• crybabylu said on Nov 17, 2007....

  I caught Greenspan on Larry King a couple of weeks ago, and he said it was unlikely.

• D6fer said on Nov 17, 2007....

  Sounds like Stiglitz is covering his ass to me.
  This economy may very well be heading for a recession....but what an amazing hedge against it.....look at how much is being spent.....more taxes aren't the answer....just less spending.....65% of the budget is going to entitlements...that says alot since we are spending a fortune on the war effort. ...unfortunately, if you put a cap on spending to maintain freedom, you lose it!
  

• desertsienna2 said on Nov 17, 2007....

  Excessive government regulation, sales taxes, business restrictions and the effects of the dollar's fall in comparison to foreign currencies.  The market has to run its course without interference.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....

   
  Bloomberg Report
   
  Venezuela backed an Iranian proposal to add the group's concern over the falling dollar to a summit declaration to be made today. Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said that no mention of the dollar should be made in the declaration because he didn't want the U.S. currency to ``collapse.''

• sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....

   
   
  Bloomberg Report
   
  Nigerian Finance Minister Shamsudeen Usman said on Nov. 16 his country's law has been changed to allow it to diversify its foreign reserves out of dollars. Angola may shift its international reserves away from the dollar, Finance Minister Jose Pedro de Morais said.
   
  OPEC's $6 billion development fund is hedging its exposure to the weakening dollar, Director-General Suleiman Jasir al- Herbish told reporters in Riyadh yesterday.
   
   

• sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....

   

  Bloomberg Report

  Treasuries Rise to the Highest in Two Years on Credit Concern

  By Sandra Hernandez and Deborah Finestone

  Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Treasuries rose to the highest since 2005 as credit-market losses related to delinquent subprime mortgages drove investors to the safety of government debt.

  How ironic to see that Treasuries rose and drove investors to the safety of government debt at the expense of delinquent subprime mortgages.

  In English: the taxpaying citizens, who pay the interest on the Treasuries from government debt, provide investors with a safe income and a shield from credit-market losses ultimately incurred by other taxpaying citizens with delinquent subprime mortgages.

  It looks to me like these investors are cashing in on subprime mortgages or the safety of government debt. The taxpaying citizens are providing these investors with a good income any way you look at it.

  Especially since these investors pay fewer taxes on that income than the taxpayer pays on the income they transfer to these invertors to pay them as income.

  Is there a lesson to be learned here? I wonder if the tax rate for these invertors is as great as the tax rate for the taxpaying citizens who are providing them with such a safe income. Somehow I doubt it.

  By the way, the foreign press already considers that the US is in a recession if not a depression. The above mentioned investor behavior tell a piece of the story.

• crybabylu said on Nov 18, 2007....

  this is Greenspan's concern:  
  Greenspan has often warned that both federal programs will come under enormous strain as members of the baby boom generation retire. Absent a fix, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2042. Medicare's hospital trust fund is expected to run out by 2026.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....

   

  Alan Greenspan: The Fraud by William Greider, TheNation.com. Posted September 20, 2007.

  Alan Greenspan attempts to save face in his new book by revising history.

  Alan Greenspan has come back from the tomb of history to correct the record. He did not make any mistakes in his eighteen-year tenure as Federal Reserve chairman. He did not endorse the regressive Bush tax cuts of 2001 that pumped up the federal deficits and aggravated inequalities. He did not cause the housing bubble that is now in collapse. He did not ignore the stock market bubble that subsequently melted away and cost investors $6 trillion. He did not say the Iraq War is "largely about oil."

  Check the record. These are all lies.

  Greenspan's testimony endorsing the Bush tax cuts was extremely influential but now he wants to run away from it.

  In the instance of Iraq, Greenspan is actually correcting his own memoir, The Age of Turbulence, which just came out. This weekend, newspapers reported provocative snippets from the book, including this: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

  Wow, talk about your "inconvenient truth." Greenspan was blithely acknowledging what official Washington has always denied and the news media faithfully ignored. "Blood for oil." No, no, no, that's not what he meant, Greenspan corrected in a follow-up interview. [Bob Woodward in Monday's Washington Post] He was only saying that "taking out Saddam was essential" for "oil security" and the global economy.

  Are you confused? Welcome to the world of slippery truth Greenspan has always lived in. He was the Maestro, as Bob Woodward's loving portrait dubbed him. Wall Street loved the Chairman best because the traders and bankers knew he was always on their side and would come to their rescue. The major news media treated him like an Old Testament prophet. Whatever the chairman said was carved on stone tablets, even when it didn't make any sense, as it often didn't.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....

   

  The Greenspan/Bush Social Security Scam By Paul Krugman published by the New York Times. Read it for info.

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  @desert
  " The market has to run its course without interference."
  
  
  The market, any market, always has interference. It can't function otherwise. The idea that we should not interfere in the market in any way is silly. Should we get rid of the FDA? What about contract law? Should the government stop building roads, schools?
  
  
  @d6
  Regarding taxes, it's worse to cut taxes and increase spending (massively increasing our debt) than it is to keep taxes at the same level or even raise them for those making over 100k a year. Bush cut taxes primarily for the upper classes while massively increasing spending. it is a recipe for hard times.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 18, 2007....

  Bush cut taxes primarily for the upper classes while massively increasing spending. it is a recipe for hard times.
  
  See, this is the thing that always pisses me off -- "tax cuts for the rich". The middle class received the largest percentage tax cuts. Personally, as a lower-middle-class guy, I think that I don't pay enough in taxes (not payroll taxes -- just income taxes) especially with a war going on.
  
  But the class warfare bologna is just that -- bologna.
  

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  math can be very deceiving if not understood well. 
  
  "The middle class received the largest percentage tax cuts"
  
  I think your wording is wrong, because this is simply false. I don't have time to look up sources right now, but I'll leave you with this which is a tangent that makes a similar point. Warren Buffet pays a far lower percentage of his income in taxes than the middle class. The super wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the average middle class american. Class warfare is not bologna, but it seems easy to convince those getting fucked that it is. 

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  Ok, so I did look it up for you.
  
  
  "The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
  ...
  Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
  ...
  But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress."
  
  source
  
  Here is another piece of information that explains how Bush abuses math to trick people about the effects of his tax cuts. The Bush admin, and many talking heads, make this claim: "109 million American taxpayers will see their taxes decline by an average of $1,544." This is true, but highly deceiving.
  
  
  "The [$1,544] number is apparently tabulated by dividing the total reduction in taxes by the number of filers who got a tax cut, but it exaggerates the benefits most Americans received because of the very large tax cuts for those at the very top of the income brackets. According to an Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center analysis, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are fully phased in, the majority of filers will get less than half of Bush's "average.""
  
  source
  
  
  Let me explain this in clearer terms. Let's say that bill gates walks into a homeless shelter. One could say that the average net worth of everyone in the room is over a million dollars. On average, they are all millionaires. Clearly this is deceptive. 

• TinSoldier said on Nov 18, 2007....

  I've read that blog already (and I think I responded to it).
  
  Let me see --
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001
  
  

  Income tax

  EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:

  • a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
  • the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
  • the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
  • the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
  • the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
  • the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

  The EGTRRA in many cases lowered the taxes on married couples filing jointly by increasing the standard deduction for joint filers to between 174% and 200% of the deduction for single filers.

  Additionally, it changed the rate of tax on dividend income starting in 2003 to 5% for those in the 0% or 15% brackets, falling to 0% in 2008. It was lowered to 15% for all other brackets.

  Additionally, EGTRRA increased the per-child tax credit and the amount eligible for credit spent on dependent child care, phased out limits on itemized deductions and personal exemptions for higher income taxpayers, and increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and created a new depreciation deduction for qualified property owners.

  5% for the lowest bracket which is higher than the 4.6% for the highest bracket. 3% for each of the middle brackets. And as is always pointed out by supporters of progressive income taxes, 3% is a lot bigger chunk of my paycheck than it is of my company's CEO.

  I love how some people call an across-the-board tax cut a "tax cut for the rich", just like the rich like to call the elimination of any deductions as a tax increase.
  
  This comment doesn't include your comment directly above. Which just goes to show that people can twist statistics to prove their point under almost any circumstances.
  

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  the report I linked is accurate, the bulk of the cuts went to the wealthy. You can read the link I gave or ingore it, it's up to you. Your focus on the affects of one aspect of the tax cuts. For example, you completely ignore the cuts in capital gains taxes. 
  
  
  let me ask you a direct question. If the percentages you list are accurate then why does warren buffet pay only 17% of his income in taxes?
  
  
  you also forgot the mention that there were two other tax cuts passed by Bush. I'm guessing you're not aware of them. The effects are what I said above. 

• TinSoldier said on Nov 18, 2007....

  No, but it was the main one.
  
  And note that while I think that the tax cuts in 2001 and 2004 averted an economic meltdown in this country (or at least postponed it until now) that I actually agree with a slight increase in income taxes right now if we are to continue pursuing the wars that we seem to want to continue pursuing.
  
  I sold a bit of stock last year, and I'm not a big investor. And yet, I was surprised by how little taxes I had to pay on my capital gains.
  
  Yeah, I know its weird to find a conservative who thinks that he pays too few taxes, but still. Here I am.
  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 18, 2007....

  Just to clarify -- I'm in favor of a relatively flat income tax. I am also in favor of eliminating most deductions.
  
  That's not to say that I think that the government can cut taxes to zero and still operate. Obviously there is some point of diminishing returns and sometimes the government refuses to admit that.
  
  And sometimes the Republican party turns a blind eye to that basic fact. While I believe in "supply side" or so-called "trickle-down" economics, when taken to an absurdist extreme (like anything else) it breaks down.
  
  I believe that the 2001 tax cuts helped stabilize the economy, the government needs to start figuring out how to re-balance both revenues and expenditures.
  
  I will agree that congresses since 1992 have not been as profligate with expenditures as congresses before that time were.
  
  Why can't congress forecast spending in the next 2-6 years and set tax rates accordingly? That would seem to make the most sense.
  

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  i'm with you on the deductions, not the flat part :)
  
  
  Here's the problem with a flat tax. Let's say that right now our government needs to bring in x amount of money. If we change to a flat tax will still have to bring in x, it doesn't change. The only way to achieve this with a flat tax is to raise the percentage on those at lower incomes and lower it for those at higher incomes. 
  
  
  Let me be clear, the tax system is class warfare. Warren Buffet, and people like him, pay far less a percentage of their income than you and I. Bush's tax cuts increased this difference, and it did it during a time of war and there has never been tax cuts during a war in our history. In fact, I've never heard of such a thing in any country.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 18, 2007....

  I'm with you on the tax cuts during time of war...
  
  :D
  
  
  Here's the problem with a flat tax. Let's say that right now our government needs to bring in x amount of money. If we change to a flat tax will still have to bring in x, it doesn't change. The only way to achieve this with a flat tax is to raise the percentage on those at lower incomes and lower it for those at higher incomes. 
  
  My tax proposal: One percentage (whatever that is) with a single deduction about equivalent to the median income of the US, and maybe another deduction for up to (but no more than) 3 children. No other deductions.
  
  For corporations: a single percentage rate on all income with a deduction proportional to the median income of their employees. Little or no deduction for capital expenses or business losses. No other deductions except maybe a few targeted economic ones (yes, let's keep some pork and earmarks for incentive. But greatly reduced, TYVM).
  
  For business, taxes should be a relatively fixed cost regardless of profit or loss. Yes, even for small businesses.
  
  But our country will not be doing this any time soon, and I'll also admit that I haven't researched the dollar value of doing so. Yet, it still seems like the most equitable solution to me.
  
  
  

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  why not keep a progressive tax system, but get rid of the deductions. This achieves the real goal, simplifying our stupid tax code. At the end of the day the wealthy benefit more from government programs than the average person, it's only fair in my eyes that they pay a little more. Keep in mind I'm one of those people that pay a high percentage :/
  
  
  If you want to raise your taxes, and lower mine, then by all means, give me a flat tax ;) 
  
  
  Regarding class issues, there is a rapidly growing divide between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class is disappearing and CEO's are making far more than they've ever made (even when they bankrupt the company). A close look at CEO compensation will put to rest the fantasy that wages are somehow based on effort or worth (i.e. the naive idea that they "earned it").

• TinSoldier said on Nov 18, 2007....

  If you want to raise your taxes, and lower mine, then by all means, give me a flat tax ;)
  
  Sure, if you make so much more than me. Under my plan, though, I doubt that I would pay much or any taxes at all.
  
  A close look at CEO compensation will put to rest the fantasy that wages are somehow based on effort or worth (i.e. the naive idea that they "earned it").
  
  Agreed, that's why I think that all income regardless of source should be classified the same way.
  
  why not keep a progressive tax system, but get rid of the deductions.
  
  Sure, but too many middle class tax payers are unwilling to give up their deductions for medical expenses and mortgage interest and state taxes paid and gambling debts and what not.
  
  I don't have a problem with our current brackets, actually. It's more just the deductions and discriminating between different kinds of income.
  
  And no, dividends would not be taxed twice if they were considered personal income as well as corporate income -- that's just a red herring.
  

• bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....

  "Under my plan, though, I doubt that I would pay much or any taxes at all."
  
  
  This plays into the point I made earlier. There is no way you can make a flat tax give the same revenue unless you increase taxes on the lower incomes. I don't think your system would work.
  
  
  check my latest post"

• sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....

   

  Bloc, Tin * Are you meaning that a large rate change in a small amount can be smaller than a small rate change in a large amount? Which of course is quite true. In the case we are discussing the small rate change net amount dwarfs the large rate change net amount considerably. It turns out to be larger than the actual amount on which the large rate change applies.

  In plain English the middle class (large rate change tax payers) are getting screwed while being made to believe they are not. Historically the richer citizens are asked to pay a larger rate in taxes not because it is fair, which it is, but because it is the only moral and ethical thing to do in a society based nominally on freedom and democracy. That the laws that underpin our society favor the rich over the rest is true. That the rest are obvious led to believe the opposite is also true. It’s how the rich can and most sustain themselves however immoral or unethical.

  How can a society that is based on ideas like freedom and democracy be taken seriously if it creates the opposite conditions with its economic structure? To a rational person it is axiomatic that money is power. That power allows you more freedom and democracy is also axiomatic . That fact makes the current political system and the consequent wealth distribution unfair. How can freedom and democracy be obtained when there are citizens that have, in terms of actual wealth, 1000 times greater or more real income and wealth than the average citizen? That fact alone gives the rich greater freedom and democracy; which is a contradiction that exists at the heart of our political system.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  Sheltercrow -- I've been pondering your post all day. Several paragraphs of ideology have flitted in and out of my head trying to explain my views.
  
  While the law should treat everybody equally, everybody is not equal in ability or ambition. Private property ownership is an important part of freedom -- without it, there is no true freedom.
  
  We as a society, rich and not-rich alike, decide which policies to enact to make sure that people don't fall too far behind. Sometimes these policies aren't really in our society's best interest, sometimes they are.
  
  Not much else to say about it. Rich people pay the majority of taxes. To a rational person who looks at our tax structure that is axiomatic.
  

• bloc said on Nov 19, 2007....

  "Rich people pay the majority of taxes. To a rational person who looks at our tax structure that is axiomatic."
  
  
  I'm not sure on this if you are referring to total dollar amount across all rich people vs all middle class people. However, they certainly pay a lot more individually, but they also reap the most reward often arbitrarily and not based on merit of any kind. Here are Buffet's thoughts on freedom.
  "Buffett invoked the historical roots of the estate tax, established in 1916 during the Gilded Age to put a brake on anti-democratic concentrations of wealth and power. "Dynastic wealth, the enemy of meritocracy, is on the rise," Buffett told the panel. "Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."
  true freedom cannot exist with "dynastic" and gross concentrations of wealth.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  I have to disagree RE the estate tax. And yes, I meant total dollar amount as well as individually.
  
  They reap the most reward? How so? What entitlements do the rich receive?
  
  Heh, the only thing they really receive is the recipients of entitlements not showing up on their doorsteps with torches and pitchforks.
  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  Oh, I agree with the "dynastic and gross concentrations of wealth" thing. Just not with the estate tax in general and the fact that IMO is a barrier to social mobility.
  
  Of course, Mr. Buffet must be much smarter than I am. After all, he's rich and I'm not.
  

• bloc said on Nov 19, 2007....

  
  "Just not with the estate tax in general and the fact that IMO is a barrier to social mobility."
  
  
  CAn you clarify this. I'm not sure what your saying.
  
  
  "They reap the most reward? How so? What entitlements do the rich receive?"
  
  
  our nations infrastructure, roads, courts, legal system generally, telecommunications, universities, etc. Corporations, and the ultra rich, reap great rewards from our infrastructure, more than the common person. Let me put it another way. Take the top 10% of americans and instead of having them grow up i American, have them grow up in mexico. How many would still be so successful? They gain a lot from our society, far more than conservatives account for.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  I'm confused -- with all of this great infrastructure which benefits us all, how would a rich person benefit more from it? By becoming more socially mobile?
  
  That doesn't make sense. If they grew up rich in Mexico then they would still be rich. The common man can take advantage of this same infrastructure and become rich himself given the ambition and the talent to do so. Not so much in Mexico, methinks.
  
  I think that out of the top 10% of Americans, maybe 5% would still be rich in Mexico. The other 5% would have missed out on the opportunities that you talk about and would still be in whatever station in life in which they began.
  
  Oh, and regarding the estate tax: poor or middle-class person works hard to improve the lot of himself and his family. But he is unable to pass that on without being taxed into oblivion. So his family slides back down into mediocrity. Plus, being able to pass prosperity on to your progeny is a heavy incentive to excel in the first place. Without that -- why bother?
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 19, 2007....

   

  “They reap the most reward? How so? What entitlements do the rich receive?”

  I would have to say this; by what measurement don’t the rich get more services then the rest?

  “Heh, the only thing they really receive is the recipients of entitlements not showing up on their doorsteps with torches and pitchforks.”

  Not true, we have them and are ready to strike any day now.

  “While the law should treat everybody equally, everybody is not equal in ability or ambition. Private property ownership is an important part of freedom -- without it, there is no true freedom.”

  This is a logical contradiction; what does ability and ambition have to with being equal politically? Private property inequality is the root cause of political inequality. You are defending an ideology you have no stake in; that is truly good propaganda by the rich.

  “We as a society, rich and not-rich alike, decide which policies to enact to make sure that people don't fall too far behind.”

  You misunderstand the term “society” and confuse it by relating it unrealistically with “policy deciders”. Society does not decide policy.

  I’m not sure I’d agree with this statement, you'd have to prove it.

  “Not much else to say about it. Rich people pay the majority of taxes. To a rational person who looks at our tax structure that is axiomatic.”

  Here is some dogma that you will have to read and forget. lol.

  “However, when social security and sales taxes are included, the typical wage earner pays about a 40 percent overall tax, about the same percentage as the average American millionaire. Multimillionaires pay even less. The top 400 U.S. taxpayers, with an average income of $151 million, paid 27 percent in total taxes in the year 2000. All other taxpayers, with an average income of $34,600, paid 40 percent in total taxes. The extremely regressive social security tax provides nearly 40 percent of federal revenue.”

  “The biggest insult is what might be called the 'productivity tax.' Wage earners are not being paid what they're worth. Worker productivity has risen steadily since 1980, but compensation has remained stagnant. Every minimum wage worker in America would be making over $22 per hour if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990. But the minimum wage has crept up to just $5.85 an hour. A recent study calculates that an average two-income family today has less disposable income than one-income families had 30 years ago, largely because of escalating home mortgage, health care, and child care costs. Overtime rules have been changed by the Bush Administration, making it more likely that middle-income workers will lose pay. And studies show that people who lose their jobs are out of work longer and return to the workplace at a lower rate of pay.”

  “The inequity is made more extreme with the income tax cuts. A study by Citizens for Tax Justice notes that over the ten-year period from 2001 to 2010 the richest one percent of Americans are scheduled to receive tax cuts averaging $34,000 per year. For the 20 percent of families with the lowest incomes, the average tax cut will be $77. The average tax cut for households with incomes over $1 million was $112,000 in 2006. By one estimate, rescinding the tax cuts would supply the $3.4 trillion needed for social security, fully cover Medicare costs, and provide free prescription drugs for all America”

  “And then we have - or don't have - corporate income taxes. The portion of federal revenue derived from corporate income tax has decreased from 33 percent in the 1950s to 11.9 percent in 2005, reaching a low of 7.4 percent in 2003. The General Accounting Office revealed that over 60 percent of U.S. controlled corporations with at least $250 million in assets (93 percent of all reported assets) reported no federal tax liability each year between 1996 and 2000. Eighty-two of our largest corporations paid no tax in at least one of the first three years of the Bush administration. In Illinois, according to the governor's office of management and budget, almost half of the state's corporations with sales over $50 million paid no taxes from 1997 to 2005, yet efforts to collect more corporate taxes were shot down by the business community in early 2007”

  “I'm confused -- with all of this great infrastructure which benefits us all, how would a rich person benefit more from it? By becoming more socially mobile?”

  “That doesn't make sense. If they grew up rich in Mexico then they would still be rich. The common man can take advantage of this same infrastructure and become rich himself given the ambition and the talent to do so. Not so much in Mexico, methinks”

  You will have a great deal of trouble proving these assertions.

  TinSoldier, you have nothing to lose but your chains. Lol. You’d

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  I would have to say this; by what measurement don’t the rich get more services then the rest?
  How do you prove a negative?
  
  This is a logical contradiction; what does ability and ambition have to with being equal politically?
  Nothing -- I shouldn't have included both statements in the same paragraph as they are relatively unrelated. My mistake.
  
  I agree that people should be equal politically. That should be the goal, without impinging on people's freedom just because they do or do not possess a certain amount of wealth.
  
  I disagree regarding who makes "policy".
  
  “However, when social security and sales taxes are included, the typical wage earner pays about a 40 percent overall tax, about the same percentage as the average American millionaire. Multimillionaires pay even less. The top 400 U.S. taxpayers, with an average income of $151 million, paid 27 percent in total taxes in the year 2000. All other taxpayers, with an average income of $34,600, paid 40 percent in total taxes. The extremely regressive social security tax provides nearly 40 percent of federal revenue.”
  I agree that the wage cap on SS should be lifted. However, if a millionaire (let's say for the sake of argument, someone who earns $1M per year) pays 40% in taxes then he is paying $400,000. If a top earner makes $151M per year somehow and only pays 27% then he is still paying $40,770,000 -- over a hundred times as much. So he pays more, which is my basic assertion.
  
  And the rich, as a collective, pay a greater share of taxes which is my original point.
  
  I agree that corporate and capital gains taxes should be increased.
  
  I don't understand your last point, about how I would have to prove that if someone had been born rich in Mexico that he wouldn't remain rich in Mexico.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 19, 2007....

  Tin have you ever heard of the virtual browser G.ho.st?

  Policy is made by the Trilateral Commission in cahoots with the International Bankers. Do they know about the pitchforks and pikes we keep? No. I don’t know who actually makes policy but it seems like it has a top down structure.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 19, 2007....

   

  In WiKi-speak...

  Because payment of tax is usually compulsory and enforced by the police and justice system, some political philosophies view taxation by force as institutionalized violence equivalent to theft, accusing the government of levying taxes via coercive means.

  Capital gains tax, Consumption tax, Corporation tax, Excises, Income tax, Inheritance tax, Poll tax, Property tax, Retirement tax, Sales tax, Transfer tax, Wealth (net worth) tax.

  And the rich, as a collective, pay a greater share of taxes which is my original point.

  Are you trying to imply the rich are a form of collective like a borg hive or communist cell? Preposterous although intriguing.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  Are you trying to imply the rich are a form of collective like a borg hive or communist cell? Preposterous although intriguing.
  
  Heh, not quite my point, but...
  
  I certainly see corporations as a form of collective. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in general.
  
  And yes, I'm aware of the extreme libertarian view of taxation. I used to subscribe to it, but not any longer.
  
  Well, only for people who think that the common man has no say in politics.
  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 19, 2007....

  Oh, and if the rich are the borg then please -- assimilate me baby!

• sheltercrow said on Nov 19, 2007....

   

  I certainly see corporations as a form of collective. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in general.

  All corporations are an evil godless scheme to legally steal our money. All those interlocking directorships do make them seem like a collective; a heathen godless collective worse than any Bolshevik could come up with.

  And yes, I'm aware of the extreme libertarian view of taxation. I used to subscribe to it, but not any longer.

  I may not subscribe to extremist sentiments but I once heard the idea that if some government wants a war they should take up a voluntary war tithe to fund it.

• Cussane said on Nov 24, 2007....

Comment on "The Economy"

Currently tagged	economics politics taxes politics taxes (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment