Skip to main content

  Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber, could not have said it better than Hassan Heikal. And Heikal is no bank robber—he’s the chief executive of EFG Hermes, which describes itself as the premier investment bank in the Middle East. But, like Sutton, he kows where the money is—and that’s where he wants to go to ease the austerity sweeping the world, and austerity he does not like and finds disastrous. He has a solution, one that won’t solve all the ills of the world. But, it will take $5-$10 trillion out of the pockets of the wealthiest people in the world and put that money towards halting the massive hurt descending on people because of the austerity obsession.

  I caught this in yesterday’s Financial Times.  Heikal starts by articulating what some voices—not those obsessed with hammering the people with austerity to pay for the robbery of the last 30 years nor those obsessed in our country with a non-existent debt and deficit “crisis”—have been saying for a long time:

The super-rich have not paid their dues to society in recent years, and more and more of us now know it. The average personal income tax rate on the wealthy was far lower than that paid by middle-income earners. In emerging markets, capital gains and withholding tax on dividends are tax-exempt. In other words, the new breed of super-rich paid no personal tax.[emphasis added]

   The bottom line Heikal suggests we know where the money is. The rich have it. Most political leaders do not want to mess with the wealthy—in the U.S., the elite are the source of campaign funds, among other inducements. Heikal suggests a simply plan:

We should impose a one-off global wealth tax of ten to 20 per cent on individuals with a net worth in excess of $10m, with tax receipts going to their country of citizenship.

The aggregate wealth of those individuals – that is those with net worth in excess of $10m – is approximately $50,000bn. Paradoxically they – or I should say “we” – represent fewer than one in 10,000 of the world’s population.

The global proceeds of what I call the “Tahrir Square tax” would be, if levied at 10 per cent, approximately $5,000bn. Europe should receive $1,500bn, more than enough to deal with the European public debt crisis. It would bring down eurozone public debt, excluding that of Germany and France, to below 50 per cent of gross domestic product.[emphasis added]

   Of course, I would go with his upper suggestion of 20 percent.

   Let’s be clear. This idea will not kill the myth of the “free market” nor will it all of a sudden bring unions to power to stop the class warfare underway. That is a deeper, longer struggle. But, $10 trillion is not chump change.  And along with a Financial Transaction Tax, it will begin to reverse the flow of money from the wealthiest back to the people. Slowly to be sure. But, in the crisis we are in now, it’s a start.

Spread the word.

4:04 PM PT: Hi folks: I was traveling to the other side of the planet when this was posted (automatically) and recently landed so will try to get to as many comments as possible.

Originally posted to Tasini on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 06:31 AM PST.

Also republished by Income Inequality Kos, In Support of Labor and Unions, Occupy Wall Street, Progressive Hippie, The Royal Manticoran Rangers, The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, and ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

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

  •  Tip Jar (173+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpecialKinFlag, Gooserock, ehrenfeucht games, arizonablue, middleagedhousewife, Words In Action, Dallasdoc, Terminus, greenbastard, ask, jennifer poole, 4Freedom, annrose, One Pissed Off Liberal, Curt Matlock, tle, edsbrooklyn, J M F, Thinking Fella, Jay C, TomP, Mentatmark, david78209, Kinak, GDbot, Hear Our Voices, buckstop, skod, Joieau, JanL, LarisaW, nzanne, makanda, Ian Reifowitz, Bob Guyer, MinistryOfTruth, US Blues, MuskokaGord, Meteor Blades, LSmith, cybrestrike, Preston S, soaglow, srkp23, jhecht, Kurt Sperry, Rhysling, kck, caul, parse this, djMikulec, elengul, Gorilla in the room, boadicea, WisePiper, Wee Mama, NBBooks, cotterperson, HeartlandLiberal, bnasley, jazzizbest, maybeeso in michigan, poorbuster, Burned, dagnome, joedemocrat, MartyM, Sandy on Signal, mrsgoo, Geenius at Wrok, joanneleon, dotsright, pileta, SCFrog, Snud, Marjmar, Catrina, Pescadero Bill, Larsstephens, kevinpdx, ajr111240, sodalis, Its a New Day, Xapulin, chimpy, psnyder, billlaurelMD, Sylv, confitesprit, Statusquomustgo, Greasy Grant, deviant24x, Emerson, Publius2008, means are the ends, MKinTN, Matt Z, oxfdblue, sillia, Shockwave, BYw, sleipner, tofumagoo, martini, rasbobbo, expatjourno, Dopeman, cacamp, Cat Servant, poligirl, vahana, gbinwc, bibble, wxorknot, sockpuppet, emal, MJ via Chicago, SeaTurtle, Chi, xylonjay, Calamity Jean, rapala, on board 47, Habitat Vic, getlost, skybluewater, BarackStarObama, James Kresnik, legendmn, Moderation, aufklaerer, Mike08, ChemBob, pyegar, Roger Fox, Lawrence, banjolele, haremoor, blueoasis, science nerd, concernedamerican, AllisonInSeattle, QuoVadis, Mnemosyne, grollen, asterkitty, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Alumbrados, NM Ray, cosette, UncleCharlie, Sun Tzu, demnomore, chemborg, fayea, SherwoodB, exreaganite, Susipsych, Rogneid, jfdunphy, vigilant meerkat, a2nite, ccmask, ItsaMathJoke, terabytes, TheLawnRanger, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, cameoanne, splashy, hungeski, YellerDog, TexDem, mofembot

    Follow me on Twitter @jonathantasini

    Visit Working Life.

    by Tasini on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 06:31:02 AM PST

  •  Yep There Was a Mention on Thom Hartmann (73+ / 0-)

    that the rich held enough wealth to fully fund every existing social program on earth without knocking them off their ranking.

    What the New Deal Epoch here and across the developed world proved incontrovertibly is that individual income must be heavily compressed beginning just above the median, steeply progressively. Most of gains need to be taxed away beginning at a level of a society's upper middle incomes, $350,000 in today's dollars in the USA, so that most of the wealth of society is held among most of the people.

    Otherwise there's too much power at the top which quickly becomes able to co-opt government, turn the economy into a casino, and wreck society.

    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 Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 06:40:21 AM PST

    •  Throw in a higher Paris Hilton tax (53+ / 0-)

      Estate taxes are a traditional way to prevent undue concentrations of wealth.  Passing a steep estate tax of 33% on estates over $5 million and 67% on estates over $10 million wouldn't reduce heirs to penury, but would do a lot to prohibit the vast wealth stores of wealth bestowed on undeserving people like Paris Hilton, the Kochs or Donald Trump.  

      I'm big on the idea of global taxation regimes, with severe economic penalties on tax havens too.  Rich folks shouldn't be allowed to shop the world for the cushiest tax rates.

      When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 06:59:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some possibilities: (22+ / 0-)

      * Make capital gains subject to the same level of taxation as wages.

      * Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes so that all income is taxed, not just the first $108,000.

      * Institute a tax of 70% on annual income above $10 million. Anyone who can't live on $3 million/year needs to attend a seminar on budgeting :)

      * Change the 100% tax exemption for donations to charity to 80%. This would help to ensure this money is reported to the IRS and would lessen the amount that is donated to the Right-wing propaganda machine.

      *Institute a tax of 10% on all wealth above $10 million and 20% of all wealth above $100 million. This would ensure that any income that does accumulate gets taxed away over a relatively short time (so we don't have to wait decades until someone dies and it is taxed as part of the estate).

      * Tax of 5% on all advertising expenditures to cut the amount of propaganda that we are all subjected to.

      And cut taxes on the poor:

      * Eliminate payroll taxes (Social Security) and Medicare taxes on the first $10,000 of income earned each year.

      •  that last one in particular would be good (6+ / 0-)

        right now, instead of the "tax cut on payroll taxes" that I really really hate.  Exempt low incomes, then increase the cap to cover both the difference from that and the difference from the 2% payroll tax reduction.

        Payroll taxes are regressive anyway.

        "... a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself." -- Hannah Aredt, regarding the behavior of the National Socialist (NAZI) Party in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic.

        by billlaurelMD on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:47:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  a trading transaction tax (5+ / 0-)

        would go a long way to discouraging short-term investment mindsets too!

      •  No Taxes on Necessities (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik, demnomore

        Throw out the income tax entirely.

        Then exclude from tax all purchases of necessities. Groceries, used clothing or new materials, public transit, public education, Medicare-standard healthcare. Rent on the bottom 20% valued properties in your zipcode, and the electric/water/heating/Internet costs at that 20%ile. Nobody pays taxes on any of those necessities. No taxes at all on savings.

        The rest gets taxed at 20%. Except equity purchases that don't transfer control - those are taxed at .1%. Until equity is purchased that that transfers control (50%+1), when the full 20% tax is charged on the accumulated equity. This includes mortgages, taxed on home equity transfers.

        There's no reason the US GDP of $15T shouldn't produce $3T a year taxes, $10K a year spent per American.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:03:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Don't Realize It, But... (0+ / 0-)

          what you describe is very close to the Fair Tax that everyone here hates.

          •  I Realize It (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Kresnik, in the Trees

            I've been talking about that tax method, including here, for many years. After years of feedback I've learned to present it as "no taxes on necessities", because most people won't listen and just want to sound like they know what they're talking about calling it "regressive" because it's a sales tax. It solves the problem with a regressive flat tax, and all the other problems, too.

            People might hate it, but that's because they don't think about it. When they do, they like it. Because it's good. It is indeed also fair. Unfortunately Republicans give it a bad name by promoting it, but being serious about only the first part: throw out the income tax entirely. After that, they're not serious about anything.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:47:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Current fed revenues are about 20% of GDP (0+ / 0-)

              3 Trillion bucks.

              In 2010 about 58% of fed revenues cam from income taxes.

              SO where do you find 3 trillion bucks?

              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 Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:25:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                GDP is the amount that's purchased within the country. A 20% tax on a $15T GDP = $3T.

                If the Feds are collecting an extra $2.17T in other revenue, then that's plenty to pay down the debt. Existing revenue that's already collected as a percentage of the purchase price, therefore redundant to the tax I describe, could be eliminated. Surplus beyond the budget pays down the debt. Once a surplus is amassed again, the 20% rate might drop - in fact, the next problem solved would be setting the rate for a year to equal the amount needed for the next year's budget, not the previous year, which guarantees debt.

                The larger amount collected by this tax than by income tax also shows how much the income tax fails to collect, more proof that it's arbitrary.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:50:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  not sure why this would work better? (0+ / 0-)
              People might hate it, but that's because they don't think about it. When they do, they like it. Because it's good. It is indeed also fair.

              Your inclusion of mortgage payments (in addition to exemptions for necessitous) does seem like it would make the tax less regressive than it would be otherwise. The poor would benefit from the many exemptions in particular. The inclusion of the mortgage payments, investments and such would seem to balance the tax so middle class individuals would be paying a similar portion of their income as wealthy individuals. However, as the idea behind a progressive income tax is that those who make the most pay a higher percentage of income how is this not more regressive than a progressive income tax? It seems like it would shift the burden more onto the middle class.

              Why is it better?

              •  The Burden (0+ / 0-)

                The burden is borne in proportion to how much you spend. If the middle class, or anyone, saves instead of spending, they have less of a burden.

                The problem with flat or regressive tax rates, that progressive rates try to correct, is that everyone has a fixed amount of necessary spending, but the richer have more beyond that. So progressive rates collect a smaller fraction of the lower brackets of income. But that model isn't working, in part because it's such a bad fit that the rules to help make it work are so complex - and so are gamed by those who invest in tax advice.

                Everyone benefits from my exemptions. But the richer can't avoid taxation, and so pay a larger share than they do now. BTW, since any purchase (excluding necessities) is taxed, corporations are no different from people: no longer taxed solely on profit but on every purchase. That capture, and the tax collected on equity trades, pushes more of the burden onto the richer people.

                Besides which these taxes encourage savings (and the investments made from them when invested in a bank), discourage speculation, and make the financial economy pay for the government to regulate them. All of which reins in the richest, which benefits the rest.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:58:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  still not sold... (0+ / 0-)
                  The burden is borne in proportion to how much you spend. If the middle class, or anyone, saves instead of spending, they have less of a burden.

                  Isn't this part of the problem? The wealthiest are able to save the easiest as even including luxuries they still have much of their income left that they can save.

                  The problem with flat or regressive tax rates, that progressive rates try to correct, is that everyone has a fixed amount of necessary spending, but the richer have more beyond that. So progressive rates collect a smaller fraction of the lower brackets of income. But that model isn't working, in part because it's such a bad fit that the rules to help make it work are so complex - and so are gamed by those who invest in tax advice.

                  I disagree with this. This implies that the (progressive) income tax exist merely to balance taxation among the income brackets. That may be the current situation with a more modest progressive income tax than even a few decades ago but it wasn't the case historically when the top tax rate exceeded 70 or even 90%. Most here (right or wrong) agree that the wealthy should pay a higher overall percentage of income, why should we be willing to suspend that idea in favor of merely balancing the tax among income groups?

                  Everyone benefits from my exemptions. But the richer can't avoid taxation, and so pay a larger share than they do now. BTW, since any purchase (excluding necessities) is taxed, corporations are no different from people: no longer taxed solely on profit but on every purchase. That capture, and the tax collected on equity trades, pushes more of the burden onto the richer people.

                  I'm not sure how this leads to the rich paying a higher share of the total taxes paid than they do now (or a higher share of their own income)? This seems like it would impact the upper-middle class individual particularly hard as his income would be high enough that the exemptions wouldn't be as much of a benefit to him and thus the percentage of his income paid would be on par with that of someone making much much more.

                  I don't think the taxes paid by the wealthiest should be on par with the taxes paid by those who are merely well off. The rapidly increasing divide between those at the very top and everyone else says to me that those at the very top should be paying a higher rate that everyone else.

                  As a side note, the tax on corporations is an interesting one. Thus, a small businesses owner struggling for survival would be able to use the exemptions for things which a corporation in good financial shape wouldn't be able to to exempt. Without a deep understanding of all the details it seems like that could give small businesses owners a much needed leg up in competition against larger corporations.

                  Besides which these taxes encourage savings (and the investments made from them when invested in a bank), discourage speculation, and make the financial economy pay for the government to regulate them. All of which reins in the richest, which benefits the rest.

                  Interesting point. Encouraging savings is probably in general a good thing, The exact effect of this seems like it would be hard to quantify. Is it necessarily a good idea to favor savings in a bank over other forms of investment? Speculation isn't ALWAYS a bad thing. I don't think we want to discourage especially the upper classes from investing their money in an intelligent way but think we should be taxing their capital gains at a higher (rather than a lower) rate then a middle class persons earnings from labor is taxed. Right now it is too hard to turn ones labor into capital and too easy to turn capital (especially a lot of capital) into more capital. I think we should tax investment to help close this gap not stop investment.

                  •  The Purpose (0+ / 0-)

                    Before we sort out how the tax I describe is "progressive", I'd like to know why it's necessary to tax rich people at a higher rate of their income than other people. If it's to leave poorer people enough to buy necessities (in which I include public transit, education and healtcaree), this system does that.

                    Also, my system favors savings in a bank over other forms of investment only in that other investments are taxed at 0.1% instead of 0%. Except investments that acquire controlling interest, which is really a purchase. Most people, especially the poorest, keep more savings than equity investments. 0.1% shouldn't discourage anyone from investing, especially the richer; it's a tiny addition to the private fees they already pay, and is of course far smaller than the 10-15% capital gains income tax on "winnings". What is more inhibited is mergers and acquisitions, in which enough equity is bought to control the acquisition, and so pays a full 20% (plus the 0.1% already paid). The premium of control comes with much larger costs to the government for oversight, and so a tax price tag.

                    Which is in fact the entire rationale. The tax people pay is closely proportional to what they get out of the system, in material terms. Income itself does no one any good, until they spend it. That's when this tax measures your benefit, and takes its charge in proportion. While saying that no one who ever buys merely necessities is getting enough out of the system to find paying for the system worth it.

                    That's both what makes it fair, and what makes the numbers work.

                    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                    by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 03:15:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  taxes, the reasons for.... (0+ / 0-)
                      Before we sort out how the tax I describe is "progressive", I'd like to know why it's necessary to tax rich people at a higher rate of their income than other people. If it's to leave poorer people enough to buy necessities (in which I include public transit, education and healtcaree), this system does that.

                      While I agree that ensuring the poor have their basic needs met is a part of the reason the progressive income tax exists and I don't dispute that your plan would take care of them I believe that there are other reasons for the progressive income tax as well.

                      From a moral standpoint one can argue that those who are very successful in life get more from the system and from society and thus should pay a higher percentage back to society.

                      For instance, Bill Gates made his fortune in the computer industry an industry that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for previous generations of often government funded research and development. Thus, since he benefited more than the average person from society up to this point he should pay more as a percentage of his income to ensure that the next generation will have similar opportunities.

                      I believe this applies in more concrete ways as well. For instance, an owner of a suburban mall receives disproportionate benefit from an extra light the town may place at the entrance to his mall.

                      From the standpoint of society at large, money tends to equal opportunity, power and control. A higher rate for higher income people helps keep things in balance by ensuring that the wealthiest are not able to control too much of our economy as a whole. Too much power in the hands of too few can lead to stagnation as they work together to keep what ever the status quo is that has served them so well. They could block the development of key new technology, hoard resources others might need, buy out competitors and engage in numerous other behaviors to the detriment of the rest of us.

                      I believe our society works best when companies large and small are owned broadly by many middle class people and thus better serve the interests of the country at large. Further, I believe this would actually lessen the need for regulation as the shareholders would more often be the customers, neighbors and other people affected by the actions of the company. Currently the small number of people who own large portions of large corporations are often at odds with the rest of us who are affected by their companies' decisions.

                      Higher income tax brackets help make this happen in 2 ways: 1) By directly reducing the earnings of those with extraordinarily high income and using the money to provide opportunities for others (through educational programs, government grants, new infrastructure etc.). and 2) By encouraging investors and management to reinvest their money in their company  in order to reduce their tax burden (increasing job opportunities) and/or to donate to charities and other non-profits.

                      0.1% shouldn't discourage anyone from investing, especially the richer; it's a tiny addition to the private fees they already pay, and is of course far smaller than the 10-15% capital gains income tax on "winnings". What is more inhibited is mergers and acquisitions, in which enough equity is bought to control the acquisition, and so pays a full 20% (plus the 0.1% already paid). The premium of control comes with much larger costs to the government for oversight, and so a tax price tag.

                      So, the 0.1% tax I assume is on the principal invested rather than on the earnings? An average run of the mill stock holder pays no tax but when the share is purchased that gives an individual 50% they suddenly become liable for a 20% tax on the entire value of the company (or the 50% they own anyhow)? This sounds like it would lead to all sorts of abuses, for instance: person a buys 49% of a company person b who happens to be person a's brother buys 1% then signs a proxy agreement assigned their voting rights to person a. Even if blatant situations such as this are outlawed people will find discrete behind the scenes ways to accomplish the same thing. To me it seems a very arbitrary dividing line with the tax not connected logically to money made, money spent, wealth or any other typical thing.

                      That aside, those not looking for control of a particular entity will simply not cross the 50% threshold. They may not particularly want to anyhow. This doesn't mean they won't in concert with others with similar wealth and interests, though. The lack of a capital gains tax will mean they can simply invest their money and watch it grow untaxed!  Growing capital remains easy while obtaining capital remains difficult.

                      Which is in fact the entire rationale. The tax people pay is closely proportional to what they get out of the system, in material terms. Income itself does no one any good, until they spend it. That's when this tax measures your benefit, and takes its charge in proportion. While saying that no one who ever buys merely necessities is getting enough out of the system to find paying for the system worth it.

                      I would argue that isn't true. Unspent income gives one power and security in a way that income one might spend does not. Knowing that one has enough money so as to be able to live off of the interest from a safe interest bearing account will drastically change the way one lives their life. The gains getting to that point certainly should be taxed.

                      Of course upon reaching that point one may be contributing nothing from society but receiving interest paid by those who need to borrow money in order to engage in real economic activity.

                      I think the difference here may be that I see the economy as a dynamic and constantly changing system in which companies form, grow, merge and become powerful and that in and of itself is a good thing.  The key is to have a tax code that lets companies contributing to the common good grow but doesn't allow companies to stagnate and control large portions of the marketplace.

                      My impression is that you see things as more static and thus your solutions focus on stopping risk taking, limiting mergers and worrying more about concrete fairness of taxation rather than what it means for the system as a whole.

                       

                      •  The reason we had a progressive income tax is not (0+ / 0-)
                        that ensuring the poor have their basic needs met is a part of the reason the progressive income tax exists

                        Thats hog wash.

                        In 1980 we taxed the top rate at 70%, and gave back deductions and exemptions to make an effective rate 30-35%.

                        You got those breaks if you invested incountry, in US jobs. The breaks focused on emerging tech and markets. This jobs stimulus made recessions shorter and shallower.

                        Now we incentivize the flow of capital to overseas investments and to speculation. So speculative bubbles are bigger and burst harder, recessions are longer and deeper, we now have the jobless recovery, something that only came back after the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

                        Read up on Sidney HIllman and FDR's Kitchen cabinet. Industrial policy, The Wisconsin system from Univ of Wisconsin Econ Dept circa 1933.

                        The purpose of the progressive income tax system was to create a more stable economy, that eliminated inefficient depressions and recessions and periods of high unemployment.

                        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 Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 11:17:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Top rate Tax at 70% give deductions for (0+ / 0-)

                      incountry investment  like we used to, this acts as jobs stim.

                      Where else can you get 4-5% of GDP? From the working or middle classes...... please

                      COme on.... effective rates are about the same now as in 1980. That a whole lot of money that used to go to emerging markets and tech here in the US.

                      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 Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 11:02:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair is a stable economy with no recessions (0+ / 0-)

                      where GDP goes negative, like we had from 1939 to 1989.

                      We used to have a depression every 20 yrs in the 1800's what UR proposing puts us back in the same cycle.

                      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 Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 11:04:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  It Also Encourages Exports... (0+ / 0-)

                  Exports would sell for 20% less and imports 20% more.  Would clearly increase manufacturing jobs.

                •  Currently Income effective rates are regressive (0+ / 0-)

                  Not sure why you think thats a progressive tax.

                  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 Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 10:58:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Herman Caine Supports It... (0+ / 0-)

              So, no Democrat can support it.

      •  If it's 70% above 10 million (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Chapman, grollen, happy camper

        then it wouldn't apply to the first 10, and they'd have (much?) more than 3 million to live on...

        It's important for people to be clear on how higher marginal taxes work...a lot of the fear of higher tax rates comes from people who think that if your total income puts you in a higher bracket, you get hit with the higher rate on all income, which if true would cause people to avoid economic activity...but it's NOT TRUE. No matter how progressive the tax system, if you make more you always keep more (unless there's a surtax, but that's a different animal).  

        And while I'm at it, with deductions you always end up with less than you would have if you didn't spend the deducted amount (i.e., if you make a charitable contribution and deduct it, you don't save the amount of the contribution, you save the amount that contribution would have been taxed. If you give $100 and your tax rate is 25%, then you're out $75.

        "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 Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:35:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Marginal tax seems too hard (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fayea

          for some people to understand.

          I had a coworker who told me that most people in his shop (he does upholstery) only work 38 hours per week because if they worked 40 hours per week they'd all be in a higher tax bracket and end up making less money.

          We really need to make clear that we're only talking about the amount OVER $10MM, or $1MM.

          Sometimes I wish that Ross Perot had been more successful.  That guy is remembered for two things:  his looks and the fact that he liked to point at graphs.  It'll be 20 years before any politician is willing to point to a graph when giving a speech.

          One man gathers what another man spills

          by John Chapman on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:58:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, you're right. I wrote this note too fast and didn't check what I was writing.

      •  good ideas... (0+ / 0-)
        Institute a tax of 70% on annual income above $10 million. Anyone who can't live on $3 million/year needs to attend a seminar on budgeting :)

        So.. I think you might be misunderstanding how marginal tax rates usually work. If you were to tax income ABOVE $10 million then someone making just over $10 million would pay the 70% only on the portion of income over $10 million and regular taxes on the first $10 million. Otherwise someone who makes just under $10 million would wind up with much much more than someone who makes just over $10 million (and an increase in salary would lead to a steep decrease in take home pay).  I'm pretty sure the former is what Krugman means in his article. Thus, such a tax rate would actually have the most effect on people making substantially more than $10 million.

        *Institute a tax of 10% on all wealth above $10 million and 20% of all wealth above $100 million. This would ensure that any income that does accumulate gets taxed away over a relatively short time (so we don't have to wait decades until someone dies and it is taxed as part of the estate).

        Seems a bit aggressive...  To me the idea is to have SOME turnover creating new opportunities and forcing those who have wealth to take some risks and invest in such a way as to benefit the economy as a whole. You don't want the wealth to stagnate in the hands of a few who have very little interest in using it to actually do anything productive. I think the opposite could be problematic as well if society lacks stability because wealth is moving around so fast that it is difficult for any person/organization to follow through on whatever it is they are trying to do before the wealth goes away.

        Tax of 5% on all advertising expenditures to cut the amount of propaganda that we are all subjected to.

        Seems a bit of a sticky first amendment problem. To me the solution is to counter the propaganda especially using social networking and other such tools rather than try to stop it.

        •  Right on marginal, but taxing isn't censoring (0+ / 0-)

          You are right about the marginal taxes. I wrote too quickly. I should have said "anyone who can't live on $10 million/year".

          The First Amendment gives us the right to speak. It does not give us the right to spend millions of dollars to flood the world with our propaganda. Taxing advertising doesn't prevent anyone from speaking or censor any ideas. In fact, just the opposite: it helps make ordinary speech more likely to be heard.

          As David Morris of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance said:

          Here are three Constitutional changes that would forever change the scale of politics and economics in America. Three four-word amendments that could change the shape of our future. “Corporations are not people.” “Money is not speech.” “Waste is not commerce.” If the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitution as they should have, and if they had adhered to the will of the people, these amendments would not be necessary. But it didn’t and they are.
      •  This one, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        demnomore
        * Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes so that all income is taxed, not just the first $108,000.
        which is painless and would be relatively unnoticed by people in those income strata, would generate enough to take care of Social Security ad infinitum. Medicare, too, most likely.

        And possibly even some of the infuriatingly high costs of the very luxe pensions and benefits granted to those most underperforming of federal employees, the members of Congress.

        The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it is difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

        by Mnemosyne on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:14:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I like your post, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      demnomore

      $350k is not middle class and never was. That is 35 times what I get and I do not consider myself poor. 10 years ago I would have. That is how far expectations have fallen.

      Just as prostitution is the world's oldest profession, religion is the world's oldest scam.

      by Agent420 on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:45:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Come on Tasini! (18+ / 0-)

    You know they work harder than the rest of us! And how they going to create jobs overseas if we actually tax them here?

  •  On Chris Hayes New Show On MSNBC (35+ / 0-)

    he had a guy on a month or so ago. I didn't catch his name, but he has written a book on like 3,000 years of banks and credit. He was on to talk about, well the banking problem.

    He explained that until just the last couple hundred or so years, or after the Middle Ages, the ruling class would often mandate that all debit was zeroed out. Now the rich still had to pay the rich, but the "common" folks, their debits were wiped clean.

    The reason, when their burden was too high, well those folks stopped spending money. Or clearing out their debits got the economy moving again.

    Kind an interesting idea when you think about it.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 06:43:15 AM PST

  •  And what authority would enforce this tax? (8+ / 0-)

    The UN? "Pay this tax or we shall issue a strongly-worded letter chiding you for not paying it."

    Member states? The first tin-pot nation to declare itself the ultimate tax haven for the rich would start a domino effect that would result in nobody collecting the tax.

    Absent an enforcement mechanism, this is just a pipe dream.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:00:11 AM PST

  •  He knows that it is safer to tax them than to (6+ / 0-)

    allow the movement to continue - I am betting he hopes that a  tax would silent the masses so the system never really gets fixed.

  •  a great story. requires registration (10+ / 0-)

    for those not already registered at the FT site, but it's easy, and the Financial Times is a good resource.

    Thanks, JT

    how strange it is that a tax of 10 percent (or even 20 percent) on the very very richest in the world -- that would do so much good to billions and ensure those at the top will still have a global economy to profit from -- would be seen as "extreme" in these extreme times we live in.

  •  Your financial transaction tax... (0+ / 0-)

    ...is stupid. Please abandon it as soon as possible.

    A quant and damned proud of it.

    by Cera on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:21:01 AM PST

  •   Wallstreet Blues (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Larsstephens

    Lots of these bankers will see thier bonus cut by 30 percent  ,meaning  the average investment   banker will recieve a bonus of 100 thousand dollar ,

  •  There are some moral people even (15+ / 0-)

    in the 1%, but as MLK Jr. said:

    Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

    Letter from Birmingham Jail

    "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil. Government belongs wherever evil needs an adversary and there are people in distress who cannot help themselves." (Robert F. Kennedy, Speech, Athens, Georgia, May 6, 1961).

    by TomP on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:25:20 AM PST

  •  at 1/2 (0+ / 0-)

    would be more equitable given the concerted effort to concentrate money & power over the last few decades.

    •  meant at least 1/2 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kurt Sperry, Larsstephens

      I think Louis and Marie Antoinette would, in retrospect, have been much happier with that.

      •  Do we really want to make... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, Larsstephens

        ...the French Revolution our model?

        Because I don't recall that working out very well for anyone, really.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:41:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not up to us (7+ / 0-)

          as I am sure you have heard, those who do not study their history are condemned to repeat it.  That is the road we are on.  Our political system is incapable of addressing or mitigating economic inequalities that grow more & more obscene with each passing year.  We cannot do anything about global warming.  We dump huge , mourderous resources into fighting problems that from an historical perspective are incidental, indeed most are problems of our own making.

          There is only one way oligarchies play out.  History shows it time and time again.  Mr. Tasini's post presents a reasoned alternative but it will be dismissed as radical, laughed at etc.  My read of history, however, is that those who most deride the concept set forth in the diary will be those who in a relatively short period of time, 25 years at most, will be regretting they did not sign onto it when they had the chance.

          I don't think it is the 99% who are making the French Revolution the model, quite the contrary.

    •  but, the author's point, is that (5+ / 0-)

      ONLY 10 percent would be enough. at least enough to get us out of the current crisis, just to cite a couple more sentences:

      The global proceeds of what I call the “Tahrir Square tax” would be, if levied at 10 per cent, approximately $5,000bn. Europe should receive $1,500bn, more than enough to deal with the European public debt crisis.......

      In most emerging markets, such as Egypt, let alone Africa, the ramifications of receiving such a windfall would be enormous. My aspiration would be for governments to reduce public debt, allowing them to reinvest in infrastructure, research and other means of energising labour markets.

      •  I say 50% with proceeds by law (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ciganka, Larsstephens, Calamity Jean

        to be used to first pay off the national debt and what's left provide the sole funding for the Dept of Defense.

        Why?  Using the revenue to pay off the debt pre-empts any argument that the Govt. does not know how to spend the money; the debt must be paid.  Using the leftover  proceeds to fund "defense" simply recognizes that our bloated defense budgest, military apparatus and worldwide adventurism should be funded by those whose interests all that military hardware and killing actually promote. I would also support a draft of persons from these greater than $10 million in assets familes.

  •  Distribution of wealth has always been a problem (10+ / 0-)

    for capitalism. Depending on governments with different political philosophies to create an equitable system of taxation or revenue stream to fund operations and social benefits (entitlements - a term I loathe) is sketchy at best. The minute conservatives gain power they maximize gains for the rich and minimize benefits for the many.

    There is liquidity in the system if the system is re-worked to provide a mechanism of taxation on securities transfers. The marketplace which has caused the recent huge transfer of wealth can be worked to siphon off a fractional percentage of tax on each trade.

    The idea of generating revenue through securities trades has its adherents and critics. As we are having a global liquidity crisis right now that is draining access to funds for business and government, taxing the transactions as they occur seems reasonable.

    The rich can't continue to cause the many to continue losing jobs, homes, and access to health care. If we can't secure a global wealth tax, which would be globally resisted, perhaps we can tax the financial marketplace to help offset the global financial crisis the market caused.

    The ownership of this country knows the truth. It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. ~ #OWS sign

    by 4Freedom on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:30:44 AM PST

  •  A good idea as long as we pay attention... (15+ / 0-)

    ...to this very key comment of yours:

    Let’s be clear. This idea will not kill the myth of the “free market” nor will it all of a sudden bring unions to power to stop the class warfare underway. That is a deeper, longer struggle.

    The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:57:16 AM PST

  •  Super wealthy have broken the Social Contract (8+ / 0-)

    This would be a good way to impose a new Social Contract.  

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 08:07:10 AM PST

  •  I dont think it's liquid. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but it seems like valuation and collection r hard.

  •  Sounds like a novel & right place to start... (4+ / 0-)

    ... before cutting food and services to the poor, widows and orphans.

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 08:18:34 AM PST

  •  $10 trillion ain't enough... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, Larsstephens

    Eliminate the super rich by massive taxation and recreate our world, clean up our environment, and jobs for all. Most of 'em are criminals anyway.

  •  Larry Kudlow Probably Blew A Gasket (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens, Matt Z, exreaganite

    I'm sure he was quick to say that Heikal was a socialist/communist/Martian/finger-sniffer.

    This head movie makes my eyes rain.

    by The Lone Apple on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:10:27 AM PST

  •  And like Obama said... (7+ / 0-)

    It's not class warfare. It's math.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:10:46 AM PST

  •  Tax accumulated wealth (3+ / 0-)

    What is significant here is that he is proposing to tax a percentage of accumulated wealth, not just annual income.

    Almost all the discussion of taxation revolves around annual income.  The only current tax that begins to attack accumulated wealth is property tax.

    I like this shift.  Similarly, we should be talking about wealth inequality, rather than (or in addition to) income inequality.  The problem is that a tiny number of people OWN a huge percentage of the earth and its productive resources.  How much they pay themselves annually is only a reflection of that central problem of ownership.

    Heikal seems to be suggesting some kind of international taxation authority.  This will be difficult to implement, but is crucial.  Otherwise, the super-rich will just shift their weath to lower tax jurisdictions.

    "To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946

    by grassroot on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:25:16 AM PST

  •  USA: 125,000 families have net worth 25-50 mil (3+ / 0-)

    80 % of success is JUST SHOWING UP! Tin Soldiers & Nixon's Coming, We're Finally on our own...

    by Churchill on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:39:51 AM PST

  •  USA: 49,000 families have net worths 50-500 mil (4+ / 0-)

    80 % of success is JUST SHOWING UP! Tin Soldiers & Nixon's Coming, We're Finally on our own...

    by Churchill on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:40:21 AM PST

    •  1/10 of 1% of all Americans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill

      Earn 50% of all Capital Gains.  Tax the Wealthy to resolve the problem with the federal deficit.

      When working people worked for companies that provided reasonable pension benefits, the workers didn't need to dream of a  retirement.

      Impeach Grover Norquist! Defeat a Republican!

      by NM Ray on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:35:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, if a a capitalist leader says we oughta (5+ / 0-)

    do it --- who am I, a mere peasant, to question this captain of industry?

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:58:09 AM PST

  •  Sigh. This cannot happen. Period. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shifty18, scotths, VClib

    There is no legal authority -- none, zero, zippo, nada -- for United States citizens being subject to some "global" tax.  Did you forget that one of the basic, underlying premises upon which this country was founded was "no taxation without representation"?  The whole point was that people can't be taxed by a government that they have no say in.  Unless there's some global government that we, in the U.S. get a chance to vote for, the notion that we, in the U.S., would be subject to some globally-imposed tax is absurd in the extreme.  

    What you suggest in this diary -- that citizens of the U.S. be subject to some global tax imposed by some authority other than the United States Congress -- simply cannot happen.  As others have pointed out, if some international body of some sort made a proclamation that such a tax should be paid, people would simply ignore it as having no effect whatsoever here.  

    Also, even if Congress tried to impose a federal wealth tax on people in the United States, that would be unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment.  The United States Constitution, article I section 9, forbids such a direct tax unless apportioned among the States.  You'd have to amend the Constitution -- another amendment similar to the 16th Amendment, which authorized a federal income tax.  That's not going to happen.

    •  Regretfully true, but ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anjana, exreaganite

      ... what this guy says is worth noting simply for the fact that a tiny minority of the world's population could effectively wipe out the rest of the world's financial problems without affecting their life style in any way.

      I knew the wealth discrepancy was big, but this big ... ???

  •  He used to work for Goldman Sachs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi

    http://www.arabianbusiness.com/...

    With their valuable Wall Street expertise, brothers Ahmed and Hassan Heikal have almost single-handedly transformed Egypt’s financial industry into a major regional force.
    A former Goldman Sachs financier, Hassan joined EFG-Hermes fifteen years ago and was elevated to the rank of CEO in 2005. Under his leadership, the Egyptian investment bank has become the largest in the Arab world with listings on the Cairo and London stock exchanges. And it can count Vodafone Plc, Sainsbury’s, Heineken, and PepsiCo as some of its clients. This year the group signaled an expansion into commercial banking when it bought controlling interest in Credit Libanais in November.
    Stanford-educated Ahmed was also an EFG-Hermes banker but left to start a private equity boutique, Citadel Capital, in 2004.

    Very interesting.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action 48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam

    by Shockwave on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 10:32:14 AM PST

  •  I don't want it (0+ / 0-)

    No one-off

    Raise the yearly tax, eliminate tax havens.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:56:04 AM PST

    •  I don't think these are mutually exclusive (0+ / 0-)

      I've written a lot about the need to raise taxes way higher than the nostalgic desire on the part of sum to bring back the pathetic Clinton tax rates for the rich. But, let's grab that $10 trillion--it's a piece of change that will potentially mute some of the austerity mongers.

      Follow me on Twitter @jonathantasini

      Visit Working Life.

      by Tasini on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 04:14:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This points up the great imbalance (0+ / 0-)

    between democratic governments and private wealth...democracies are constrained by borders while the international banking and trade system can go anywhere. It would require agreement of all legitimate states in the world to institute such a tax.

    "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 Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:56:58 AM PST

  •  That Tweet turns the whole 'conversation' about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tim DeLaney

    national and regional austerity completely on its head.

    When it comes to determining which stakeholders should sacrifice to balancing fracturing national budgets, super-wealthy plutocrats, free market enablers and corporate media pundits paint a one sided picture of culpability and scope of recompense.

    This debate is almost-always framed in terms of which social programs and taxpayer-funded services should be cut and how much more the poor and working classes should pay in lost benefits for the infrastructure and corporate welfare that largely benefits the investor class.

    Moreover, honest and free-ranging debates about ability to pay allowed to percolate in the marketplace of ideas. It is simply accepted as a given that the middle and working classes have been receiving budget-busting amounts of benefits, and therefore, must live with reduce benefits and higher taxes. This is all despite the fact that in the last thirty years real-wages for those two groups have declined precipitously and hundreds of millions of households are on the brink of unmitigated poverty.

    Mr. Heikal's assessment makes it unambiguously clear who has benefited the most from the status quo in global finances that lead to these fiscal crisis and, who has the greatest ability to pay for the resulting fiscal crisis.

    The bare facts do not lie. There is no way that the super-wealthy can honestly continue to dodge accountability and recompense. Even if the servants of the super-wealthy glibly claim that everyone in society is responsible for creating these manifest fiscal crisis, they can no longer claim that their clients have no ability to contribute their reasonable - admittedly disproportionate - share to solving the problem.

  •  Were we hearing this 10 years ago? 20? (0+ / 0-)

    Is this new?

    Seems to me that there are growing numbers of super-wealthy recognizing the problem, and willing to fix it.

    Who knows, perhaps in time that will result in action taken.

    This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

    by AllisonInSeattle on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:56:00 PM PST

  •  right but (0+ / 0-)

    it's not 'revers[ing] the flow of money from the wealthy back to the people'

    that would indicate the money is flowing to the wealthiest from the poor and I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean

    "a lie that can no longer be challenged becomes a form of madness" -Debord

    by grollen on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:16:28 PM PST

  •  My Guess Is (0+ / 0-)

    Once again, that the rich would prefer to pepper-spray us all in the face.

    I'd like to believe that there could be a voluntary turn around of the situation, but it will require the action of governments who are afraid of their angry and scared populations before something like this could happen.

    The point is to boil the frog slowly, remember.

    We'll see what happens in the spring. If things keep going the way they are going now, we might actually see effective popular pressure on government to start eroding the power of the oligarchs.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 03:19:59 PM PST

  •  And it should be mandatory that this tax (0+ / 0-)

    be paid BEFORE the wealthy individual is allowed to make political contributions of any kind ....

  •  I was skeptical about the numbers. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLawnRanger, hungeski

    But then I did a little internet searching. According to Wiki, the top 1% owns half the financial assets in the country. This was 2004, but the picture is similar today.

    This means that the top 1% could retire the national debt, and still remain with an average of $3.33 million each, or about $10 million per household. In other words, the 1% could pay off our debt and still remain in the top 1%.

    But they resist, with all the political power they can muster, even allowing the the tax rate to go back to pre-Bush levels. The leading Republican candidates seem to be falling all over themselves to advocate, among other things, that we abolish the capital gains tax which is now a mere 15%. Reduce the tax rate of the ultra-rich to zero!

    Now, try to picture this: somebody with, say, half a billion dollars of net worth, should pay ZERO taxes. This means that in good times, with returns (net of inflation) of perhaps 5%, this person, without lifting a finger, without hiring a single worker, without doing anything of value to society, should increase his net worth from $500 million to over $800 million in the next decade. This is Republican policy: the rich are entitled to grow richer. Talk about entitlements!

    The truly scary thing is that roughly half the voters in the country will vote for Republicans. Maybe 48%, maybe 52%, it depends on the year. Why do they not realize that they are voting to give their money to the rich? Why have Democrats been so unsuccessful in educating the voting public?

    Taxing cigarettes reduces smoking, right? So let's reduce poverty by taxing the poor.

    by Tim DeLaney on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 05:19:25 PM PST

  •  More obscene than porn. (0+ / 0-)

    While 38 million people die world-wide each year for lack of food and clean water, mega wealth is much more obscene porn.  

    That the US war machine spends more than the rest of the industrialized world combined, (appx. 750 billion in 2012) is more obscene than porn.  

    General Strike WA--Occupy the Legislature, Monday Nov 28--Olympia. Union Supported--10,000 expected to be here. Stop the cuts until the corporations pay their share. www.OccupyOlympia.org

    by YellerDog on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 09:23:32 PM PST

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, N in Seattle, bink, Alumbrados, John Chapman, Sylv, Chi, jennifer poole, samizdat, grollen, Geenius at Wrok, demnomore, Gooserock, newjeffct, Emerson, Shockwave, jazzizbest, Pescadero Bill, billlaurelMD, Jay C, Mnemosyne, xynz, Sandy on Signal, expatjourno, hubcap, niemann, rasbobbo, concernedamerican, Wee Mama, wonkydonkey, annrose, whenwego, djMikulec, grassroot, ask, boadicea, chimpy, pedrito, jalbert, splashy, psnyder, annan, sockpuppet, TexDem, Dallasdoc, DeadB0y, Lawrence, laughingriver, QuoVadis, lcrp, 313to212, AllisonInSeattle, Curt Matlock, Mosquito Pilot, averageyoungman, joanneleon, Into The Woods, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, marina, 3goldens, Jagger, tle, jfdunphy, wmc418, UncleCharlie, caul, LarisaW, SherwoodB, OpherGopher, ChemBob, YucatanMan, Sun Tzu, Burned, Savvy813, WisePiper, sillia, Rogneid, peacestpete, Alan Arizona, Snud, zozie, martini, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, vigilant meerkat, Hear Our Voices, sleipner, rhetoricus, kck, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, NBBooks, MJ via Chicago, 4Freedom, gpoutney, Terminus, plf515, Preston S, middleagedhousewife, democracy is coming, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, means are the ends, Ian Reifowitz, Statusquomustgo, bstotts, One Pissed Off Liberal, bluicebank, dotsright, SpecialKinFlag, oklacoma dem, jhecht, gloriana, edsbrooklyn, HeartlandLiberal, Matt Z, terabytes, deepeco, joedemocrat, Strabo, bnasley, mbh1023, getlost, US Blues, martyinsfo, SeaTurtle, Moderation, exreaganite, skod, TexasTwister, spearfish, South Park Democrat, TomP, MKinTN, bkamr, Roger Fox, poligirl, ajr111240, Akonitum, jakebob, Greasy Grant, Calamity Jean, tofumagoo, RandomNonviolence, mofembot, James Kresnik, BYw, fayea, legendmn, cameoanne, pileta, Rhysling, J M F, aufklaerer, Dopeman, matmak, banjolele, Methinks They Lie, Gorilla in the room, TheOpinionGuy, oxfdblue, badger1968, kevinpdx, IreGyre, sfarkash, haremoor, deviant24x, Larsstephens, Words In Action, YellerDog, confitesprit, pyegar, estreya, on board 47, dagnome, cordgrass, DiegoUK, Publius2008, soaglow, slice, Mike08, Acktiv, ozsea1, vahana, gbinwc, xylonjay, poorbuster, Susipsych, asterkitty, mrsgoo, Jasonhouse, BarackStarObama, floridablue, LSmith, jgnyc, MuskokaGord, Keori, poliwrangler, thejoshuablog, Nightshade Q, Mentatmark, DEMonrat ankle biter, bluebottles, greenbastard, ahumbleopinion, Joieau, a2nite, radical simplicity, MartyM, ricklewsive, wxorknot, james321, arizonablue, ehrenfeucht games, Kinak, ItsaMathJoke, hungeski, Marjmar, Kurt Sperry, Captain Chaos, TheLawnRanger

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site