"Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming" Nick Hanauer

Everyone who can pay taxes, should. Since the affluent benefit from the system the most, they should shoulder the greater burden. The only fair tax is a progressive tax.

To the degree America has chipped away at progressive taxation,there has been a concomitant commensurate decline in the standard of living and erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar.

Needless tax breaks for the rich creates deficits, which leads to inflation, which is a de facto tax on those who cannot hedge against inflation, which is the poor.

So, the long and short is that needless tax breaks on the rich leads to an indirect tax on the poor, it's, in its essence, is a transfer of wealth form the poor to the rich ,and the gap widens.

This widening gap is the result of neoliberal policies which really took off with Reagan, and now Trump . Frankly, it's insane and it is destroying the country.

You can oppress the lower classes long enough, and hard enough, and eventually, something breaks. The outcome is never good.

Here is a lecture by a one percenter, a plutocrat. He's the kind of guy many entrepreneurs want be, and there are probably more republicans than democrats in that group. However, there are, in point of fact, both.

He explains it, very well. To all aspiring persons who want to join the ranks of the one percenters, go for it, I'm all for entrepreneurship, innovation, hard work, and the like. I've been self employed almost all of my life, and have run small businesses. So, I think you should give some attention to what this bank owner, who has funded over 30 companies, has to say. What he has to say, is NOT incompatible to the message I presented, above.

 

Hahaha! So now the attack word is "taxes". Good to see you guys moved on from "Russia"......

 

Americas decline has to do with socialism. Not taxation. The more you rely upon the government, the less upward mobility you have.

 

The top echelons of the Corporate world don't 'rely' on Government - unless of course they need a protection from completion or a bailout. And they sure as hell aren't in favor 'socialism' - that would cost them money.

As for 'America's decline'. Its relative. Economic development is a race. America sprinted out in front last century and the rest of the world could only stand there and watch. But the more times America went round the track the more opportunities everyone else had to study its technique and copy it.

Your not running any slower, its just that the rest of the world is running faster and steadily catching up.

 

No but the bottom rung of our society DOES rely on government assistance and that group gets bigger every day with every extra dollar put into socialist policy.

Those are supposed to be and USED to be our productive masses. The corporations are responsible for putting in place the infrastructure and creating opportunities. The capital is the fuel for the economy. The workers are the machinations which use the infrastructure and the fuel to produce.

You need all three. Two of them are doing their jobs; the corporations and the capital (or investors). One of them, the workers, are not. They’re too reliant upon government assistance. A consequence which is inevitable in a socialist society.

Every dollar you add to the socialist “safety nets” is another dollar closer to pushing someone over their threshold (whatever that number may be) for saying “I’d rather sit on my ass and not work and make “this” much than work 40 hours a week at minimum wage and make “that” much.

 

I have watched this video in the past. He makes some very good points. The circular flow model of economics predicts that the productivity will be the highest when both legs of the circle, i.e. flows through businesses and households are matched. If one of them dominates over the other, the cycle slows down and economic growth stalls. That's exactly what is the outcome of outsized economic inequality, which is what we are seeing today.

Watch, however, the attacks on Hanauer start. He'll be painted as some do-gooder socialist who wants to convert us into Venezuela. Once you've been on this forum for a while, you've heard the brain-dead arguments over and over and over again.

 

Are yes, 'socialism', the cardinal sin that covers any state funded program you disagree with while conveniently ignoring all the ones you benefit from. State financed and/or publicly owned roads, utilities, emergency services and schools are OK. Any kind of State sponsored health care, welfare or industry subsidy your don't directly benefit from or aren't entitled to are 'bad'.

Reminds me of a businessman I met who decried Government taxation but was more than willing to sell his products to that same government for a nice profit!

 

No we live in a constitutional republic in which the government is required to do certain things. Have a military, protect the welfare and safety of citizens with a police force and emergency services.

Social safety nets for those who are INCAPABLE of providing for themselves should be allowed. Social safety nets for people who are capable and yet refuse to take care of themselves should not exist. We have welfare queens with multiple food stamp babies who don’t work and have no intention of doing so because they’re taken care of by the taxpayer.

 

You're not oppressed. Odds are you're in the top 1% of the world (if you live in America) - I'll save my concerns about inequality and unfairness and poverty (American 'poverty' is usually an oxymoron) for people in the third world who are actually oppressed.

What your kind are indeed is decadent - a group of people so spoiled by the luxuries of post-agrarian life that they make up oppressors in their head - that segment of a formerly successful society that gets the ball rolling back downhill. Because some people can't ever be content. I don't entirely blame your kind - it's a built in biological mechanism to act this way - it shows a gaping lack of self control and perspective though.

 

So exactly how so you propose operate the wheat from the chaff or if you prefer the sheep from the goats? Other than using mechanism's like means testing, data matching and time limits etc that Governments already use? The % of the population you claim could work but choose not to don't exactly have the words 'welfare cheat' tattooed on their foreheads. For that matter what % of the population receiving welfare do you think falls into that category (evidence expected)?

 

Nearly half the nation doesn't pay income tax - this makes it very likely they're a net cost/net outflow for the country. Somehow they turn a blind eye to their own lack of contribution towards the outstanding issue, instead pointing to those who are better of then them for the same sin. Classic resentment-driven politics but what's worse is there's no justification in the West/USA for such resentment towards the system that created such abundance

 

Please prove that.

 

How can it be fair to ignore equality and let government treat one person better than another?

I disagree strongly. The decline in standard of living for many people resulted from outsourcing which put American workers in competition with workers in other countries. The decline in purchasing power is thanks to federal government for printing money (increasing the money supply.) Printing money is the poster boy for regressing taxation.

There should be no tax breaks for anyone. As I said above the goal should be equality. Personally I would tax everyone on gross income at the same rate. I believe the result would accomplish your goals and, of course, be in line with the concept of equality. The rest of the post was simply an expansion of the quote above.

 

I almost agree with you on that last bit, but I would prefer the progressive tax code we had during the Eisenhower era. The rich paid a fair share, and the middle and working classes were greatly strengthened.

 

More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax

 

As you eluded to it’s difficult to say without spending a prohibitive amount of money on investigation. So I suggest (actually a stolen idea) a more of an all or nothing approach.

Tie government assistance to productivity and their vote. So at any time and for any reason you can choose to go on government assistance. You will receive housing, food stamps, healthcare and a basic income subsidy. You can’t have a job and you also lose your right to vote.

At any point however, you can choose to get a job and become productive again. You will lose all government assistance and after being employed for 2 years (negotiable), you regain your right to vote.

People with severe permanent disabilities would not lose their right to vote and those who lost their jobs due to circumstances out of their control will not lose their vote and be extended the government assistance for a period of time so that they can find a job and resume being productive members of society.

 

As soon as you say fair with government policy you abandon the concept of equality. I never agree with it. The reason the middle class was so strong in the Eisenhower days was that we hadn't yet started outsourcing everything and putting those people in competition with foreign workers. Globalism has been the cause of damage to the middle class. It is something we can fix and the fix has nothing at all to do with taxation.

I certainly agree that a strong middle class like we had in the 50's and 60's is more than desirable. I think it is critical. Let middle class Americans compete with Americans rather than Chinese, Mexicans, Vietnamese and Indonesians. The amount of American wealth we have exported over the years is staggering.

 

I think I agree with this. My question is, how can we eliminate the tax loopholes utilized by the ultra-wealthy? Are there any bills in Congress proposing this? Are there any candidates currently running for office in favor of this?

My fear is, although the non-wealthy populace would like these loopholes eliminated and the whole tax code simplified, no one in power is willing to implement such a change because it would have negative consequences on them and their donors. I think it goes back to the bigger problem of money controlling politics that affects many issues we currently face. Things are the way they are because those with wealth and power want it this way.