Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Why don't you ask Ellen?"A state-owned bank on the BND model would not compete with community banks. Rather, it would partner with them and support them in making loans.
"The BND serves the role of a mini-Fed for the state. It provides correspondent banking services to virtually every financial institution in North Dakota and offers a Federal Funds program with daily volume of $330 million.
"It also provides check clearing, cash management services, and automated clearing house services.
"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes, funds that would otherwise leave the state and be leveraged for investing abroad, drawing away jobs that could go to locals."
Any problem with state funds working for the benefit of state residents instead of Wall Street?
State-Owned Banks: A Win-Win for State Budgets and Local Economies by Ellen Brown
"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes"
Maybe you can explain what Ellen means here?
WEB OF DEBT BLOG
Maybe you will comprehend her answer?
The question, "(i)n what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains"...seems pretty specific to me. Have they worked three times harder than the other 99% of Americans over the last four decades? Have they contributed three times as much to US productivity as other Americans?"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:
"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.
"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.
"And a question was posed:
"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?
"This question was not posed in sarcasm.
"A factual answer is genuinely sought.
"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.
"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."
Any takers, Cons?
The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams
This thread has most likely moved on from the OP now but I had to take a stab at it...
Your question is asking a generality but you said you wanted factual answers. Its like asking for a mathematical answer to why my kids leave their clothes in the bathroom floor..
You are forgetting one very important thing that your linked article and you overlooked. The 1% already were the richest 1% to begin with... Who do you think makes large corporations and companies which produce the products people buy and jobs they work? That 1%...
I find this kind of thing to be a hilarious bit of mathematical hucksterism. The richest 1% became richer... uh-huh... and thats a surprise how?
This world pretty much all of it anyway, runs on virtually the same kind of monetary/financial/banking structure. Even the world bank uses the same system we do (albeit on a broader scale). Now if you have people who manage to use this system to turn their billion dollars into 100 billion dollars, than why not ask the more pertinent questions about the system they used to do so?
Or even better if joe moneybags has 500 million and he uses half of it to start a new google and it becomes success. he has now become more wealthy. he had 500 mill and invested 250 mill, and say the company made his investment double he is now worth 750 mill. he takes that 750 mill and gets some good investments and bingo! hes now worth a billion. When he was worth 500 mill say he was taxed at standard rate. And then at 750 mill the same, and again at a billion standard rate. Now please explain to me at what point he deserved to be taxed at a higher rate? At what point did he go from being a guy with some money to invest and got lucky, to being a guy who was deserving a higher tax rate.. he made a company that made jobs for people to do, through the company paid taxes on all of his business dealings, paid licensing fees, paid for all the the usual things a large company would have to. Yet for all that you expect him to pay a higher rate than everyone else in addition to the taxes his company already pays...
When someone tells me the richest 1% made even more the last some odd number of years, its not a surprise nor is it relevant to a failing middle class or the plight of the lower classes. Its not like they are going to keep 500 billion in a mattress. Its gets invested, it gets put into the economy, or even used to create a business that will employ people. People that may be middle or lower class.
The actual separation of upper class vs the other classes is not just a left or right caused problem. Its a monetary/financial caused problem that is perpetuated on both extremes by those right and left political parties. Its an old problem, as old society. TO simply pretend a political party made it so is nonsense. There are rich and poor in every country and every age of advanced human. We used to have royalty and now we have banks that allow for the new royalty made from cash.
The system is designed to work for the wealthiest 1% the best. Who do you think made the investments to the banks in the first place? The more money you have to invest and risk the more you have to gain or lose.
Or have most of their gains come from tax shifts and minimally taxed financial instruments that contribute nothing to US productivity?
The richest 1% in the US were already the richest 1% because of a specific economic system that very deliberately rewards capital over labor in spite of the fact the former doesn't even exist without the latter.
Contrast that with Germany where the richest 1% of Germans control the same 11% of total annual income today that they controlled in 1980. While in this country, the richest 1% controlled 8% of total US income in 1980, and they control over 20% today.
The system is still designed to work for the richest 1%; however, the richest 1% no longer invest in productive enterprises. They invest in hedge funds which use the money to speculate on the cost of food and fuel. They "invest" in High Frequency Computer Trading where the underlying assets are held for fractions of a second.
And, most importantly, they don't lose anymore when their "investments" don't pan out.
They turn to taxpayers to bail them out.
Care to explain how you arrived at 10%?They paid 90% on every dollar over the first $100,000 half-a-century ago.
They pay 15% on every dollar today
No one should ever pay more then 10% of a dollar they earned to a government that didn't, so we're almost there.
Since you're afraid to ask Ellen, let's as The Swami why:Why don't you ask Ellen?"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes"
Maybe you can explain what Ellen means here?
WEB OF DEBT BLOG
Maybe you will comprehend her answer?
Ellen is a moron.
She thinks states can "leverage" deposits and borrow all the money a state needs for the budget. She thinks if all states had a bank like the State Bank of North Dakota, they could easily increase their budgets.
She thinks the printing press is better than taxing.
I hope she was a better lawyer than that, although the fact that she now sells books like Web of Debt leads me to believe she was an awful lawyer as well.
Care to explain how you arrived at 10%?They paid 90% on every dollar over the first $100,000 half-a-century ago.
They pay 15% on every dollar today
No one should ever pay more then 10% of a dollar they earned to a government that didn't, so we're almost there.
Are you saying 90% of government is superfluous?
What is government's part in creating money?
10%?
90%
How long would you survive without 90% of government?
Do you think the neighbors of Joe top 1% have the right to decide how fast Joe can drive his Ferrari on public streets? When the choice is between allowing individuals to amass $3.5 billion in a single year and cutting thousands of government-paid first responders and public school teachers, Joe's neighbors have the same right to regulate his capital accumulation as they have to decide how fast he can drive on their streets.The question, "(i)n what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains"...seems pretty specific to me. Have they worked three times harder than the other 99% of Americans over the last four decades? Have they contributed three times as much to US productivity as other Americans?This thread has most likely moved on from the OP now but I had to take a stab at it...
Your question is asking a generality but you said you wanted factual answers. Its like asking for a mathematical answer to why my kids leave their clothes in the bathroom floor..
You are forgetting one very important thing that your linked article and you overlooked. The 1% already were the richest 1% to begin with... Who do you think makes large corporations and companies which produce the products people buy and jobs they work? That 1%...
I find this kind of thing to be a hilarious bit of mathematical hucksterism. The richest 1% became richer... uh-huh... and thats a surprise how?
This world pretty much all of it anyway, runs on virtually the same kind of monetary/financial/banking structure. Even the world bank uses the same system we do (albeit on a broader scale). Now if you have people who manage to use this system to turn their billion dollars into 100 billion dollars, than why not ask the more pertinent questions about the system they used to do so?
Or even better if joe moneybags has 500 million and he uses half of it to start a new google and it becomes success. he has now become more wealthy. he had 500 mill and invested 250 mill, and say the company made his investment double he is now worth 750 mill. he takes that 750 mill and gets some good investments and bingo! hes now worth a billion. When he was worth 500 mill say he was taxed at standard rate. And then at 750 mill the same, and again at a billion standard rate. Now please explain to me at what point he deserved to be taxed at a higher rate? At what point did he go from being a guy with some money to invest and got lucky, to being a guy who was deserving a higher tax rate.. he made a company that made jobs for people to do, through the company paid taxes on all of his business dealings, paid licensing fees, paid for all the the usual things a large company would have to. Yet for all that you expect him to pay a higher rate than everyone else in addition to the taxes his company already pays...
When someone tells me the richest 1% made even more the last some odd number of years, its not a surprise nor is it relevant to a failing middle class or the plight of the lower classes. Its not like they are going to keep 500 billion in a mattress. Its gets invested, it gets put into the economy, or even used to create a business that will employ people. People that may be middle or lower class.
The actual separation of upper class vs the other classes is not just a left or right caused problem. Its a monetary/financial caused problem that is perpetuated on both extremes by those right and left political parties. Its an old problem, as old society. TO simply pretend a political party made it so is nonsense. There are rich and poor in every country and every age of advanced human. We used to have royalty and now we have banks that allow for the new royalty made from cash.
The system is designed to work for the wealthiest 1% the best. Who do you think made the investments to the banks in the first place? The more money you have to invest and risk the more you have to gain or lose.
Or have most of their gains come from tax shifts and minimally taxed financial instruments that contribute nothing to US productivity?
The richest 1% in the US were already the richest 1% because of a specific economic system that very deliberately rewards capital over labor in spite of the fact the former doesn't even exist without the latter.
Contrast that with Germany where the richest 1% of Germans control the same 11% of total annual income today that they controlled in 1980. While in this country, the richest 1% controlled 8% of total US income in 1980, and they control over 20% today.
The system is still designed to work for the richest 1%; however, the richest 1% no longer invest in productive enterprises. They invest in hedge funds which use the money to speculate on the cost of food and fuel. They "invest" in High Frequency Computer Trading where the underlying assets are held for fractions of a second.
And, most importantly, they don't lose anymore when their "investments" don't pan out.
They turn to taxpayers to bail them out.
The question " "In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?"
Runs on the pretense that someone "gave them" that profit. The fact is the profit or increase they made, however that was. The government bailed out some institutions, Banks, automakers, etc.. Those are corporations and not the citizenry. Now you can argue some of the CEO's used that to their benefit which would allow for an increase for some of that 1%, but we certainly cannot say ALL of them nor even most.
A little perspective...
Say joe top 1% got taxed 40% of his taxable income. And then Mr. Conservative came in and gave him a tax break of 5 or lets go high and say 10%. So he would then pay 30%.
So, he pays 30% of his TAXABLE INCOME. I caps that cause its important. moving on say he made 5 billion last year, living costs and expenses would be deducted along with any charitable donations (people with that kind of money do this if only to prevent a higher tax for not doing it) would normally be deducted now but lets just say it already was to keep it simple.
So 5 billion minus the gov's 30% = 1.5 billion. Now 30% is actually low rate for that kind of income and when you take into consideration the ways he made the money was taxed on their own before hand, you may get to see the bigger picture a little.
A lot of people view its as "well he still has 3.5 billion after taxes" or "thats still more than anyone needs" but taking nearly a third or more of a persons income just to pay for government and programs is robbery in any aspect, and as far as it being more than he needs its not for you or I to decide that. How would you like to have your neighbors decide your house has too many bedrooms, or your yard is too big?
I think you're right.Care to explain how you arrived at 10%?No one should ever pay more then 10% of a dollar they earned to a government that didn't, so we're almost there.
Are you saying 90% of government is superfluous?
What is government's part in creating money?
10%?
90%
How long would you survive without 90% of government?
Keeping 90% of your own money is not the same as eliminating 90% of the government.
The Question Conservatives Can't Answer
http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/industry/incpov/tpi.htmI think you're right.Care to explain how you arrived at 10%?
Are you saying 90% of government is superfluous?
What is government's part in creating money?
10%?
90%
How long would you survive without 90% of government?
Keeping 90% of your own money is not the same as eliminating 90% of the government.
"Keeping 90% of your own money is not the same as eliminating 90% of government."
My bad.
Do you have any idea how US annual revenues would change if every taxpayer contributed 10% of their annual income (wealth?) to the public good?
You're sick!The Question Conservatives Can't Answer
Where do you find your....
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SGyVNippvA]‪Are you kidding me‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?Do you think the neighbors of Joe top 1% have the right to decide how fast Joe can drive his Ferrari on public streets? When the choice is between allowing individuals to amass $3.5 billion in a single year and cutting thousands of government-paid first responders and public school teachers, Joe's neighbors have the same right to regulate his capital accumulation as they have to decide how fast he can drive on their streets.
It's called self defense.
I'm not clear on why you think 30% is a low tax rate on billionaires when most of them pay at the 15% capital gains rate when they bother paying anything at all.
"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?"
Argues the government gave the richest 1% of Americans these extraordinary gains by shifting the burden of taxation onto wages and salaries or cutting government services or both. Government also gave the richest 1% of Americans these extraordinary gains by deregulating Wall Street which then produced minimally taxed financial instruments that contributed nothing to US productivity but which did produce an economic collapse that wiped out $7.8 trillion worth of US home values.
Which US taxpayers continue to pay for.
Since you're afraid to ask Ellen, let's as The Swami why:
Ellen is a moron.
She thinks states can "leverage" deposits and borrow all the money a state needs for the budget. She thinks if all states had a bank like the State Bank of North Dakota, they could easily increase their budgets.
She thinks the printing press is better than taxing.
I hope she was a better lawyer than that, although the fact that she now sells books like Web of Debt leads me to believe she was an awful lawyer as well.
North Dakota has the nation's lowest unemployment and foreclosure rate.
The largest budget surplus; and
The only state-owned bank!
Swami Beyondananda: How California Can Solve Its Budget Crisis [video] « WEB OF DEBT BLOG
Why are capitalists afraid of real competition?
When you say the feds collected 899 billion in income taxes in 2010 does that include corporate and individual taxes?http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/industry/incpov/tpi.htmI think you're right.Keeping 90% of your own money is not the same as eliminating 90% of the government.
"Keeping 90% of your own money is not the same as eliminating 90% of government."
My bad.
Do you have any idea how US annual revenues would change if every taxpayer contributed 10% of their annual income (wealth?) to the public good?
in 2010 the total personal income in the US was $12,530,101,184,000
10% of that would be
1,253,010,118,400
In 2010 the feds collected 899 billion in income taxes.
Seems to me that the income tax revenue would increase if we all kept 90% of our incomes.
And income and wealth are two different things.
Save the rich! They've only tripled their wealth while everyone else is ruined....you people are sooooooooooo STUPID...gd drones.
Ya got nothin, MORON.
The rich create money.Save the rich! They've only tripled their wealth while everyone else is ruined....you people are sooooooooooo STUPID...gd drones.
Do you think the neighbors of Joe top 1% have the right to decide how fast Joe can drive his Ferrari on public streets? When the choice is between allowing individuals to amass $3.5 billion in a single year and cutting thousands of government-paid first responders and public school teachers, Joe's neighbors have the same right to regulate his capital accumulation as they have to decide how fast he can drive on their streets.The question, "(i)n what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains"...seems pretty specific to me. Have they worked three times harder than the other 99% of Americans over the last four decades? Have they contributed three times as much to US productivity as other Americans?
Or have most of their gains come from tax shifts and minimally taxed financial instruments that contribute nothing to US productivity?
The richest 1% in the US were already the richest 1% because of a specific economic system that very deliberately rewards capital over labor in spite of the fact the former doesn't even exist without the latter.
Contrast that with Germany where the richest 1% of Germans control the same 11% of total annual income today that they controlled in 1980. While in this country, the richest 1% controlled 8% of total US income in 1980, and they control over 20% today.
The system is still designed to work for the richest 1%; however, the richest 1% no longer invest in productive enterprises. They invest in hedge funds which use the money to speculate on the cost of food and fuel. They "invest" in High Frequency Computer Trading where the underlying assets are held for fractions of a second.
And, most importantly, they don't lose anymore when their "investments" don't pan out.
They turn to taxpayers to bail them out.
The question " "In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?"
Runs on the pretense that someone "gave them" that profit. The fact is the profit or increase they made, however that was. The government bailed out some institutions, Banks, automakers, etc.. Those are corporations and not the citizenry. Now you can argue some of the CEO's used that to their benefit which would allow for an increase for some of that 1%, but we certainly cannot say ALL of them nor even most.
A little perspective...
Say joe top 1% got taxed 40% of his taxable income. And then Mr. Conservative came in and gave him a tax break of 5 or lets go high and say 10%. So he would then pay 30%.
So, he pays 30% of his TAXABLE INCOME. I caps that cause its important. moving on say he made 5 billion last year, living costs and expenses would be deducted along with any charitable donations (people with that kind of money do this if only to prevent a higher tax for not doing it) would normally be deducted now but lets just say it already was to keep it simple.
So 5 billion minus the gov's 30% = 1.5 billion. Now 30% is actually low rate for that kind of income and when you take into consideration the ways he made the money was taxed on their own before hand, you may get to see the bigger picture a little.
A lot of people view its as "well he still has 3.5 billion after taxes" or "thats still more than anyone needs" but taking nearly a third or more of a persons income just to pay for government and programs is robbery in any aspect, and as far as it being more than he needs its not for you or I to decide that. How would you like to have your neighbors decide your house has too many bedrooms, or your yard is too big?
It's called self defense.
I'm not clear on why you think 30% is a low tax rate on billionaires when most of them pay at the 15% capital gains rate when they bother paying anything at all.
"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?"
Argues the government gave the richest 1% of Americans these extraordinary gains by shifting the burden of taxation onto wages and salaries or cutting government services or both. Government also gave the richest 1% of Americans these extraordinary gains by deregulating Wall Street which then produced minimally taxed financial instruments that contributed nothing to US productivity but which did produce an economic collapse that wiped out $7.8 trillion worth of US home values.
Which US taxpayers continue to pay for.
