Originally Posted by Odin

James, some TP groups give out Alinsky's book to their members, it's not just the left that uses his community organizing tactics.

Uh oh. Somebody had better tell Newt Gingrich that.

Originally Posted by James50

These are problems needing solutions and not an outline for how wealth should be distributed. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are assuming that the solutions to these problems involve lowering the income and wealth of the 1%? If so, then are you willing to say what would be fair?

James50

I would say that *taxing* the 1% *fairly* would do a great deal for justice for all. Paying their fair share would add a lot of money for the common good.

Originally Posted by James50

Like I said, I am glad the operating left is not as radical as the left on this forum.

James50

Just refer to them as Democrats, since they are actually right of center in just about every other country in the developed world. OWS is a creature of the left, albeit the libertarian left. The old socialist left is moribund.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just refer to them as Democrats, since they are actually right of center in just about every other country in the developed world. OWS is a creature of the left, albeit the libertarian left. The old socialist left is moribund.

I'm not understanding why you say that OWS a creature of the Libertarian left. I see libertarians as pro-corporate profit without regulation. That is a Grand Canyon length and width from the ideals of OWS.

Am I misinterpreting your definition of Libertarian?

Originally Posted by Deb C

I'm not understanding why you say that OWS a creature of the Libertarian left. I see libertarians as pro-corporate profit without regulation. That is a Grand Canyon length and width from the ideals of OWS.

Am I misinterpreting your definition of Libertarian?

Yes, I used the lower case on purpose. Libertarians eschew struture, and OWS is the epitome of that, but they also tend to see the need for force as a defensive act, using it only to prevent harm from other power structures. Big 'L' Libertarians see no need for power structures, except to enforce property rights. It's a major disconnect between the two wings.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I would say that *taxing* the 1% *fairly* would do a great deal for justice for all. Paying their fair share would add a lot of money for the common good.

And who will decide what is "fair"? And whatever this number is, who will decide who is worthy to receive it? It all sounds very corrupting to the political system. I think we have enough corruption as it is.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No one is suggesting a modern Robin Hood effort.

Huh? Then why all the talk about the rich paying a "fair" amount? That sounds pretty Robin Hood to me.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Huh? Then why all the talk about the rich paying a "fair" amount? That sounds pretty Robin Hood to me.

James50

Oh, it's taxes you're' concerned with. I see; I misunderstood. As a baseline, let's set a tax burden that is bearable. If the economy is structured to distribute the benefits unequally, it's not unreasonable to tax the same way ... in reverse. If the poor are getting squeezed, then the tax system should help to ease that burden. That's Milton Friedman speaking. But we were focused on the top, so let's stay there.

The wealthy benefit from a placid world, where they can go about buying wherever and selling wherever. There is a cost involved in making that viable, but the burdens are not borne by those who benefit. For example, our blue water Navy is basically a gun-for-hire, pacifying the world and keeping the shipping lanes open, free and cheap. Do the oil companies pay for any of this? How about Apple with their offshore supply chain? The examples are endless, but you get the picture. Virtually all the cost of our military is there to benefit the 0.1% ... especially the 0.01%. Do they pay for it? No. How about the cost of our criminal justice system, which is mostly there to protect property or the Federal Reserve that keeps the banks whole and happy. Should we calculate who gets what and send a bill? If not, then we should accept that the rich, especially the super rich, are expensive. They should pony-up to offset the cost of having them around. Corporations should pay as well. It's only fair.

So if we go strictly on "fair", the tax burden will shift upwards with a vengeance. Is that OK?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So if we go strictly on "fair", the tax burden will shift upwards with a vengeance. Is that OK?

Why Robin Hood could not have said it better.

For example, our blue water Navy is basically a gun-for-hire, pacifying the world and keeping the shipping lanes open, free and cheap. Do the oil companies pay for any of this? How about Apple with their offshore supply chain?

This is over-the-top. The Navy is our most effective way of protecting our national security. Even the Constitution recognizes this.

And you are forgetting we do have a corporate tax although I would be in favor of doing away with it along with taxing all dividends at the personal level.

I have no argument with progressive taxation, per se, its all the corruption of the tax code by 100 years of loopholes and people currying favor to get a lower tax for themselves. Let's do away with all the deductions including home mortgage and health insurance. Then have maybe three rates - 5, 15, 25%. Then you might be able to talk about being fair.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Why Robin Hood could not have said it better.

I thought I did as much analysis as a short post permits. I notice you didn't argue the points, only the impression.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

This is over-the-top. The Navy is our most effective way of protecting our national security. Even the Constitution recognizes this.

H-m-m-m. This is a doument written by the wealthy elite of their day. It was also a more dangerous world at the time (after all, Britian invaded in 1812). Then again, it was the Barbary Pirates that we chose as a specific target ... in addition to all those pirates in the Caribbean of course. It's hard to argue that one of the primary purposes of the Navy was support of commerce.

I would post the quote by Smedley Butler again, but it's already been done more than once.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

And you are forgetting we do have a corporate tax although I would be in favor of doing away with it along with taxing all dividends at the personal level.

Corporations are also expensive to keep. Their needs are substantial and the costs, likewise. I would prefer to allow full deduction for dividends, simplificatoin of depreciation, elimination of the tax loopholes the tax code is riddled with, and higher corporate rates. Tarrifs are also a thought, since todays corporations think they exist outside the domain of nations. Let them enjoy the privileges at a reasonable cost.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

I have no argument with progressive taxation, per se, its all the corruption of the tax code by 100 years of loopholes and people currying favor to get a lower tax for themselves. Let's do away with all the deductions including home mortgage and health insurance. Then have maybe three rates - 5, 15, 25%. Then you might be able to talk about being fair.

James50

I'm OK with a simplified code, but there needs to a rate for ultra high incomes that acts as a disincentive to wealth extraction. We have people "earning" Billions each year for sucking the value out of other peoples livelihoods. It may not be theft, but it's not right either. Allowing a few to slowly impoverish the many is a recipe for strife ... perhaps even revolution.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This guy did a good job of it, and even delineated the pont where the level becomes dangerous. Note: this is not a new idea. Corrado Gini died in 1965.

Just got around to looking at this. Lowest point postwar was in 1968 at 38.6. Climbed to 47 in 2006 and was 46.8 in 2009. Interesting that 1968, generally considered the most convulsive year in recent history, coincided with the lowest Gini. Not sure what that means, but it is interesting.

Also interesting is that the Norway and Sweden graphs stop around 1995. Of course, the Norway graph is not really meaningful as it is an oil state.

James50

Here's a relatively good explanation of why the very rich pay less in taxes. Thought I would leave it up to someone far smarter than me when it comes to that issue.

The following was a response to Orin Hatch saying that the *poor* should do more to lower the deficit.

The main reason that the tax rate in the United States for the rich is low is that being rich, many of the rich do not need to work. It has long been accepted by Republicans in Congress, among others, that unearned income should receive more favorable treatment than earned income. According to the IRS, in 2008 only 8 percent of the income of the top 400 earners in the country came from salary and wages. Close to 10% came from dividends and about 56% came from capital gains. Happy to help those who have prospered, either through their own efforts or through a wise choice of ancestors, Congress decided that people who receive dividends should only pay 15% tax on those dividends. Similarly, Congress thinks that capital gains, subject to a few non-onerous rules, should only be taxed at 15%. There is another group with very large incomes that also pays tax at the 15% rate. Those are hedge fund managers.


Like the VERY RICH, among whom many hedge fund managers find themselves, money that hedge fund managers get from investors for managing their money is treated like capital gains and is taxed at only 15% even though to the unsophisticated observer money paid to them looks for all the world like the sort of money that the typical wage earner gets, except for its considerably larger amount than what most wage earners receive. (One commentator pointed out that if hedge fund managers paid taxes like the people earning $50,000 or even $100,000, the national deficit would be reduced by $44 billion in the next 10 years. In 2008 the top 25 hedge fund managers averaged $1.01 billion in annual income. )


In 2011, the only worker who will pay as low a rate as the folks described above is the worker whose taxable income is less than $34,500. Workers with taxable income between that and $69,675 will find themselves in the 25% tax bracket and from there the rates go up to 35% which is more than twice as much as the rate at which the person with $1.1 billion in dividends and capital gains is taxed. There are, of course, many adjustments made in calculating taxable income and the actual percentages vary taxpayer by taxpayer. But the long and the short of it is that the taxpayer who wants the satisfaction of paying taxes at the same rate as the really rich should keep his or her taxable income under $34,500. For many, that will not be difficult.

For the entire piece: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/...-do-more-quot/

Originally Posted by Deb C

Here's a relatively good explanation of why the very rich pay less in taxes.

The info from over the weekend was that 75% of the income from the 1% is ordinary income and taxed at those rates. Its interesting how when you start to push back, the universe under consideration gets smaller and smaller. First it was the 0.1%, now its the top 400.

Keep in mind that dividends are paid after the corporate income tax is paid. Its that double taxation of corporate earnings that has always bothered people. The real rate on the dividends is much higher than 15%.

James50

Originally Posted by radind

I am all for an all out national push on energy independence. Space can wait until we have the extra resources. However, I think that we should start with nuclear power and develop alternates as fast as possible. It will still be a long time before the 'green' energy sources can provide a large fraction of our energy needs. Long term solar power looks promising.

We can go faster than that, and CA is. See the global warming thread. We need to switch now to avoid catastrophe. Haven't you heard the scientists' warnings?

Originally Posted by The Rani

If "99%" of the people really felt the way that you claim they feel, none of that would matter. Those guys would be out.
There are already plenty of third party candidates on the ballots, at all levels of government.

Ultimately it doesn't matter which party a politician is in, although Green is by far the best. But Obama is pretty good, if he felt more of the wind of the people at his back. He might not feel the need to curry favor with the big rich guys, if he had more support from the people, and felt more pressure to do the right thing. At least there's a chance of that. And so forth with many Democrats and other third party pols. I say, keep the pressure on, whether that's voting third party, or telling the good pols what we want.

Originally Posted by James50

And how do we find these people? I see no reason to exclude Elizabeth Warren from this group. She is filthy rich and is no doubt using her money to seek power. Folks who support both OWS and Elizabeth Warren are making the assumption that she will voluntarily act in ways that will reduce her wealth and power. I don't know that that is a good assumption. In particular, she is extremely unlikely to act in ways to rein in the higher ed industry. I don't mean to make a pinata out of Elizabeth Warren, but am only trying to point out the totally selective nature of the 1% moniker.

Also, its clear to me, that the power of OWS is precisely the idea that the rich are evil. I don't see how you can deny that. Without that motivating moral judgement, the movement would collapse.

James50

Baloney. She is a champion of the 99%. Under the current system, all politicians need to raise money. She will rein in the bad practices of all investment companies, no matter who or where they get their money from.

The World is Endorsing Ron Paul For President 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jbTx...eature=related

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's a circular argument. If nobody believes it, then it can't happen.
If it were really true that 99% of Americans were ready to say goodbye to the two-party dictatorship, then of course it would happen.
The reality is that a large portion of that 99% prefer choosing one side and attacking the other.

Although that could change in a flash. Independents are as big a group now as either party. Someone could come along who appeals to them. Noone is really on the horizon now, in spite of some names that have been floated.

Of course; I myself am on the left, but also third party. It may be a while before Americans see the truth of our position, but hope springs eternal. For now, it's quite clear which "side" is better. But the power and corruption on both sides needs to be brought to heel.

Originally Posted by James50

It works, doesn't it?


I am not sure you are right about that. That sounds very abstract. No one who has studied human nature believes inequality is avoidable. The OWS complaint is that we have too much of it. The problem is that it becomes impossible to define what is the correct level. Would you like to give it a try?

James50

The conservatives' view of "human nature" is usually conditioned by their own greed and/or fear.

It's quite clear; inequality is too high in this country. It is worse here than almost anywhere that is not a banana republic or a medieval sheikdom of some kind. There's no point in trying to deny it. There was a good program about the Laffer curve around recently; it is clear that the optimum level of inequality can be well-defined, and lowered by quite a bit from what Laffer thought (actually from the point of view of the curve, it would be higher on the curve). Didn't you see that one James?

Originally Posted by James50

Like I said, I am glad the operating left is not as radical as the left on this forum.

James50

Which means it isn't really left at all, as M&L said. And well to the right of the left in other countries.

The "operating left" is the corporate left, if there is such a thing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ultimately it doesn't matter which party a politician is in, although Green is by far the best. But Obama is pretty good, if he felt more of the wind of the people at his back. He might not feel the need to curry favor with the big rich guys, if he had more support from the people, and felt more pressure to do the right thing. At least there's a chance of that. And so forth with many Democrats and other third party pols. I say, keep the pressure on, whether that's voting third party, or telling the good pols what we want.

Exactly! Where has that pressure been over the past 3 years? We have to stop making excuses for his bending over to the corporate rule and hold him accountable. But then, that's what I've been saying repeatedly for the past 3 years.

Originally Posted by James50

And who will decide what is "fair"? And whatever this number is, who will decide who is worthy to receive it? It all sounds very corrupting to the political system. I think we have enough corruption as it is.

James50

Indeed, and most of it exists because of the power of the wealthy few to run our politics with huge secret donations only they can afford.

The legislative process can determine what is "fair" taxation, once we have more fair-minded politicians (meaning, of course, fewer Goppers and DINOs). God knows how long that will take, although I have my crystal ball to tell me....

Personally, I don't think such a big adjustment is necessary; just return to Clinton-era income tax levels, with perhaps an extra surtax on the richest ones. And other adjustments may be needed: higher capital gains taxes (again, just a return to what they used to be), and removing the cap on Social Security taxes in exchange for lower rates (possibly), and higher medicare taxes so it can be extended to all.

For supposedly such a radical leftist as myself, isn't that a rather modest proposal?

EDIT: How did I forget this one:

Tarrifs are also a thought, since todays corporations think they exist outside the domain of nations. Let them enjoy the privileges at a reasonable cost.

Thanks M&L

Originally Posted by James50

And you are forgetting we do have a corporate tax although I would be in favor of doing away with it along with taxing all dividends at the personal level.

The latter may be a good idea.

But corporate tax is not an "extra tax" as you suggest. Money made by corporations is supposed to be capital for use by the business; it doesn't go into anyone's personal pocket.

I have no argument with progressive taxation, per se, its all the corruption of the tax code by 100 years of loopholes and people currying favor to get a lower tax for themselves. Let's do away with all the deductions including home mortgage and health insurance. Then have maybe three rates - 5, 15, 25%. Then you might be able to talk about being fair.

James50

We can't do away with the home mortgage deduction at a time when so many people can't afford the mortgages they have or might want. As I've mentioned before, do away with deductions for home mortgages held by real estate investors and speculators (i.e. any second home mortgage or more). Most personal deductions have already been taken away as of 1986. In any case, given the fact that politicians are always offering tax breaks for good behavior, do you really think loopholes will ever end? Especially since loopholes are more popular than raising taxes to pay for what we want? No, we need to raise the rates back to Clinton levels, if we ever hope to reduce our debt and deficit. There's NO way around that. That means higher taxes on the rich (+4%) and slightly higher taxes on the upper middle class too.

A slightly lower corporate tax overall, removing deductions for slightly lower rates, is acceptable to me, although not an ideal held by the left; and in any case given politicians' desire to curry favor with more tax breaks (notice how many Obama promised in his SOTU address), such a reform would be temporary, and rates would have to go back up anyway.

What possible answer is there to loopholes? A constitutional amendment saying no politician can ever offer a tax break?

The problem with the American political system is inputs. It doesn't matter how many "reform Congress" get elected every two years, now which party banner they run under. As long as private money funds the electoral system, all candidates have to sing the same song in the search for megabucks. It is the ultimate in corruption. We'll never get the output of good legislation as long as our legislators are effectively owned by those that they raise their campaign money from. That is the core problem that Citizens United has pointed out. It is our Dead Scott.
Any "reforms" efforts that ignore this fact are doomed to failure.

Originally Posted by katsung47

The World is Endorsing Ron Paul For President 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jbTx...eature=related

I don't know about the world, but the young people certainly are.

The popularity of Ron Paul is very interesting and I also something I find very telling. I live in a very conservative area, so it's no big surprise that most people I'm around are supporting Republican candidates. However according to my son, who is 13, even the youngest of the millies like Ron Paul. Now normally at this age, most kids support whatever candidate their parents do. But I asked my son if the parents of these kids are also Ron Paul supporters. I figured they are being influenced by their parents, but my son said, "No. Most of these kid's parents are Santorum backers."

The Tea Party is mostly made up of older voters, but the millies are the future and I do think that the Republican party is going to become more and more libertarian as time goes on and the millies age more into adulthood. He is certainly striking a cord with them. According to my son there is an awful lot of excitement surrounding Ron Paul in his school.

When the millies backed Obama because they wanted change, they meant it. I believe they are looking for drastic change and right now Paul is fitting the bill. He is the most of out of box of all the candidates. It will be interesting to see what that "change" is that the millies will actually bring when become old enough to make a difference to enact it. All I can say is, hold on to your hats, folks. I think things are going to look different when the millies get the reins.