-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

Comment viewing options

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

Yes you did

You
"it's just that most occupy protesters (which has accomplished absolutely nothing)"

That implies that people who sympathize with OWS, just sit around waiting for someone to do something. When in reality Republicans/Tea Part and Democrats/OWS most likely called their senators about those matters.

Is that doing nothing?

There is even an Occupy Face page Occupy the GOP.

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

Jacque Fresco

I said

the Occupy protest itself not the people in it.

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

You know, if you have to

You know, if you have to raise taxes it should be a 100% tax on anyone and everyone who got bailed out and/or recieies subsidies from the government, no exceptions. That way no one will want to be bailed out or will lobby for subsidies. :V

Fuck taxes.

Most Banks are publicly

Most Banks are publicly traded companies, so technically anyone who owns a share of any of the banks that got bailed out also got bailed out.

As well as any other company that got bailed out.

"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 remember being given

I don't remember being given a chance to vote as a shareholder on the option to take a bailout or not.

Something tells me you didn't

Something tells me you didn't own stock with the company either.

Unless you purposely wanted it to crash so you'd lose all the money you put in it.

That would be just stupid

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

Jacque Fresco

You're wrong. I own stock in

You're wrong. I own stock in three different banks. I had no chance to reject bailout funds.

On taxation, here is my

On taxation, here is my issue.

By my estimation, from 1792 to 1900 we have seen tax revenue as a percentage of income/GDP vary from 16 to 28%*#

*Because it is very difficult to find data on utility/liquor/tobacco tax data prior to the modern era, as well as data for fees like licensing/etc., I am assuming that current tax rates for those things extend over time.

#Depending on the method used, this number varies. One method finds that it varies from 7 to 18%, with current levels at about 16%. Another goes from 7 to 20%, with current levels at about 18%. Another goes from 12 to 29%, with current levels at 25%.

Now that burden has been shifted more to the federal level than the state and local level over time. Also, we do have social security and medicare, which I am not counting as part of modern tax revenue since you get that money back (dedicated program). And as everyone knows, the taxation generally comes through income tax, and not excise taxes.

So that said, we have seen the rate go from between ~24-26% since the Bush tax cuts (using the first method). That is right in line with pre-16th-amendment levels of taxation. And let us be honest, our spending needs have gone up since then. We couldn't defend this country on a military budget of 200 billion (1792 levels).

So at best, you could argue that we are taxing a little above where we need to be; at worst you could argue we need to tax more. So for those who want to eliminate the income tax, where does the government get the revenue?

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

Savings = Investment

...need I continue?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Not when your savings is

Not when your savings is Millions/Billions of dollars.

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

Jacque Fresco

Don't believe in taxing the rich...

..but the corrupt should be taken to the cleaners.

Define corrupt?

Define corrupt?

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

Jacque Fresco

Your post puts you in with the Tyrants

Using the power of the sociopaths to tax is an attack on liberty. Why not stick a gun in the face of the rich and demand their money yourself and be an 'honest' robber. Why do you want to legitimize the assholes we already have in government by voting them more power.

The second thing wrong is that you have the hubris to determine by yourself what will fix the economy. Look up Hayek and the problem of rational calculation. The market is inherently chaotic and only the price structure leads to self organizing activity not some edict from a wanna be central planner.

The people here are

The people here are protecting the very people who have built their wealth through the Fiat system. And now that the government wants to take some of that money back, the people here think its wrong to take that money through taxation.

Yet its a total contradiction because by "Ending the Fed" and changing to the Gold Standard, you'd be Taking the Fiat wealth by destroying the dollar.

Contradiction. Typical of the Libertarian philosophy.

I don't believe in central planning, I believe in a redistribution of wealth. Then new forms of currency to Rival the dollar. But you can't have one with out the other.

We could start over and live through an Austrian economy. But nothing will change even in an Austrian economy if the level of wealth inequality is not handled first.

"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 in central

"I don't believe in central planning, I believe in a redistribution of wealth. Then new forms of currency to Rival the dollar. But you can't have one with out the other."

...because?

"We could start over and live through an Austrian economy. But nothing will change even in an Austrian economy if the level of wealth inequality is not handled first."

...because?

Because - Even if we have a

Because - Even if we have a rival to the dollar, if most of the assets/resources are traded in the dollar, no one will accept the rival currency.
You have to destroy the power of the dollar, otherwise any country with different forms of currency could buy things with their money, but everything is traded in the dollar.

Because what I just said up top.

The wealthy can change their money to what ever the world is trading resources in. If its in gold they have more money already to buy more gold then anyone else if its silver etc etc... What ever the world decided to trade in they can control by buying most of it.

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

Jacque Fresco

Fairly keen commentary, SerT,

Fairly keen commentary, SerT, particularly Because - even if we have a rival to the dollar, if most of the assets/resources are traded in the dollar, no one will accept the rival currency. As well, dealing in a currency tied to the dollar, meaning the dollar controls its worth, is meaningless, pointless. Might as well use the dollar.

Above a couple spaces, what you said about gold standard (and silver use? -- or any other decreed/fiat currency), it appears to be a good point. It's a little confusing because your second half that sentence was its first half worded differently, a repetition. Mind clarifying what you said?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Can you copy where you need

Can you copy where you need clarification, then put in quotes please?

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

Jacque Fresco

Lets Get Rid Of The Income Tax

The more money the people keep the better off all will be. I do not want the government to get the money I earn. Yes we have other taxes that can be used to protect us which is the only thing the government should do anyway. All of the programs they have their hands on fail anyway. Like Dr. Paul thinks, lets get rid of the income tax.

TheKingIsComing

Contradiction. Typical of the Libertarian philosophy.

The people here are protecting the very people who have built their wealth through the Fiat system. And now that the government wants to take some of that money back, the people here think its wrong to take that money through taxation.

Yet its a total contradiction because by "Ending the Fed" and changing to the Gold Standard, you'd be Taking the Fiat wealth by destroying the dollar.

Contradiction. Typical of the Libertarian philosophy.

"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

Goodness, are you in denial

Goodness, are you in denial or what ?

(I know, I said I wouldn't return to this, but I feel compelled to fix your lack of information)

You should know that, "the libertarian philosophy", as you call it, and as of today, in Ron Paul's movement, fundamentally denounces only TWO MAIN AXES of the economic Evil :

1. BETRAYAL of The People, thru governmental insider lobbying : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island#Planning_of_the_F...

2. THE SCAM, based on a fallacy FORCED ONTO everybody : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_system#Function

"According to mainstream economic theory, regulated fractional-reserve banking also benefits the economy by providing regulators with powerful tools for manipulating the money supply and interest rates, which many see as essential to a healthy economy."

(higlighting the important words)

NOTHING LESS, AND NOTHING MORE !

And guess what ? Guess WHO are the "mainstream economic theorists" and "regulators" and "the many [who] see" : the same corrupt folks, THE SAME CROOKS who serve WELL THE POLITICIANS who hired them in the first place ! Congratulating and justifying each others ! Greenspan, Bernanke, et al. A long tradition already !

Thus, they have it BOTH WAYS because they are INSIDE and OUTSIDE (politically and economically speaking)

We don't even have any claims about currencies ! There could be just one, like today's USD, or, more likely, many competing ones, in parallel. Strictly speaking, free market could as well tolerate some amount of barter : we just don't care ! We want consumer and producer exchange services and goods AS THEY SEE fit, simple demand/supply, without any intervening regulations on HOW TO DETERMINE the values or the currencies in circulation.

This IS, INDEED, EXACTLY the opposite of what is going on TODAY :

NO PARALLEL CURRENCIES ALLOWED

REGULATED AND RIGGED DEMAND / SUPPLY "natural laws of free markets"

NON-FEDERAL REGULATORS WHO AREN'T EVEN GOVERNMENTAL :

The Federal Reserve is a bunch of crooks who disguise themselves with a "Federally-justified" facade, but they are only big corporations WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE of The People's elected administration (thank, corrupts)

WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ?

FREE MARKETS HAVE BEEN DENIED, we just CLAIM the right to give them a try ANEW !

"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

(Sigh) Lobbyist influence

(Sigh) Lobbyist influence politicians. You want to cure the symptoms/politicians, not the disease/lobbyist.

You still have the Disease, even if you stop the politicians. Why is that so hard to understand.

Politicians don't hire mainstream economic theorists and regulators for themselves, if they hire them at all. Most likely the lobbyist hire them for the Politicians for the dirty Corporations.

Yes in some cases the Politicians were the crooks in the "FREE MARKET". But this just proves my theory that whether your in the private sector or public, you can do bad things. Kill evil where it is, not just in the Public sector.

"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

Whatever. Okay.

Whatever. Okay.

"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

Forget it, this guy is a

Forget it, this guy is a Marxist.
Look what he wrote in his other post:

"As long as you believe that the right of the individual out way the rights of the many, there is not point of a conversation."

Just ignore him or ban him. He doesn't want to learn anything. I think the communist ministry of propaganda confused something about this website and mistakenly sent him here...

You can not have a group,

You can not have a group, without having individuals. Individuals make up a group. And to choose a single individual over a group, is to infringe of the right of every individual of that group.

Please ignore me, just like most of the people ignore the Philosophies of "Liberty" and its continued contradiction.

"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

I think you're right. I

I think you're right. I gladly comply ;)

"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

A Big

Amen to that!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

SteveMT's picture

Top 1 Percent Pay 37 Percent of Income Taxes

And you want to tax them even more? This money would be invested if the government was not taking it from these people.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/14/top-1-percent-pay-37-perce...

37% of an income that is 700k

37% of an income that is 700k is 259,000. Do any of you even know anyone who makes that much money, I do. I live in Manhattan NYC, I know personally 10 people who make that amount and you know what, they don't spend even half of that and 5 or more of those people make way more the 700.

A few of them said they pay close to 50%. Which is lower when they give away a shit load to charity. Why do they give it away to charity, so they can get a tax break. They have no idea what else to invest in, so most of it still sits in a bank.

So please don't tell me they would invest it. And the government would not take a cent if all of it was invested.

Someone said it here, that the real problem is there is no good investments. Its true, we are at a point in human history that we have created everything we want and need, every service, product, etc. Everything else is so risky that most people rather have it sit in the bank then invest on something that is most likely to fail.

But thats what we need, risky investment.

Truthfully I don't think that would even help, I think we are at a point in society that we need to totally rethink this monetary based world and need to evolve passed it.

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

Jacque Fresco

SteveMT's picture

You are a Marxist, a communist. Why not admit this fact?

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
[The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists - Karl Marx]

http://confessionsofamarxist.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-is-co...