-56 votes

Tax the Rich, End the Fed

Can anyone explain to me why they think a few people HOLDING MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS of dollars in their Personal bank accounts will create jobs and stimulate the economy?

People having a savings is great but when such a small amount of people are holding most of the US's wealth that is not helping the economy. They have more money then they know what to do with and having MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS sitting in a bank account is not going to create jobs and they won't use it to make risky investments which is something we need in today's world.

No amount of Tax incentives will inspire them to spend enough. Even with a 50% tax they still don't spend enough. Why do we have to have a total collapse, when the few people with the means could give more and avoid a crash completely.

Government sponsored enterprises are still owned by the Private sector.

End the Fed, Tax the Rich



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is joke to believe that

It is joke to believe that Bill Gates, Sam Wilton honestly earned their billions... millions underpaid people worked for Microsoft or Wallmart "success" and they are sometimes one pay check from living on streets and Bill and Sam grandkids will not to have work for even an hour to be billionaires. All employees of single Wallmart combined will not make in their whole life time as much as Sam Wilton family is "earning" in a single year...

If you say their billions weren't earned honestly, you have to give proof. What exactly did they do which you classify as "dishonest"?

Further, what does "underpaid" mean to you? What justifies being paid above market price only by working for Microsoft? I'll give you one example so you can more easily understand what I mean:

Imagine a baker who developes a new kind of bread by just adding a few incredients to his recipe and is very successful with it. He now earns more money than every other baker.
According to your reasoning, his workers who bake the bread should be paid more than the workers at other bakeries.
But I ask you: What exactly do the workers contribute to the baker's success? If you think about that carefully it is obvious that their contribution consists of nothing but adding a few more ingredients which takes a few seconds. They're not working harder than workers at other bakeries.

The same it is with Microsoft or Apple. Their software engineers do the same work as software engineers at any other software company. If it weren't so, why don't they quit their job and work for another company for the same wage, but much more easily?

However, this all has nothing to do with the low wage level of easier work as for example at Walmart. This is caused by inflation, because the price inflation affects those wages at last.

Even if US Government would cut tax to zero it would be still more profitable for most corporations
to use labor in Asia then to pay minimum wage in USA... the only way to stop outsorcing US jobs is use of extremelly high tariff for every product made abroad and shipped for sale to USA.

Here you're putting the american worker above the asian one. What gives you the right to use government force to do that only because YOU think the american worker should be first?
Low wages are in an unmanipulated market always a sign for either high productivity or lack of wealth. So it also morally right to take the labour for the lower wage.

Concerning your tariffs you should read this:
http://www.mises.org/daily/6123/Tariffs-as-WelfareState-Econ...

The only way to achieve what most "free market" zealots here advocating (with attitude all or nothing) would be possible by establishing in USA dictatorship.... putting all Obama and millions of other "liberals" in concentration camps....and execute every person who support all social advancements 20 century offered... no free education, no 8 hours workday, no minimum wage, no free libraries, no SS, no Medicare... Good luck in trying that without oppresive government force! If you think this task is possible with just education and electing Ron Paul for president you have to be very naive. Even in countries that overthtrow communism getting rid of most of those things would bring communism back.

I think you have something very wrong here.
The problem are not those social programs. The problem is that those people are putting a gun on others' heads and force them to participate!
Voluntarily, people can do whatever they want but they have no right to use force on others.
It's just impossible to say you're against force while supporting those government programs.

If you want to have such programs, establish them locally. But it is even unconstitutional to use the Federal Government for that purpose.

Cyril's picture

You're the only one who doesn't get it

You're the only one who doesn't get it, I'm afraid.

Everybody, but you, here in this thread, understands the same thing:

the importance of self-ownership, self-sustainability, accountability.

You know, unlike marijuana, dictionaries ARE legal and available to purchase right off the shelves.

Look up all three keywords above, they're a really nice clue. I promise.

Again, I tell you in truth, if you find taxing anyone's fruits of sweat so justifiable, the best country for you to live in, within the entire known universe is:

France,

as of today.

In second best position, as a backup plan, you also have North Korea.

'Hope it helps.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Most private property is

Most private property is owned by the Federal Reserve and the people who owns the Federal Reserve believe that everything you own belongs to them.

Why because 60% of people don't even own their homes outright. And its virtually impossible for someone my age (27) to have EVER been able to save up enough to buy a home outright.

Wake Up!!!

Private Property is a farce. The bank Technically owns everything and who ever owns the bank owns what ever you don't own outright.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Cyril's picture

Private property a farce ?

Private property a farce ?

Right.

Okay, then:

tell me where you live, and keep the place open over there.

I need to get a second fridge. Please be kind to empty it before I pick it up.

Thanks !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I'm guessing you're a narcotics officer

Cause that's kinda how they do things.

Cyril's picture

LOL. Hell no, I'm not.

LOL. Hell no, I'm not. Neither do I do drugs, except for being weak enough to smoke cigarettes.

I'm just a software engineer, and in my previous comment, I was merely following the OP's logic, which is pretty interesting.

Per which anyone has claims over anything that anyone else (wrongly) believe they own (fools !)

Which is cool discovery: now I'm just gonna stop working and go start picking up whatever I need, whenever, and wherever it be.

Awesome !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I think he meant it has become a farce

And it has, except between us slaves. If you take someone else's stuff you go to jail, but if you're acting on behalf of a government or bank and steal someone's stuff you can have at it.
I was joking about the narcotics officer thing, but they raid homes and steal property to fund their divisions and often it's their sole source of funding.

Cyril's picture

Ok, got it

Ok, got it

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

In a resource based economy,

In a resource based economy, that's exactly what you can do. Nothing belongs to anyone, if your not using it, its free for someone else to use.

Its like Zip Car or the Public bikes some cities have for you to rent.

Everyone has access to it, its not free, which is what I'd like to see, but sharing is great idea.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Are you here in a vain

Are you here in a vain attempt to recruit people to vote Obama? Personally, I kind of hope you're here because you want to learn a different point of view about personal responsibility and freedom from a Libertarian / Ron Paul Republican perspective.

Don't fall for that kind of

Don't fall for that kind of groupthink. "The rich" don't exist. Only individuals can act.

So, if you want to punish the profiteers of the Federal Reserve System, I think you get many support here. But that can't be done by putting a tax on everybody that is rich, because there are some rich who became rich by offering a good product. Further, you can't do it with a tax at all, because this is a durable punishment. If somebody committed theft, you don't put a tax on him. Instead you impose a fine on him to pay back what he stole. That is exactly what should be done and not "tax the rich".

By arguing against the current business trends, you come close to the arguments of a socialist. If you don't like what other people do, you have every right to do it better on your own. But you don't have the right to force others to do what you think is right. Only because you don't like what they're doing doesn't this make it wrong in any sense.
However, the real problem here can be found in the government, again. The government eliminated the competition of small and medium-sized businesses and there is so much money wasted only because they have to pay for things the government forces them to do.

Finally, there is also an economical fallacy in your argument with HenryFord.
If Ford decides to pay his workers above market price he has every right to do that. However, by saying that this is good, you only look at this from the perspective of the workers, but not from a neutral one. From a neutral perspective, this behaviour can't be classified as good or bad.
The money he pays his workers more, can't be used to buy other things, which would instead pay other workers a higher wage or could hire new ones. Even if Ford decided to hoard his money and not putting it into the bank, some prices would go down and somebody would profit from that, too.

So there is no good or bad from a neutral point of view. Don't fall for the socialist propaganda! By only paying somebody more money, no wealth is created. It just drives the prices of some things up while decreasing the prices of other things that would have been bought instead.

I'd love to know how much and

I'd love to know how much and who you think deserves a fine?!?!? LOL

Probably the same people I think need to be taxed... LOL...

Ahahaha!!! I wonder who gets all this money that would be fined? LOL...

Give that fine money back to the government? maybe redistribute it to the people.... LMFAO

You my friend put your foot in your mouth with that one.

"The government eliminated the competition of small and medium-sized businesses" WRONG!

ANY entity that funnels money into a business, be it a Bank Loan or Government loan will stomp out any competitor that did NOT get that same funding.

LOL @ Neutral perspective. Of course we are going to look at it from the perspective of the workers. Why would the majority of people look at it from a perspective of their Millionaire Billionaire boss.

Wealth does not have to be created/built for things to happen. Thats a lie from the Establishment that you have fallen for.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

So smart nature ceases to apply

When nature ceases to apply...Innovative, hard working(, and a bit lucky) people will do all the work of starting their business, convincing overtaxed investors to invest u.s., and building a highly efficient business masterpiece from nothing and they'll be content with an arbitrary cap on their rewards and incentives set by the U.S. government (and misguided people like you).

But while nature applies people punished for building wealth in the U.s. will do it elsewhere and your plan will backfire big time.

It is better to work with nature than to try and control it...

Here's How

First off, it's important to separate those who got rich via crony capitalism. I'm all for clawing back that money.

As for those entrepreneurs who made their money legitimately (by providing goods and/or services that people wanted - Apple's iPhone for example), why should they get taxed extra? An argument can be made that they shouldn't be taxed at all. After all, they provide goods/services that people want plus they typically create jobs (think of how many people Apple employs). Plus we want to encourage entrepreneurship so why make it far less desirable with high taxes?

I also want to repeat some points made by Peter Schiff regarding your comment below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"They have more money then they know what to do with and having MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS sitting in a bank account is not going to create jobs and they won't use it to make risky investments which is something we need in today's world"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Even if a rich person keeps ALL of their money in a bank, that STILL helps the economy? Why? Because the banks then loan out that money to invest.

2) Typically banks would invest in businesses. You wrote that you wanted the investments to be "risky". I say that we should let the banks decide what investments are worthy of investment. However, and this is crucial, the banks MUST MUST MUST sink or swim on their own. In other words, if their investment loses money then there ABSOLUTELY can be NO bailout. That risk is what regulates banks in a free-market economy.

3) Another point about banks and their investments. You are correct that banks are not lending much of their money to businesses. Instead they're buying a heck of a lot of treasuries. Why is that? Because government regulation is forcing banks to do so. One way is via capital requirements. The regulations determine what assets are safe vs risky. And the regulators require banks to have a certain amount of "safe" assets. Of course, the regulations say that the "safest asset" are US treasuries (which are really just loans to the government). The government uses that money to expand their power/influence and enrich themselves and their cronies. The truth is that buying US treasuries is hardly a safe bet. Why? Because the only way the government can pay back the loans is with newly printed money. However, the more money that gets printed, the less value each dollar has (because the inflation of the money supply causes prices to rise). In other words, you may get back the nominal amount of your loan to the government but there's no guarantee on the purchasing power of that money.

4) Following up on point #3, it is also very difficult for start-ups to get off the ground in this highly overly-regulated environment. Complying with regulations costs money. Start-up firms usually don't have a ton of excess capital lying around. You know who likes this? Big businesses that don't want the competition from the start-ups! In other words, government interference in the free market creates higher barriers to entry for start-ups.

I'd recommend the following sites (to start with) if you want to learn more about stuff like this (and other issues):

1) SchiffRadio.com
2) EconomicPolicyJournal.com
3) LewRockwell.com

I'll say the same thing I

I'll say the same thing I said to some one else here.

Who is going to decide who got their money legitimately and who is going to decide who got it by cheating?

And once all that money is found WHO THE HELL GETs IT?
Government? Maybe redistribute it to the people... lol...

You should watch the movie Pirates of Silicone Valley and tell me if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs earned what they made. Or were things stolen?
Apple got funding just like any other company. You know how many good ideas don't get funding... A lot, there could be better ideas then Apple, but if they don't have the funding they will never see the light of day.

Peter Schiff is part of the problem, he is not someone you should be listening too...

Fractional Reserve Banking does not need money in a bank to lend out more then was deposited. "Even if a rich person keeps ALL of their money in a bank, that STILL helps the economy? Why? Because the banks then loan out that money to invest." And if a bank isn't lending out money because all the ideas are to risky, then that money is just sitting there.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

um...

you keep assuming that banks loan money to start up businesses, but this almost never happens. Banks will extend lines of credit to existing businesses (either on receivables or dollar for dollar) but thats about it. Auto loans and mortgages are collateralized by the purchased property. Point is, banks do not fund "ideas".

Modern public corporations (the larger ones anyway) get fat on fiat currency indirectly via their offerings, trades, and a lot of hype. For example, Amazon became a large publicly traded company before it ever posted a profit. Startups are usually funded through private equity (and sometimes) hedge funds, investment banks, etc.

If you can believe in the

If you can believe in the book (the creature from jekyll island) then you can believe what I'm saying as well.

So I say again that simply was not the case 30 years and even 20 years ago.

Yes many start up businesses today do not get funding. But if you look at the trends of business growth in the past 30 years, one can only assume that the growth was due to an influx of money (fiat money).

20-30 years ago whether it was a start up or a small business, they needed capital to build or expand they didn't have.

The people back then who had accumulated capital/money/wealth did not want to spend it on building or expanding. What would be in it for them? They already have the most money. So they create Fiat money, so is not to invest their wealth.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

But even Apple's

But even Apple's Iphone...what Apple truly "invented" was the marketing. THey tailored the features for the market; they emphasized in their phones what they thought people would find most imporant. THey went with uniformity over flexibility. They had the concept of the itunes, the idea of selling things to you over it. The appstore, etc. The great customer service, the quick service updates, etc. I'd even give them their bug-free OS.

But the actualy technology? Not theirs. The crafting of the phone...which features to leave in, which to take out, that is theirs. Having the guts to include a program like Siri. But the techonology was either

1) Invented by the government
2) Invented by someone else on an expired patent.

For the most part, this is true. Even the mobile networks they utilize; they did not create the technology for.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Features

All the stuff I just copied and pasted (below) from your post ARE legitimate reasons why they deserved their success. It was those differences that MADE the phone what it was. Essentially saying "features already existed" but that "they existed in different devices" means that Apple saw an opportunity to organize "land/labor/resources" in such a way to create a product that people were willing to pay for (and be extremely happy with). I'd also add in "ease of use" and "touch screen keyboard" (which I don't think was the norm at the time) as additional things that made the phone appealing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
THey tailored the features for the market; they emphasized in their phones what they thought people would find most imporant. THey went with uniformity over flexibility. They had the concept of the itunes, the idea of selling things to you over it. The appstore, etc. The great customer service, the quick service updates, etc. I'd even give them their bug-free OS.

The crafting of the phone...which features to leave in, which to take out, that is theirs.

And they get credit for

And they get credit for that...they've made billions off it.

Yet they only pay what, 3.5% in taxes to any government? A government that protects their patents, gives confidence to their investors, provides a legal defense, a strong judicial system, and defends Apple against those who would wish to steal Apple's wealth. Morever, the government directly created much of the technology that Apple uses in their products. Had Siri, for example, been invented by a private firm, they'd have demanded a decent cut of Apple's products. Instead, Apple configures the DARPA-research project for mobile phones and makes a lot of money. Is that fair? Is that how we want to do things?

My sympathy for Apple is further diminished because if they were operating in a taxation environment pre-1900s, they'd be paying a fortune in excise and customs taxes.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I find this thread offensive.

End the FED, yes, but tax the rich is just envious drivel.

The focus should be on eliminating the monopolistic effects of government intervention in the economy. People who acquire large amounts of wealth will then have earned it in a free market instead of getting it from a rigged economy. The distribution of wealth, absent government rigging the economy to favor their friends, would be a normal bell curve distribution. It is government interference in the economy that gives us a skewed distribution of wealth with most people in or heading into poverty, with a few owning most of the wealth.

In a society without the FED and fractional reserve banking, and with the honest money of gold and silver, accumulation of wealth provides the pool of savings from which investment can be financed. If everything is consumed, which what taking wealth from the rich encourages, there is no capital investment and all the wonderful machines that make us more productive would no longer be produced.

Communism or socialism, which you essentially advocate when you say tax the rich, may equalize everyone, but it does so by placing everyone in poverty.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Considering I probably make

Considering I probably make more then most of the people here at 27, its def not envious. I just came back for spending 10 days in Spain. Ate at the best restaurant and stayed at a great hotel and that was my 5th vacation this year.

I'm just at the lower end of the extremely wealthy people I work for.

I didn't grow up wealthy, pretty much would be considered poor. I got lucky and now have a great life. But now that I'm on the other side I see how when you don't have access to resources/money your potential is stifled.

If I would have had access to the resources I do now when I was growing up I'd be a millionaire.

Before Government we had kings and courts. You did what was told, no question asked. Laws were created by a group of individuals that were not selected by the people.

So by all means, lets go back to that. Where just the wealthy make decisions and they don't even have to go through the congress.

When will you people understand that wealthy people don't need government to run things.

Give me control of a nations wealth and I care no who makes its LAWS- Rothchild

"In a society without the FED and fractional reserve banking, and with the honest money of gold and silver, accumulation of wealth provides the pool of savings from which investment can be financed."
Al the eveil people have to do is change there money to gold and they will still have control of the ssytem... Wake Up!

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

The ability

Of a government to create jobs is effectively the ability to control the economy. Dumb idea.

I'm not asking for the

I'm not asking for the government to control the economy, I just think things need to be done for the benefit of everyone not just shareholders. Businesses and Wall Street are only accountable to shareholders, congress and government are accountable to everyone.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Theoretically, they were

Theoretically, they were elected to carry out their sworn duties, but it really hasn't worked out like that.

Go back

to your Occupy protest with this garbage.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Its funny how so many people

Its funny how so many people here say go back to occupy, yet I live in NYC and have talked to protestors that support many of the things Ron Paul says.

Yet here, you guys look at anyone who doesn't share your exact view the same way the Republicans look at you for not supporting Romney.

Ahahahaha What a trip

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Uh no

it's just that most occupy protesters (which has accomplished absolutely nothing) are socialist and believe that taxing the rich would some how generate income for the government. First of all not one cent of income tax goes to the federal government it goes to the federal reserve through the IRS. Moreover occupiers blame capitalism for the problems and they want more government (which more taxing leads to) will solve their problem, and they don't realize that it is corporate welfare and crony capitalism that is problem which is caused by big government. Then again people complain that "Rich people don't pay their fair share," boo hoo. These people are also wrong the INCOME tax on people making $250,000 is around 33%, but most millionaires and billionaires make their money from capital gains, you know the stock market, and this a different bracket of taxes, which is low around 10-15% depending how good your accountant is. Lets take France they tax the richest people a very high percentage and well they don't have many rich people anymore because they have left the country. The problem isn't people getting taxed less the problem is less people paying taxes. 50% of the people in America don't pay taxes, like me I worked all last year making minimum wage and they took taxes out of my check but I got every penny back in March. Most of that 50% make very little money are you saying that we tax them too? Well probably (hopefully) not. Every time you spend a penny you pay a tax even if no sales tax, because every regulation is a tax, every greenback printed is a tax, there are taxes on gas, crops, powerplants, water/sewage treatment, roads, electronics, and your answer is to tax more? So yeah go back to your socialist friends and so called RP supporters at Occupy. Maybe there are some there, but majority are socialist, Marxist, misguided fools thinking government can save them from government.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Many of the Occupier I'm sure

Many of the Occupier I'm sure called about SOPA, PIPA and Ron Paul's bill to Audit the fed.

If you think the people here are the only ones who called there senators you would be very wrong. ;)

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

I don't believe

I ever implied that.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson