Skip to main content

High tax rates on Corporations, Capital gains, Estate and Income tax were not about any Robin Hood scheme. Those tax rates were about assembling a policy structure that encouraged a stable society, where working and middle class families were engaged in the economy, and were better able to take care of their own.

There was no redistribution of wealth from the rich to working and middle class families. We earned it. We worked for it. And then came the PATCO strike, our right to collective bargaining was under attack, the right for Labor to sit at the table as an equal to Capital. The major part of the Reagan tax changes were not the rich getting huge tax breaks, the biggest change from those days was the corporate tax breaks. The corporate share of the federal revenue pie shrunk.

taxpolicycenter.org

As corporate tax rates dropped and later, as the global economy spread, tax revenues from US corporations declined. President Obama recently advocated for reducing Corporate taxes. I disagree, the Corporate top rate should be increased and half the revenue gained should go back to corporations who invest in emerging markets and technology, like Solar, wind, renewable storage, and supergrid developments and HVDC.

But I digress.

High mariginal rates reward smarter investment.
When the top marginal rate were 90%+ the effective rates were 40-45%, when the top rate was 70% the effective rates were 32-34%. Yes we took huge sums from the uber rich, and gave large portions back to the uber rich. The rich that took their private capital and built factories and business's here in the US got a huge tax break for that smart community oriented investment. We gave huge tax deductions for investing in emerging tech and markets, to incentivize US job creation. To incentivize US innovation.

Todays effective rates are about 31-33% roughly the same they were back in the 1970's. Gone are the deductions and exemptions that spurred US job creation and innovation, rates are at historically low points. All those incentives to create jobs in America are gone. Incentives to innovate, incentives to foster leading edge technological developments.

Do you see a pattern yet? ...Let me continue...

Lets say you are a billionaire....why should you build a factory to make solar panels or wind turbines for a 5 to 10% return, when you  can make (20, 25, 30%) far more speculating on commodities?

The picture I'm trying to paint is one of incentives to the flow of capital...

High taxes should not be about punishing the rich. Hi taxes in the past were about creating a stable society, where smarter investments are rewarded. Those  exemptions and deductions are a great way to make capital flow where we want it to, instead of willy nilly everywhere, or not at all, like we see now. The right wing likes low taxes with fewer  exemptions and deductions to "level the playing field". But what that does is make currency and commodities speculation more profitable than say building factories that produce solar panels and create US jobs......

These high rates also allowed for less of a tax burden on working and middle class families, engaging working and middle class families in the economy, and these families were better able to take care of their own. Nowadays, the tax burden on working and middle class families have taxed them out of the economy.

The level playing field... is really crooked
The right wing "Market ideologists" dont like to pick winners and losers in a market, so the "level playing field" becomes this alter that some grovel before. And how much profit a corporation makes in the next fiscal year becomes more important than long term visionary thinking, like industrial and energy policy looking forward 20 or 30 years. Higher taxes also means less money goes into speculation, so less money goes into speculative bubbles, so recessions arent as broad or deep.

Without incentives for emerging markets like solar and wind, older, mature large markets will dominate, become hard to control, steer, and tend towards senescence and receive legislative favoritism. Emerging markets are overwhelmed. And until the regulatory and tax policies are changed, this will continue.

The path out of the woods.
Right now we have 6 tax brackets, there is no way a progressive tax can be truly progressive in its effect with only 6 brackets. One should not describe a geometric curve with 6 straight lines. Adding more brackets for a total of 12 or 15 can better describe that geometric curve.The Peoples Budget adds 5 brackets, with a top rate of 49%, I would go to at least 70% and add exemptions and deductions targeting emerging tech and markets (like solar and wind). Capital gains goes back to 28%. Corporate top rate goes up. Taxing gains from currency, commodities and derivative speculation, deincentivizes those activities, while tax breaks for emerging tech and markets incentivizes capital to flow to US jobs and business activity. This is pretty much what Sidney Hillman called Industrial Policy back in the Depression... the one in the 1930's....

So we've raised taxes, how do we create jobs?
A recent NYT article quoted many business people who expressed very little or no interest in a Corporate tax cut, instead opinion overwhelmingly spoke to lack of demand and they would not hire or expand until the had reason to meet increased business. Keynesian Economics is sometimes called demand side economics.

The next generation of Infrastructure: Transportation and Energy.

According to the US Dept of Energy there 2 main reasons why renewable energy technologies offer an economic advantage, 1) They are labor intensive, so they generally create more jobs per dollar invested than conventional electricity technologies and 2) they use primarily indigenous resources, so most of the energy dollars can be kept at home.
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Nearly the same can be said of infrastructure, heavy construction equipment, labor intensive, and domestic resource intensive. Jobs created in these sectors tend to pay well, 40 to 75k, so there is better than average secondary job creation. The US manufacturing sector gets a big boost because of the nature of renewable energy development. Cheap practical renewable energy is good for US businesses trying to hold the line on energy costs.

I estimate during the New Deal we spent about 6-7% of GNP on stimulus. I've been advocating for 10% of GDP on jobs spending. The US spends 2,4% of GDP on infrastructure, the Eurozone spends 5-6%. In a 15 trillion dollar economy we should be spending 5% of GDP, 1.5 trillion on infrastructure. Another 5% should be spent on energy and other vital sectors.

Job creation breakdown by sector

Importance of the Supergrid to Renewables

More on the Supergrid, HVDC and Solar and Wind Power, looking to 2022.

Photobucket

Kermit got banished.......

 IF you want to join Keynesian Kossacks, let me know, I'll send you an invite.

9:09 PM PT: Scheduled for Community Spotlight 1:30 am? Sounds like I got rescued, just not yet, well.... cool.


Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM PT: My First ever Rec list diary. It wouldn't have happened without being Rescued by the Rescue Rangers. When this diary went on the Community Spotlight it had 4 rec's. Thanks Rangers, I am indebted.


Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 12:42 PM PT: Going over those who have rec'ed this dairy I have noted some Kossacks who I respect, names I recognized. thanks to TarheelDem, Jerome a Paris, Robobagpiper. Some good discussion in the comments, thanks to all but the one or two scavengers. :~ )

Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 1:28 PM PT: Wow, this diary just moved up from Page 3 to page 2 of the rec list, Woot Woot. This baby still has some legs. Thanks to everyone.
Roj-

Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 7:05 PM PT: I am blown away, approaching 95 rec's, still holding the middle of page 2 of the Rec list, over 26 hours after being first published.

Originally posted to Keynesian Kossacks on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 04:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by The Royal Manticoran Rangers, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, Income Inequality Kos, Progressive Hippie, DKOMA, Moose On The Loose, and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary (3+ / 0-)

    ...but your title is a bit unclear - I suspect if you re-worked it you might get more readers.

    'Give away to the rich and punish the poor for the extravagance.....crazy' --LaFeminista

    by MsGrin on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 04:49:19 PM PDT

  •  I agree with the principles (8+ / 0-)

    though, of course, might quibble with the specifics, the percentages, and the externalized pain.

    The basic principle of fine-gradation wealth taxes -- taxes on business that would not succeed without the structure of a democratic, civilized system -- is one I support.

    To oppose a capital-gains increase is to oppose the notion that capital gains are founded on a stable economy, with appropriate regulations, with roads and bridges and the like, all of which enable the workings of commerce, which increase capital gains.

    If you don't tax it, then the cost of all those enablers is externalized, just like most extractive industries externalize the heavy metal effluent of coal, the toxic effluent of industrialized farming, or the poisons injected into our bedrock, via fracking. That kind of externalizing is, quite bluntly, killing our ecosystem.

    That is, we have to start charging for infrastructure, whether artificial infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) or natural infrastructure (water purification, carbon sequestration, etc.), by having the profit from that infrastructure assessed a fee, for having access to it.

    This seems bleeding obvious. Thanks for making the supportive point, with specifics.

     

  •  In the Framers' Concepts, It's About Preventing (18+ / 0-)

    an aristocracy. Rich is fine, aristocracy is anti democratic.

    Unfortunately the framers themselves although some feared what trade and corporations could lead to, they didn't build anything into their Constitutional system to prevent it.

    Progressive taxation of the rich wasn't redistribution because huge wealth never went into their hands in the first place. That money was invested in the business, shared with employees, and generally ended up available for the entire economy to compete for.

    Rich is fine, aristocracy is anti democratic and it's deadly for a middle class.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 05:01:50 PM PDT

    •  An important distinction (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farlefty, debedb, caul, divineorder, Orinoco

      I had to rework the dairy from Saturday......

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 05:04:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  agreed (6+ / 0-)

      then the argument is for lower cap gains, but higher estate taxes (and some reworking of inheritance stuff).

      you cannot compare cap gains of someone who who worked their ass for years and sold a startup/building/factory/development/whatever, vs inherited gain like that.So, treat them differently.

      •  But why should capital gains be taxed (6+ / 0-)

        lower than wages and salaries? If "worked for" is the standard, then they should be taxed at the same rate...though most capital gains are simply appreciation of assets held by the already-wealthy. There is no excuse for taxing capital gains at a lower rate than salaries--those who advocate the same generally favor lowering rates on inheritance as well (they do bleat about how inheritances shouldn't be taxed because the decedent "worked hard" to leave all that money to  his kids..)

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 06:08:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          Income is income, whether earned or not.  It's ridiculous on its face that un-earned income is taxed at a lower rate.

          And most capital gains -- the vast majority, I'd wager -- do not go to diligent entrepreneurs but to the already-rich on idle paper gains.

          When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be peace. - Jimi Hendrix

          by CharlieHipHop on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 05:24:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The explanation, not that I agree with it (0+ / 0-)

          is that capital investment is a risk, whereas offering your labor for cash is not.  

          I don't think people will start stashing their money under the bed if the profits it earns are taxed at the same rate as income.

          Another thing people miss is that most investments in the stock market are not actual tangible investments in a company.  The money they pay for a stock goes to another guy playing the market, not the company.  You're buying a piece of paper that you're hoping you can offload to another guy in the future for more than you paid.

        •  why tax lower (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          Because cap gains can be losses. There's a risk involved.

    •  ?? "...huge wealth never went into (0+ / 0-)

      their hands in the first place." What are you talking about? Are you talking about the post-New Deal situation? Because there was certainly "huge wealth" in the hands of the uber-rich, and the creation of an aristocracy of wealth in the nineteenth century...it required a constitutional amendment, I believe, to get an income tax instituted in the first place. The framers, coming as they did at the very eve of the industrial revolution, had no clue of the magnitude of wealth that could be created (and hoarded) in the centuries to come.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 06:01:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very well written diary n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox, MartyM
  •  "Operation Wetback" (0+ / 0-)

    Back when tax rates were 90%, the Eisenhower administration also started "Operation Wetback" to keep people out of the US who might undercut blue collar workers' wages.

    And our immigration policy only allowed in white immigrants.

    Also, no medicare, no AFDC and a military draft keep many young men out of the private sector work force.

    Do we want to go back to those days?

  •  Trouble with Keynes in the 21st Century (4+ / 0-)

    is that most of the money will flow out this country.

    Raise taxes. The Evil Rich invest locally for tax breaks. Joe Six pack gets paid. Joe Six pack buys food and goods imported from foreign economies. Thus, we are missing a vital part of the Keynsian feedback loop -- the positive part. It is like trying to cool your house down in Texas by running your air-conditioner with all the doors and windows open...

    Given the "globalness" of our economy increasing taxes just enriches the government without much positive effect.

    Poor people will continue to suffer but we will have lots of smart highway/roadway signage -- at least that is how it is working here in Washington State. And, new bridges with $5 tolls so the rich have easier commutes...

  •  Taxing the rich enables jobs (6+ / 0-)

    Let's see if I have this right: employee expenses are a tax deduction. If the wealthy are heavily taxed on profit, it makes sense to seek tax deductions- such as hiring workers.

    However, if the wealthy are minimally taxed, there is no incentive to invest the money

    Therefore, tax the "job creators" to push them to create jobs.

    Or am I missing something?

    •  Thats pretty much it, except (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, Orinoco

      we're giving them huge tax breaks to create jobs. If not, well then pay those much higher rates.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 11:00:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's kind of it (0+ / 0-)

      low tax rates disincentivize reinvesting money in a corporation.

      However there is no point in spending anything on something that is of no use to you just to save paying taxes on the money.

      Would you spend all of your paycheck on 10,000 pink paper doilies just so you could get a tax deduction for it?  Then all you'd have is no money and a bunch of doilies.

      So we need to create a need for hiring.  Which means we need to put cash into the economy so there are more customers for businesses.  Businesses won't hire without more customers.

  •  Incentives! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox, mightymouse, caul

    Great idea.  Even Newt Gingrich seemed to like the idea tonight, in the guise of "tax loopholes."

    "What is essential is invisible to the eye." www.thefoxfoot.com

    by greywolfe359 on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 10:52:31 PM PDT

    •  Industrial policy from the 1930's (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Guyer, alizard, mightymouse, caul, Orinoco

      Used tax policy to help create smart investment. Sidney Hillman was part of FDR's kitchen cabinet, Sidney was head of the ACW, then the AFL, which later merged to be the AFL-CIO, Sidney was full of ideas like this, and social security, the Wagner Act.

      And from 1936 thru 1986 thats what we did with "tax loopholes". I'm not glad to see Newt re inventing himself again. He's a very smart man and very dangerous.

      He'll destroy the Perry and Bachman types, probably a higher IQ than the 2 put together.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 11:08:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent Post. (5+ / 0-)

    Why would anyone be morally bound or wish to be morally bound to a civil society that does not share the goal that it’s citizens deserve a fair distribution of wealth, income and power? If the civil society is not dedicated to that end what else could it possibly be dedicated to? What is freedom, to those without wealth, income or power?

    •  But we earn our wealth (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jobu, caul, J M F, dagnome, ClickerMel

      cut out distribution of Wealth, we just want a chance to earn our own.

      Dont tax working and middle class families out of the economy. Engage them in the economy.

      Thanks for the compliment.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 01:29:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thats just it..... (4+ / 0-)

      What exactly is "Fair"?

      I worked with 2 guys. Neither are employees. Both are "Sub-Contractors"

      One is a raging Capitalist. He is a Saudi. He makes 10x the Indian. I Swear he never sleeps.

      The other is a total pinko. And I mean, nothing like anyone in America. he is from India. And you will see what i mean in a minute. I don't think he stays awake for more then 10 minutes a day.

      Here is one of the Arguments I remember best.

      In India, they were/are having a huge battle over Water. The Pinkos want water to be free. And I mean Free, no water bill.

      Saudi: WTF? how the hell are you going to do that?
      India: Well Just Tax the "Rich".
      Saudi: What?  
      Indian Guy: Just tax the rich. People need water, so its a right.
      Saudi" Oh sure, tax the "Rich" so you can by a big screen TV. Its a shitty $5/month.

      India: Thats not the point. Its unfair that people pay for a basic right.
      Saudi: "Free" Wtf are you talking about. The "Rich" are paying. Arent they people? Don't they have the same right to "Free" water?
      India: They are rich they don't count.
      Saudi: Dud man, ever wonder why the average Saudi drives a gold plated Ferrari, and the Average Indian starves in a shit stained mud hut?
      india: Because You are greedy bastards.
      Sadui: No its because you are lazy Bastards. Who sit on you fat asses expecting the world handed to you on a silver platter.

      I would like to point out. BOTH the Indian, and the Saudi hated America and left as soon as they could.

      The Indian left because he hated the "Rat Race". The Saudi left because he "Couldn't make any Money".

      So, What is Fair?

  •  If the Job Creators are not (8+ / 0-)

    producing jobs, then tax them. Raise the tax rate back to 90% and give them tax breaks. They are setting on top of piles of money now wanting more free gifts from us.

  •  High top tier tax rates (6+ / 0-)

    Also make long term profits important, which reduces the incentive to "slash and burn" or "plunder" a company. With a high top tier tax rate, stability is preferred to one-shot big wins. (And thus the incentive for fraud decreases - you don't have one close payday, you have many smaller ones over time.)

    •  Absolutely, a more stable economic system (0+ / 0-)

      Recessions are shorter and less deep, Bubbles dont get fueled by capital flowing into the bubble at hi velocity. And true innovation is favored over financial instruments.

      Capital tends to look at cutting edge stuff. Its a win win win win. Everyone makes money.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 11:41:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary, and yes . . . (0+ / 0-)

    . . . please send me an invite.

    Politics is the never-ending story we tell ourselves about who we are as a people.

    by swellsman on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:32:28 AM PDT

  •  Please send me an invite, but I lean toward higher (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    personal income taxes vs corporate taxes, because can't the businesses pay out more in salaries/bonuses and then claim no profits or a loss?

    Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

  •  I truly believe that most (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    wealthy people want to make that long term investment. Low taxes are just too much sweet, sugary "candy" to resist passing up investments in favor of immediate payoff consumer goods.

    •  Or Wall Street casino games. (0+ / 0-)

      They already have the big home with the three-car garage, they already have the vacation home and the boat, they already have the retirement fund, the college savings and the Carribean vacations.

      The top-bracket money we're talking about isn't money they need. It's just money they want to gamble on hedge funds and credit default swaps.

      Let them get their jollies in Vegas, like the rest of us.

      Have you noticed?
      Politicians who promise LESS government
      only deliver BAD government.

      by jjohnjj on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 01:47:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is one thing conservative apologists... (5+ / 0-)

    forget about capital gains taxes.

    Those taxes only apply when the asset is sold or the income stream is cashed out.

    That is, they encourage disinvestment in actual capital assets and speculation in paper.

    And golly gee they work so well that there is nothing but paper speculation going on right now.

    And those folks are about to get caught in a big huge default on Greek government debt.  Credit default swaps on government debt are about to bring on another financial sector meltdown.

    Higher capital gains taxes might have prevented this.  Money might have sought safe havens, like plant, equipment, and company operating capital.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 10:30:01 AM PDT

  •  Demand drives investment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rsie

    This is the key point for the economy right now:  after nearly 30 years now of Republicans winning on policy debates: tax cuts for the rich, capital gains cuts, cutting estate taxes, cuts in taxes and regulation for business, monetary policy focused on low inflation and low interest rates, the economy we have today is the logical result.

    These policies were supposed to create jobs.  They said they would do this by creating investment.  Give the rich people the money, they are the ones who will create the jobs.  This is what they said.  

    So where is the investment?  Where are our new factories, new machinery and equipment, our modern transportation and energy infrastructure?

    Reality is, net nonresidential investment has fallen steadily from 5% of GDP in 1980 to under 1% of GDP today.  That's an annual shortfall of $600B per year in investment.  The private sector is not going to invest in a country which won't invest in itself.  Supply side has failed.  Demand drives investment, not supply.

    If one takes a balance sheet approach to looking at the economy, one realizes also that we can afford everything we need.  For every debtor, there must be a creditor.  If the government is running deficits, the private sector must be running surpluses.  It is not possible for the economy as a whole to be overloaded with debt.  If some are overloaded with debt, others must be overloaded with more money than they know what to do with or have been able to find ways to productively invest.  

    And this is the reality.  Corporations are showing record profits,  They are sitting on trillions in cash.  There's just gobs of money out there seeking "safe assets" (which accounts also for the price of gold).

    Again, this ample supply of accumulated wealth does not create investment.  If we want these dollars to be used for that, we need for the government to start taking some of them back and spending them on real jobs creating investment.

    My preferred approach would be a financial asset tax.  With $150T in financial assets in the US, you could replace pretty much all other taxes with only a 1% annual financial asset tax.  

    Not sure this would be politically possible right now, but I'm amazed noone even bothers to try.  The right has all sorts of people out there promoting even seemingly impractical ideas such as their "fair tax" (which would only make things worse).  

  •  Excellent diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox, SingerInTheChoir

    I would like to argue for a restructuring of corporate taxes and capital gains rates that need to become graduated instead of fixed. Smaller business that put most of their profits back into growing their business by adding locations and employees should always pay lower effective tax rates than those investing in the capital and commodity markets. The Bush Tax Cuts included several special tax incentives and tax exclusions that benefit only the already very wealthy elite few at the expense of everyone else. For the last decade businesses and the biggest players at the Wall Street casino have enjoyed half the effective tax rates on their profits earned investing in the markets than a business owner would pay on the profits they earn. It has been estimated that more than $55 trillion left the sectors of domestic economy where jobs are mostly created and most tax revenues are generated moving into the capital and commodity markets which enriched only an elite few. These special tax brakes must be removed from our tax code immediately along with every other deduction, tax credit, tax shelter and loophole that only benefits the top few income earners in America.

    We need to raise the capital gains top rate high enough that those that can afford to earn all their income from gambling on the price of stocks and commodities would still pay slightly higher rates than someone producing in our economy or selling their labor while those investing long term in the markets for retirement or personal savings would pay a far lower rate. As far as I'm concerned individual capital gains should be normal taxable income subject to the same individual marginal income tax rates as any other income. Business capital gains is more complex but profits earned investing should always be taxed at higher rates than profits earned producing in our domestic economy.

    Keeping the 35% corporate tax on profits removed from the business over say $10 million/yr and then adding a couple lower rates would allow smaller businesses to grow and earn market share. It's time we give our small businesses a slight tax advantage over their larger competitors to help level the playing field to create jobs and generate more tax revenues.

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 01:55:42 PM PDT

    •  Some good stuff (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RMForbes

      Corporate taxes, yes, more brackets, and an increased top rate that touches only the very elite.

      You know, you have the foundation of a good diary there......

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:52:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes Tax Policy is about More than just Rates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    Bingo, you said it right. I've tried to frame and express similar ideas for some time but couldn't come up with your excellent description. My father and his colleagues built a multinational US based firm in the 60's and 70's back when the marginal tax rates were over 75%. Never stopped them from being successful for the reasons you cited.

    The Republicans haven't always hated industrial policy being influenced by the White House though. Remember those now seemingly quaint photos of Administration Cabinet Members sitting around discussing policy? Haven't seen those photos in a long long time. Maybe the Imperial Presidency changed things too much by making the entire media focus only on the White House and it's inner circle.

    Anyway kudos on your post.

  •  Excellent Diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catesby, Roger Fox

    Common sense stuff really.  Wish it were commoner.

    Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

    by Kurt Sperry on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:40:59 PM PDT

  •  Tax the Internet! (0+ / 0-)

    Tax the Internet!
    Oh man, dats radical.  All those porn sites are parasites
    I’ve never understood the logic of just because you’re on the Internet you’re tax free…what about me? As for as the argument goes that you can’t tax it… That’s what computers and telecommunications are good for…lets sik big brother on their ass…  

    Nudniks need not apply.

    by killermiller on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:53:42 PM PDT

  •  Most of the rich people I know support (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    the raising of their taxes to help the poor. They realize that unless the masses have a bare minimum of comfort, they will either rebel or become criminals, either one of which is bad for the rich. They think that the heathens need to be thrown a bone or two. It's only the most crazy rich people, along with conservative dogmatists, who continue to promote lower taxes for the rich.

    Don't tell me what I can't do! I'll tread on you if I feel like it...

    by doc2 on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 05:00:22 PM PDT

  •  As a 22-year business owner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    I tell the t-baggers in my area (who for some reason think I must be a bat-shit conservative like them) that corporate taxes are an exit fee for draining money out of your company.

    I tell them (as they appear not to have a clue) that 100% of every penny I spend on a legitimate business purpose is taxed at a ZERO rate.

    It's only when I decide to take money out and use it for non-business purposes am I hit with taxes.

    So I ask them, if I have $100K in cash in my business, am I more likely to reinvest it and put it to productive use if I have to pay 50% in taxes to withdraw it, or 25% in taxes to withdraw it?

    They scratch their heads, which is not surprising.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site