Barney Frank (D-MA)4th District - Points the Way to More Taxes -image: stand up for America
Corrected 11-24: The Share the Sacrifice Act proposes taxes based, not on income, rather "tax liability". This liablity will affect those "middle-class households earning between $30,000 and $150,000" (Politico)The original headline and body of this op-ed has been corrected from an earnings of $22,600 to $30,000
HR 4130, entitled “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010”, allows for an increase in Federal Income Tax to those with with an income of $30,000 per year in 2011. The Act is intended to offset the costs for the escalation in the Afghan War - the apparent surtax would be “necessary” in order to allow the current revenue levels to pay for the trillion dollar Health Care Reform Act, now before the Senate. In a Congressional document entitled:
“SHARE THE SACRIFICE ACT ENDS BORROWING TO PAY FOR AFGHAN WAR”>, the authors speak specifically about the costs of the War and its proposed drain on Health Care Reform. The Bill, was introduced by the following legislators: Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI), Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), Congressman John Larson (D-CT), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA), Congressman Raul Grijalva (DAZ),Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN), Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA).
In order to justify pushing more families into poverty, the esteemed Democrat members of Congress offered this logic:
“For the last year, as we’ve struggled to pass healthcare reform, we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill – and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars. Now the President is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take
at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for. We believe that’s wrong,” said Obey, Murtha and Larson. “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.”
The problem with this statement is that the Health Care Reform Act now before the Senate includes multiple taxes. According to the Tax Foundation in the Senate Plan there are five significant areas of taxation as of October 30, 2009. A rise in the corporate income tax, an excise tax on “Cadillac Insurance Plans”, Pay or Play provisions for employers, Penalties for those who do not carry insurance, and a Tax on Medical Devices, and Other Health Care Items.
Added to the burden on the middle class is the demise of the tax cuts enacted in 2003 under President Bush. in 2011, individuals in 39 of the 50 United States will be at a 50% tax rate. The end of a tax cut, is a tax increase
Welcome to Massachuetts - Federal and Commonwealth Taxes Unending - photo fliker
Frank, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and McGovern (D-MA), should be familiar with the concept of “Taxation Gone Wild”; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is constantly in the red due to the myriad entitlement programs, specifically Commonwealth Care, and the inability of the Massachusetts D.O.R. to collect enough taxes in order to meet budget demands. Apparently, Massachusetts lacks enough corporate and individual taxpayers in order to foot the bill; the Massachusetts Legislature in collusion with Governor Deval Patrick, implemented an additional round of taxes on the dwindling tax base last July, with the end result of a continued decline in D.O.R. income.
One gets the impression that those members of Congress and the Senate currently involved in areas of finance should take basic Accounting Courses, or refresher courses. It is glaringly apparent to those who are still fortunate enough to be employed, that adding additional taxes, takes away from the little discretionary income currently available. Whether one is lower, middle or upper income, the proposed new round of Federal Taxes, will take what is left of discretionary income away; this will significantly affect the retail, hotel and restaurant and travel industry, causing further unemployment. Should double digit inflation rear its ugly head in the not too distant future, (and economic indicators would have the U.S. on the brink) one can add food and housing to that list.
Although, the AFP (French Press) believes that the Act is “merely symbolic” and is “seen as having to chance of passage”, given the tax, and spend with abandon policy of the Obama Administration and his Congress, one cannot be overly confident that this particular Amendment, or a similar version, will not become law. Deval Patrick (Barack Obama’s Mini-Me) and his Massachusetts Legislators, have consistently defied the cries of the Commonwealth citizenry; those opposed to a specific tax, will find it return under another name, most likely accompanied by additional tax measure. Given Frank’s history of fiscal irresponsibility, and his stamp of approval on this particular Act, it is most likely a given and should he be re-elected in 2010, his brand of accounting will continue. To be fair, Frank did not author this Act, Murtha (D-PA) is responsible, but Frank’s position as Chairman of the House Finance Committee puts a “stamp of approval” on the “Share the Sacrifice Act”.
One can only hope that a new Congress and Senate in 2010 would author a “Give Back the Hard Earned Taxes to the People Act” – It is that the current administration and congress have created a similar atmosphere to that of 1773 : taxation without true representation has become the norm. Fortunately for Congressman Frank and Company the practice of Tar and Feathers has been lost to history, but the ability to vote has not.
23 comments:
Have you heard of cost-shifting? The Act burdens the sheeple who are most responsible for the ongoing war - current "citizens" - not the next generation(s). The Act is symbolic, but it certainly drives home the true costs of the war. Witness the conservative whining this simple truth generates.
Anon, by what basis are you saying that the act is symbolic? Is it perhaps Murtha and Frank's past history of fiscal conservatism?
As far as future generations paying off debt, are you joking? Would you like to compare Presidents running up debt for our kids? (hint: since Obama has proposed more debt than all Presidents before him combined, you will lose the comparison)
Personally I hope they pass the act into law. One more nail in the Obama and Dem coffins. I will actually pay more taxes for a couple of years to get rid of these idiots. Better to have them damage the economy for a couple of years than stay in office for several more and completely destroy the country's economy and national security.
Chuck,
Debt comparison is beside the point. It's a red herring.
You either pay for the costs of the war now ("pay as you go"), or shift the costs to your children ("pay later," i.e., pay back the Chinese dollars borrowed to finance the war).
The proposed Act drives this point home. If you want to continue a war contrary to the interest of the citizens of the USA (but to the benefit of the war profiteers and other so-called free market entreprenuers) at least "man-up" to it, face facts, and pay the bill. Otherwise, get the heck out of Dodge (Afghanstan).
The act is symbolic in the sense that it's sponsors don't believe it has a realistic chance of passing. Nevertheless, it raises questions of value - do we pay for the war or not?
I say no and reduce taxes. If you say "yes," then you pay for it, not my kids.
I agree almost entirely with anonymous. Partisan crap aside. The war must be paid for. Of course, I would like to see the intentional war profiteers taxed right into oblivion and ordinary (decent) people left out of it but if we are to be taxed in order to fund our troops, then so be it. Say that reminds me:
I've heard the same old partisan half-wit crap about the rich creating jobs and wealth a thousand times. Sure, they create jobs. Thats a given. But the wealth is drawn from the majority and recirculated in the form of paychecks only AFTER the rich take their cut. Which is all too often obscene. When you continue to funnel too much wealth through the hands of too few, you end up with a bottle neck. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. This even AFTER you account for wealth creation, taxes, jobs, ect. So the points made by Einstein way back in 1949 hold even more true today. Not to mention the similar views of Mariner Eccles (FDR's Chairman of the Federal Reserve), Ron Paul, Robert Reich, Edward Wolff, and nearly every other professor of economics in the country. You just can't maintain an economy based on a constant transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Its mathematically impossible.
Hello Chuck and all you anonymous posters
Chuck, we, the people, can ill afford any additional expenses, see your grocery bill, and depending on where you live, your increased taxes on electric, cable, dogs, cats and pretty much anything no moving (refer to Massachusetts). Regardless of political ramifications, one would hope that these morons in Congress (both parties) would wake up and smell the caffeine. As to the 2010 and 2012 elections, historically, the Congress and Senate would flip anyhow, the added economic issue that is affecting everyone, from the poorest to those “rich” all these anonymous posters seem to want to demean, will drive the vote – a tax cut, no matter which party one is affiliated with, is a big deal when it comes to the ability to buy that pound of hamburger.
As to the tax itself being merely symbolic, think again, the Senate is starting to comment Bloomberg proposing a “tax the wealthiest” – which, as we all know, trickles down.
Now, as to this being partisan, it may be – partisan as in anti-tax – should you read the rest of the blog – you will find that I am vehemently opposed to giving payroll taxes to governments, federal or state, who show no signs whatsoever of fiscal responsibility or ability.
As to Einstein – here is something for you: A Yale Book Review on the treatment of the War Tax (otherwise known as the income tax). Another great source on Einstein and Taxes (which he also said, no one can understand, it needs to be simpler (he would have been a supporter of the Fair Tax) and – this also contains a great debate on how often he felt he may have made a mistake now and again go figure.
In essence, the income tax we pay now should be funding that war and all others – historically speaking.
This “tax the rich” and spread the wealth – is a popular elite refrain, however, when one taxes the “rich” who own the businesses, to the extreme, the businesses move, out of state, out of the country, and who is left holding the bag? Frankly, I am a capitalist, the system works, it has flaws of course, and anyone without blinders on understands this. One is encouraged to go out, create wealth, and by doing so, distribute that wealth – be it through spending (purchasing items that would create jobs), or by building more factories (jobs), or by hiring more servants (jobs again) – or having the greater ability to practice philanthropy – which alleviates a great deal of misery.
Here’s a way to cut the deficit – spend on what is necessary – only what is necessary. Each government department is given a budget at the beginning of the year, which, if they do not spend all of the budget, the rule should follow that monies not spent would be put back into the system, and maybe bonuses or kudos at the very least would be given to those government employees how saved taxpayer dollars. This is not the case – no matter the agency or the size of the budget, if it is not all spent, they stand in danger of receiving inadequate funding in the following years budget – so they spend it, on anything, inflated items, hand over fist. Change the way budgets are managed at the Federal level and we’d save a bundle.
I believe that Einstein made that comment in reference to the income tax. Not taxes in general. He also made it very clear that a heavy concentration of wealth was like a nail in the coffin of any economy and any chance to achieve world prosperity. In a just world with greed in check, tax hikes wouldn't even be necessary. But we are where we are. The top 1/2 or so could easily afford to pay a little more. The majority could easily afford it if it weren't for $125 doctor visits, $400 per month health insurance, $30 late fees, $30 NSF fees, obscene utility charges, ect. All directly proportional to the obscene profits and/or paychecks at the top. So if the rich are going to screw us on the cost of living, then we should screw them right back on taxes. Afterall, we are still the largest consumer market in the world. We made them so rich to begin with. I say we tax them and give them an ultimatum. Pay your taxes or sell your over-priced crap somewhere else. I'm not saying its just that simple but neither is the claim that the rich will just take their money and run. We had a progressive tax systen put in place after the first Great Depression. It worked fairly well for over 30 years. That is until Reagan came along. If he, Laffer, Friedman, and that partisan bunch had considered the possibility of a shrinking middle class, or anything but GDP and short term tax revenues, we wouldn't be in this mess today. Even Greenspan acknowledged the problem back in the spring of '05'. He said that the growing concentration of wealth had the potential to "destabilize democratic capitalism itself.". Very similar to what Einstein and Eccles said all those years ago. Of course, the people need smacked upside the head for their incredible ignorance but I still blame the rich more than anyone else. Its wrong to take candy from a baby and its wrong to take to much wealth from the majority. Especially when you feed them a load of crap about wealth creation and intoxicate them with the lure of fame and fortune plastered all over the media. Greed is nothing but self-centered self-serving black-hearted evil. It will be our downfall.
Einstein also said that we would see economic depressions again and again and that the severity would be proportional to the level of income inequality developed in a society. That was no mistake. It was a warning. We didn't listen.
It is absolutely outrageous that two (I guess two because they appear to converse with each other) bring in Einstein, who was one of the greatest scientists of human kind. Yet he has nothing to do with taxing low, middle or upper income people.
Here are the facts for the "two" worthless low lifes who made entries here:
1. A recommended tax is still a tax and it tells us common people where that person stands.
2. The same people, Murtha and Frank, would be the last persons to tell you the "health care reform act" is a tax on every single person who works and contributes to society. They are liars so it is apparent you are as well.
3. We are dependent on inventors and innovators and you know what, they very often become rich, as well they should.
The opposition to these individuals and enterprises consists of people who are always envious of their success. The envious ones whine and complain and create real "red herrings", i.e. "wealthy people", "people making over $250,000", "big drug companies", etc., etc.
These people are the losers yet they enjoy the benefits created by intelligent and industrious people.
Note, my name is signed. Let's see if the "two" worthless anons. have the same integrity.
Ralph. You have just made by far, the most common assumption with regard to those of us who complain about economic injustice. That is that we must be 'envious' of those at the top. Nice work. Never heard that one before. You must be very proud of yourself. Or, you may want to grow a brain, read again, and think outside of that partisan box for just a moment. The first anonymous comment made here was critical only of war profiteers. Not the owner of Mom and Pop's Flower shop. The points made were valid. So you had no legitimate reason to label he or she 'envious' of anyone. I'm the one who brought up Einstein. I dare you to look up his views on economic injustice and then explain why he never used his incredible knowledge to get rich. Go ahead. Call Einstein 'envious'. I dare you. Mother Teresa also had a thing or two to say about economic injustice. Do some more research and say the same about her. I dare you. Now, I don't claim to be Einstein or Mother Teresa. I'm not even in their league but they were two of my heroes. Right up there with Pat Tillman who voluntarily gave up his multi-million dollar golden goose for a chance to serve his country. See what they had in common? Get my drift? Didn't think so. Lets move on. Those 'wealthy' innovators you praise have increased their net worth by about 80% over just the last 25 years. More than firefighters, paramedics, soldiers, cops, teachers, or constructions workers. The real backbone of our society. In fact, the average American income has stagnated over the same time frame after you account for inflation (Which again, can be attributed in part with incomes and profit margins at the top.) The lower 40% of Americans have lost about 60% of their net worth over the same time frame. See how this works yet? Didn't think so. Still have nothing but glorious praise for the rich? Of course you do. Consider this: Several thousand of those rich innovators you swoon over have been hiding their assets in secret accounts around the world to avoid their legal obgligation to pay taxes on them (Which by the way, are now lower than they were under Reagan, Clinton, or Bush Sr. Those drug companies you excuse have been caught time after time in illegal marketing and kickback scams for their over-priced and often unnecessary pharmaceuticals. Twice already this year that I know of. About my identity: It just doesn't matter. I'm not here to sell a product or make a name for myself. I'm also not here for any cheap thrills. I have a legitimate cause to stand for and I'm not backing down from anyone regardless of their credentials. I'm also not going to post my personal info anywhere online just to satisfy your curiosity. Nor will I trust you to do so. In fact, I have reason to believe that you are not who you claim to be. Tell you what. Post your hometown here so I can check the listing. If the name you go by shows up with a listed number, I'll give you a call on my dime and we can continue this debate by phone. No? Thats what I thought. As you can see, I'm not going to respond in the manner you were hoping for and I'm not going to back down. So the next time you make some half-wit assumption about those of us who have the guts to acknowledge economic injustice, think twice before running with it. In the meantime, read this entry again and answer my questions specifically and one at a time. Then post something that I havn't already read or heard a thousand times. Come up with something better than 'jealousy', 'envy', 'socialism', ect. Do it now. No? THATS WHAT I THOUGHT.
Hi Ralph, no sense in arguing – the young man or woman (hard to tell) – who insists on you leaving a telephone number to chat with him/her – when him/her won’t even put up a name – says it all. The references to Einstein are common among Socialists – and given the fact that Mr. /Ms. Anonymous are so found of socialism, the suggestion would be to move to a country where socialism is rampant and have fun while there – the fact of the matter is – people from socialists countries (including some of my realities, would love to be here (but unfortunately immigration doesn’t always want certain countries/occupations as they have a quota – go figure).
Actually, I am an anti-capitalist free marketeer. I shall refer to myself as Anon 1. I am not one of Ralph Short's "two worthless lowlifes." There is much more to the world than is evidenced by Tina and Ralph's crabbed writings.
anon 10:40 PM
I don't have to answer your itemized list because history has proven you wrong. Not just once but many times over. By the way, I am not a "rich" person but I do know that my chances to achieve something is far better in a country where I have multiple choices, where I can recognize someone who has real talent and capability. You, on the other hand want all of us to believe your silly comments on "economic injustice" so that your partners in crime can put more controls on people through higher taxes and draconian regulations. I suppose you identify with that totally corrupt organization ACORN which also moans about "economic injustice" while they stuff voting boxes and try to get homes for prostitutes and pimps with taxpayer money.
You cited, as an example, "several thousand" people hide their money overseas. What does that prove. Jefferson of La. hid his bribe money in his refrigerator, yet he was another whiner about "economic injustice". I can cite union official after union official who are all about "economic injustice" but have been jailed for corruption. And they still do it. How about Murtha, the "unindited co-conspirator" for taking a bribe. Or we can go to Harry Reid who bribes the La. Senator with $100mm or $300mm worth of pork (read taxpayer money) to get a Senator's vote from La. He is another one always whining about "economic injustice". I guess his values are such that taking from other needy states to get a vote on health rationing is ok. Is that your values as well?
The list could go on and on, the fact is your philosophy on this is a loser, proven by history, but you "cling to it" regardless.
Regarding your comment on having a phone conversation, forget about it.
Tina. You claim to be an educated woman. So how is it that you don't understand the meaning of socialism? I suggest that you look it up. Then point out the lines that allow for private property, private industry, and a reasonable scale of personal (not community) wealth. I'll say it in advance. Thats what I thought. I am not a socialist. I am a modest capitalist.
Ralph (yeah right). I see you're back to the same old partisan assumptions. I am not a democrat. I will never be a democrat or Republican. I will not make excuses for crooks on either side of the isle. In fact, there are only a handfull of high level politicians that I don't hate. Starting with Ron Paul (R) who by the way acknowledged the massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich in November of '07'. No. History has proven you wrong. The first Great Depression was caused primarily by a massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich. By 1929, the richest 1% held about 40% of all private wealth. The middle class held only about 20%. FDR, The New Deal, WWII, and that progressive tax plan I refered to earlier along with some legitimtate growth gradually redistributed the nation's private wealth from the rich back to the majority. By 1976, the richest 1% held about 20% (I can live with that). The tables began to turn in the late 70s. The transfer of wealth from poor to rich was back on. It was accelerated under Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. Now, the richest 1% hold somewhere between 40% and 50% of all United States wealth. This is well documented. If you don't see the problem, then play a game of Monopoly. Even with legitimate growth, a heavy concentration of wealth still causes economic instability. Einstein knew it. Eccles knew it. Greenspan acknowledged it back in the spring of '05'. Ron Paul in '07' and nearly every professor of econmomics in the country. Its not brain surgery. Its simple math. Of course ACORN is a train wreck of fraud and corruption. I won't villianize every member but certainly a good number of them. What would have led you to believe that I would claim otherwise? Thats right. More partisan programming. Pathetic, predictable, partisan puppy, programming.
If you think the same old partisan attacks will work on me, you better think again. I've been at this for a while. I've had at least 100 debates like this one. So far, not one critic has come up with a point that I couldn't respond to. Not a single one. I'm no expert but I'm no partisan puppy either. So bring it on.
Tina. I want you to quote some of those references to Einstein. Then provide the source. Verify your claim that these references are common in debates like this one. Prove it. I dare you. Wholy crap what an obvious trick. You'll have to do much better. Lame psychological tricks will not work on me either. Quote those references. I dare you. I'll say it in advance. Thats what I thought.
Whoa Anon 1 I sense some latent hostility - 1) I have provided links (read the previous responses vis a vis Einstein - whom I get, you adore) Additionally, I completely understand the socialist system, versus say, a communist, or any other form of government. If done correctly, it does allow for private ownership - that said, tax rates across the board, are extremely high, which does not allow for a great deal of movement from the "masses" to say an "elite" status (see American Classes as taught by most college professors in a Senior Seminar setting). It is rather unclear at this point, what your references have to do with the original article. It has taken on the form of "I told you so" argumentative posting, rather than a serious debate between those with opposing views (which does happen on this blog - look for back and forth’s between a "Sam Hamwich" on Barney Frank posts.) It appears you are truly not interested in debate, rather than "winning", which is not the point, if you won 100 debates, so what? Did you accomplish anything, come to any understanding? - Or did you just post and repost, Einstein and Monopoly until everyone posting just got bored? If you want to debate the merits of increasing taxes on those earning 22,600 per year, symbolic or not, in order to pay for a war, in order to defray the costs of the proposed health care legislation, or offer a solution – it would be most welcome. Otherwise, your prattling on and on about “winning” debates, or focusing on one or two simple theories, is, not worth my time to offer a rebuttal. This is, by the way, an invitation to continue a debate, a real debate on the issue at hand.
I am hostile. In fact, I'm downright furious inside. I will be until the day I die. The way I see it, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. I'm mad because this screwed up society is digging its own grave by allowing the worlds wealth to be concentrated faster than its created. People suffer and die because of it. Someone mentioned philanthropy a few comments back. Well consider this: Every big business, big investor, big celebrity, and politician has been running their mouth about 'humanity' for years. The richest people in the world have all become 'philanthropists' or 'humanitarians'. Its become a trend amoung all public figures. Even Michael Vick, Ludacris, Jay-Z, and Eminem. Not to mention Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling. Its not working. Its a total sham. In fact, poverty around the world has been getting worse for at least 13 years straight. So what gives? How can this be with so much economic growth worldwide and so much 'humanitarian' effort? I'll tell you how. Its because the world's wealth and resources have been concentrated EVEN AFTER you account for taxes, legitimate growth, and what the rich 'give back. They still are. In fact, nearly every one of them actually use their 'humanitarian' image to sell more product and get even richer. The world's favorite 'humanitarian' has become the most disgusting hypocrite slob the world has ever seen. She stood there in front of her audiance with FAKE tears the other afternoon. The most fake choke-up I've ever seen. So there it is. The last chance we ever had to achieve world peace or prosperity has been sold out (legitimate good will with no ulterior motive). Mother Teresa is dead. The amazing standard she set is gone forever. Now, its all about getting filthy rich and throwing a few crumbs to the poor. Then calling attention to those crumbs and saying 'Look at me. I'm a humantarian. NOW GIVE ME SOME MORE MONEY.". Thats it. Our last chance to achieve any degree of world peace or prosperity has been sold out. Good will has become big business. and the people still don't see it. Those fake tears are right there on video. Those poverty stats well documented. Along with Einstein's predictions and a truckload of evidence to back them up. Still, the people don't get it. Our society is now more intoxicated with 'riches' than ever before. Now, its just a matter of time before whats left of modern society comes crashing down in a ball of flames. There will be suffering and death on a scale never seen before. Its only a few decades away. Thats what I believe. Its taken over my life. I'm young, fit, healthy, and doing OK financially. But I don't even date anymore because I am disgusted with this whole culture. I care about the people but I am truly disgusted with them. You bet your ass I'm hostile. When you people prod at me with comments like 'jealousy', 'envy', 'socialist', or 'exhibitionist', you really provoke me. Yes. I have an attitude. Yes, I have bleeding hatred for the rich (All of them. No excpetions.). Yes, I have serious contempt for most of my critics. You want to know how strongly I feel about this? Lets say that I could go back in time. I have a chance to put a bullet in Hitler's miserable blackened heart. He is right there in range. I take aim. But some STUPID little kid tries to block the shot. Of course, the kid is innocent. Of course, he has been lied to. Still, I would put a bullet right through that innocent child just to get Hitler. One child would be dead and millions saved. Thats how I feel about this cause. I want world prosperity more than I've ever wanted anything in my life. I want something great for all people that will never be achieved because of greed, gluttony, and incredible ignorance. Thats where the hostility comes from. Now, I'm not saying that I have plans to hurt anyone. I don't. But I know that my cause is just and I will not shut up about it until the day I die. I've stated my opinion about HR 4130. I say tax the rich. If they won't let it happen, then tax their ignorant fans.
I told you how I felt about it. Tax the rich. If they won't let it happen, then tax their ignorant fans. But pay for the GXX dXXX war one way or another. No you didn't provide the quotes I requested. I specifically asked you to prove your claim that 'socialists' (by your screwed up definition, those of us who want some reasonable degree of shared prosperity) make common references to Einstein. I've been at this for over 4 years now. I remember one blogger comparing the economic policies of George Bush Jr with the views of Einstein back in '06'. and myself. Thats about it. Sure there are references here and there but not in the context you suggested or from the group you stereotype. Not by a longshot. Not even close. My theories are no more simple than yours. Lower taxes and less regulation across the board right? Vote conservative and let the free market work 30 more years of its wonders? No thanks. The free market is no more ethical or reliable than our screwed up government. Neither are the good intentions of most ordinary people. Like I said before. We have become a nation full of blithering idiot celebrity junkie credit card morons. Your partisan views don't help one little bit. Just more 'free market' BS. It won't work.
Socialism: An economic system in which people as a whole, and NOT INDIVIDUALS, control and own all property.
I memorized it years ago because of people like you. I'm aware of the extended definitions but this is the foundation from which they are extended. Progressive tax policies do not make one a socialist. Neither do calls for a reasonable distribution of wealth. Community (shared) property is the very foundation of socialism. Without that fundamental, its not socialism.
Good God, Tina, please take the time to parse English before you write a headline. The war tax percentages quoted would be on our existing tax *liability*, not our wages. So:
- those PAYING at least $22,600 in taxes would see this figure go up 1%.
- those MAKING $22,600 would pay nothing.
While I'm picking at language parsing and logic, what on earth does this mean:
It is that the current administration and congress have created a similar atmosphere to that of 1773 : taxation without true representation has become the norm.
There was a national election. Candidates campaigned on their platforms. Conservatives lost their majority, and the current Administration and Congress is trying to advance the policies they campaigned on.
Is there something about the political process you don't understand?
Hello CMHolm;
First, I am, as always, grateful to those who would point out (generally in a polite manner), that I have made an error in “fact”, and therefore: thank you for pointing that out – point taken, and corrected – however, while we’re busy correcting one another: the verb: parse relates to grammar while I believe you’re “picking” on (or pointing out - which would be correct) is that that the $22,600 refers to tax liability not income. That said, the point of my opinion piece is that taxes are affecting those across a broad spectrum of income – and although I am sure we will disagree, taxing the so-called “rich” or even those that are, indeed, wealthy, has a trickle-down effect; economically – either through job loss directly, and or a reduction of consumerism which ultimately produces job loss). As to the meaning of:” It is that the current administration and congress have created a similar atmosphere to that of 1773: taxation without true representation has become the norm.” – The particular “sentence” has nothing to do with the political process, rather the result and creation of an “atmosphere” that indeed, from my point of view, reflects taxation without true representation, whereby the majority are in disagreement with the process (see poll references in my opinion piece). It is apparent that you’re content with the actions of the administration and congress, while I am not particularly thrilled - I will, agree to disagree with those who feel that “taxing the rich”, and “spreading the wealth”, or “sharing the sacrifice”, is the path to equity.
Regarding the proposed tax, I'm not concerned whether it primarily hits the "rich" or not. Mr. Obey's purpose was to make more apparent the cost of the war. I think we can guess that he's not a proponent of escalating the commitment of forces.
Not that I'm opposed to "taxing the rich". One of the primary causes for the economic bubble that led to for our current predicament was that virtually all of the economic gains over the last decade was realized by the top 1% brackets. This led to too much capital chasing investments, driving up prices. So, much as the Federal Government pushed citizens to buy war bonds during WWII (to soak up cash that would otherwise drive inflation, since there was nothing to buy, as well as fund the war), I think redistributing this "excess" capital via higher upper bracket taxes, and redeploying it into socially useful activities like infrastructure and health insurance would be a plus. I can gather that you'll disagree.
As for any shift in polling since the election, that's par for the course, and as Mr. Cheney once said: We won... this is our due. His mistake was to assume that his due was permanent.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid '07' however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won't. Not by a longshot. Jobs don't necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The 'free market' just doesn't cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of '08' the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of '08', every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job production. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation's wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job production, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don't. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles." Kevin Carson in Studies in Mutualist Philosophy, Chapter Four.
Fits Tina and Ralph and other so-called conservatives like a tight shoe.
Anon 1
Post a Comment