant rotations with no incumbent is necessary. That one term only will help solve corruption issues. Maybe it coincides with your proposal.

4. The issue isn't public officials, most of that is available if not all--maybe I'm mistaken, but: Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets

The real issue is super-pacs. Their non-disclosure allows for unlimited anonymous donation (could be just Sam Koch) to an official or candidate.

 

[bripat9643]

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?

I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.

In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote. In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote. What's your choice?

The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd. It's the other way around. Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them. Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.

 

[georgephillip]

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

But.... they didn't. They didn't back then, nor today.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 1—Winter 2007—Pages 3–24
How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
System? A Historical and International
Perspective



The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.

This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.

You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.

But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates. If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.

The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics


The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time. It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.



Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?

The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today. Never.

The same has been true of other countries. They raise taxes and capital leaves. There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.



Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.

Look... You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that. But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?

You are right -- almost.

The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all. But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places. As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC make-work programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.

Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions. In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.

Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing. Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.

 

[georgephillip]

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.
In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.
What's your choice?

We are supposed to be a Republic.

The difference between us, is that what you want would cause the very tyranny that you think you are trying to stop.

This idea that right now we have dollars buying government... is just wrong. It's just not true. Bernie Madoff tossed around tons of money. Still went to jail. World Com was lobbying all the time. Still went bankrupt, and Bernard Ebbers, former CEO, is in prison to this day.

Enron's Skillings, is in prison to this day, and he personally met with Clinton, and Bush. Didn't buy him a get out of jail free card at all. Nor did it save Enron.

It's simply not true! All blathering crap about how corporations own the government, not true. Just not true.

Remember ObamaCare had massive opposition from companies, and although they were invited to discuss health care reform at the beginning, the insurance companies walked out. It was still passed!

And despite the mass of opposition from business throughout the entire country, Obama was reelected President.

Where is this great 'ownership of government' by the supposed corporate oligarchy?

See as far as I can tell, the only basis the left has to claim this "corporate oligarchy", is that businesses haven't gone bankrupt, and left the country like they did in Greece and Venezuela.

What real evidence of this do you have? Well Exxon gave $10,000 to a already pro-oil senator last year. Well hell... I gave money to a pro-gun senator last year. I guess I own government too?

Depends on how often senators return your phone calls, doesn't it?
A "corporate oligarchy" centered on Wall Street and backed by the EU/IMF/Washington Consensus bankrupted Greece and Ukraine, and they're attempting the same "reforms" in Venezuela.
ObamaCare was written by a vice-president of WellPoint for the material gain of private insurance monopolies and big pharma. Those ignorant enough of Socialism to confuse Obama with the practice should be able to explain why we haven't seen hundreds or thousands of bankers prosecuted for control accounting fraud as we did during the S&L lootings of the 1980s. Maybe it's the $900,000 Goldman Sachs donated to the "socialists" 2008 campaign, or the constantly revolving door between Wall Street and the inner sanctums of power in DC regardless of who occupies the White House or controls congress?

 

[bripat9643]

But.... they didn't. They didn't back then, nor today.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 1—Winter 2007—Pages 3–24
How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
System? A Historical and International
Perspective



The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.

This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.

You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.

But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates. If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.

The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics


The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time. It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.



Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?

The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today. Never.

The same has been true of other countries. They raise taxes and capital leaves. There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.



Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.



There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.

Look... You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that. But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?

You are right -- almost.

The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all. But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places. As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC make-work programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.

Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions. In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.

Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.

People convicted of First Degree Murder have been sentenced to less time than that. You really have to be kidding. No one even considers cheating on your taxes to be a real crime. I say the more people that cheat the better. When people no longer respect this tyrannical law, then it will die.

Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.

The term "fair share" is meaningless bullshit. It only indicates the you envy the people who supposedly don't pay it. However, income tax evasion and income tax avoidance are two separate things. You don't seem to understand the distinction.

 

[georgephillip]

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?

I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.

In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote. In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote. What's your choice?

The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd. It's the other way around. Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them. Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.

Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?

I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.

In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote. In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote. What's your choice?

The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd. It's the other way around. Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them. Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.

Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?

The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[georgephillip]

You are right -- almost.

The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all. But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places. As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC make-work programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.

Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions. In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.

Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.

People convicted of First Degree Murder have been sentenced to less time than that. You really have to be kidding. No one even considers cheating on your taxes to be a real crime. I say the more people that cheat the better. When people no longer respect this tyrannical law, then it will die.

Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.

The term "fair share" is meaningless bullshit. It only indicates the you envy the people who supposedly don't pay it. However, income tax evasion and income tax avoidance are two separate things. You don't seem to understand the distinction.

Tell me if you think Harvard is paying its fair share of taxes?

"However, unlike most of us, Harvard avoids one big expense. It pays no significant taxes: not to Uncle Sam, nor to the State of Massachusetts, nor to the cities of Cambridge and Boston where most of its real estate sits.

"Any net operating income earned by Harvard is exempt from federal and state income taxes.

"Likewise, Harvard is exempt from Massachusetts' sales tax.

"In that way, Harvard is like other tax-exempt institutions (churches, charities, and schools).

"Harvard, however, is much richer than most of them.

"Even better -- for Harvard -- is the fact that laws covering Cambridge and Boston exempt Harvard's lands and buildings from property taxes. Harvard thus evades paying those cities the many tens of millions of dollars in annual property taxes it would otherwise have to pay if it had not long ago arranged those legal exemptions.

"In contrast, middle and lower income owners of land, homes and cars in those cities must pay property taxes on them.

"Indeed, they all pay more precisely because Harvard does not pay.

"When Harvard utilizes the roads around the campus, calls upon local fire or police services, benefits from the public school educations provided to Harvard staff members, etc., local non-exempt taxpayers must pay for those services because Harvard does not pay the taxes to support those services.

"In effect, Harvard obtains free government services for which the rest of us pay."

Harvard's Finances: A Tale of Two Countries | Professor Richard D. Wolff

 

[georgephillip]

I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.



The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd. It's the other way around. Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them. Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.

Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?

The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Call it reparations, Comrade

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

 

[freedombecki]

I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.

Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are de facto more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOEwnTPOhoM

In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, Chris Hedges used Wolin to make the point that democracy in America is a useful fiction; however, the corporate state is firmly cemented in place:

"Inverted totalitarianism represents 'the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,' Wolin writes in 'Democracy Incorporated.'

"Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state.

"The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure.

"They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible."

The conflict between oligarch and democracy has gone on for thousands of years; today's multinational corporations serve as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected individuals.

I don't see how it can change as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their congressional representatives.

Chris Hedges: Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

Good. I don't want a democracy. A democracy, is just the tyranny of the majority.

We were never supposed to be a democracy, and turning into one, would destroy the entire country, and doom everyone to a tyrannical hell.

So if this guy doesn't see how it could happen...... GOOD.

"A democracy, is just the tyranny of the majority."

Wonder if that's what King George of England thought when he refused any representation of America in his court. He was faced with the first Tea Party Rebellion and a Revolutionary War for his omission. His colonial subjects subsequently became armed citizens determined to let the common man rule with his vote to determine their own destiny with a free world marketplace.

At least representation is our legacy, not the king's whims and anti-American fantasies of grandeur at the expense of slave colonies around the globe.

 

[freedombecki]

Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?

The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Call it reparations, Comrade

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Having trouble with the tenth commandment? "Do not covet anything that is thy neighbor's...."

Jealousy is the root of a lot more evil than meets the eye.