Understatement of the Year, or maybe of all time:
Candy Spelling: "It's too big a house for me."
She's moving to a smaller place, a 17,000 sq. ft. condo.
Yes, you caught me, this is actually a subtle argument for higher taxes on the rich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
FRED: Why do rich guys like you want to be taxed at a higher rate? I see no reason why the "achievers" and "productive" members of society should give more of their hard-earned (and well-deserved) money away to the government! After all, if it were not for the genius and entreapenurial abilities of the risk-takers, the wealth wouldn't trickle down to the non-achievers and non-productive such as myself. Indeed without the corporate leadership and foresight of great and powerful men, such as the CEO of Citigroup, many Americans would probably wind up selling shit on a stick (or apples). You really need to listen to guys like Rush Limbaugh, Shaun Hannity, Michael Medved, et. al. If you harnessed all of the hot air contained in their collective lungs, America's energy problem would be solved . . . .
Nodoby's taxing me at a higher rate! I'm way short of those benchmarks. May raise my dog fees though.
I have nothing against the rich, quite the opposite, I agree that were it not for the go-getters we'd still live in trees. Let them keep their money! At least half, at least.
There's nothing frightening about the rates from the Nineties. Remember 90% from when we were kids? Remember the Beatles? (one for me, nineteen for you). That shit was crazy.
Here's an amazing little stat: 10% of the population pays 72% of the income tax, while 40% of the population pays nothing. It's no wonder hard-working, affluent people are doing a mass exodus from New York City, Los Angeles, New Jersey, etc. I'm not worried about what the rich are paying; I'm more concerned about what we're paying, and it's a significant chunk out of each pay, each and every month. Then add the property, local and sales taxes and you're really sucking pond water. Oh, and by the way, good news: New Jersey's governor is not only pushing for in-state tuition for illegal aliens, but, what the heck, let's give them a driver's license, and some low cost loans as well. We have to go through a very long process of filling out the forms for federal and state financial aid for college tuition, knowing full well that we're not going to get any assistance. One final thought on the absolutely frightening government spending going on. We're being told it's a "stimulus" plan, when, in reality, it's nothing more than socialism and the beginning of nationalism. Having the government in the auto, banking and financial business would have the founding fathers passing out from acute apoplexy. Whose lousy idea was it to pass the 17th Amendment anyway? We need to get those mooching lifers out of there. The corruption is palpable and it stinks. The federal government is a runaway train. What an insult to the Navy, when someone says that the government is spending like a drunken sailor - excuse me, but sailors spend what they have and then head back to their bunks. They don't spend what they don't have. I thank the rich for their support and can't wait for the tax reductions this new administration has planned for us, those of us making under $250,000. I'll keep you posted.
FRED: YEAH! It could be worse! We could have been born in England! JEEZ! Could you imagine that? As an aside: I just received a very disturbing and frightening picture via my personnel E-mail. If the picture is, in fact, not a put-on, then I take back every mean and insensitive thing that I've said about a particular person that often posts comments on your blog. That's how disturbing the picture was and I mean that in all sincerity.
New York City, home of the famous triple tax! L.A., check out that "business tax!" New Jersey, don't they have an income tax, including a "commuter income tax," plus the highest property taxes in the nation? What, they think they're so special?
There's a fair solution out there somewhere. Vested interests and politics get in the way. As usual, I wish us all luck and pass along the hard work to others.
Here's a little stat: 5% of the population controls approximately 70% of the wealth in this country. Furthermore, in the past 25 years this group saw their incomes increase by 256%, while the poor and lower middle class saw thier incomes rise by 11%.(Real dollars adjusted for inflation).
Funny how payroll taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes don't get counted as paying income taxes.
Remember during the Regan years when supply siders argued that deficits don't matter? This group of people have spent the past 30 years lining their own pockets with excessive amounts of "unearned" income, and ran the national surplus into the ground by funding a useless war, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Now that there is a democrat in the Whitehouse, we are supposed to be concerned with taxing our children and grandchilderns future. Spare me the indignant bullshit!
"10% of the population pays 72% of the income tax, while 40% of the population pays nothing", anonymous.
Is this to say 90% of the population is... 'on da lamb'? 'homeless'? or that 1,930,618 people (one tenth the population of NY) are making over 250k per year (disgruntled under the new laws) paying seven cents on the dollar as per the existing laws giving New York a total of 34 billion per year? and if that's 72% of the income tax ( my math is surely flawed) means 100 percent of the income tax must be approximately 68 billion.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions! I'm certain that a few (very few) honorable law-makers had a hand in fashioning the present-day American federal tax statutes. And that those law- makers were genuinely concerned with maintaining a fair and equitable system of taxation. But I'm equally certain that there were (and are) many law-makers, that used their position of governmental power and influence to foster and nurture their own self-interests vis-a-vis their writing of federal tax statutes. There will never be a "fair system" of taxation in America, simply because no one can define a "fair system" of taxation. The definition would require an interminal(and therefore unresolved) debate among social scientists, philosophers, politicians, legal scholars, mathematicians, statisticians, et al. I will agree with the hard-right in this respect: The Federal Tax statutes are convoluted and in many cases absurd and they need to be revamped from scratch. And I will agree with the hard-left here, too: The federal tax statutes are inequitable and provide way too many loop-holes, financial safety-nets, and shelters, for those that never produced anything and never did an honest day's work throughout their entire lives.
Rory: I enjoyed reading your follow-up comments. Well thought out, level-headed and reasoned.
Nanute: Wow, I guess it's safe to say that you're a card-carrying liberal. I am very glad to be an independent. Your comments are right in line with the liberals' class warfare. Do you have a breakdown of that infamous 5%, as to liberal vs. conservative, or does that matter? For me, it doesn't matter. I'm just a hard-working guy that has enought to deal with, rather than be consumed with the wealthy. As for the deficit, the deficit generated during the Reagan years wouldn't even equal a rounding error in the current deficit. The free market system has been attacked by the Republicans and the Democrats alike. I don't care what party is in office, but you seem to dismiss this current spendarama because there is a Democrat in office. You're not concerned with taxing our children and grandchildrens future? Wow, sorry to hear that. Better bone up on your Mandarin.
In my attempt to keep the discourse here in a gentlemanly vein, I always try to keep my raging condescention concerning certain subjects in check, but suffice it to say that at this point in history America owes a greater debt to Liberalism than it does to the Founding Fathers. We are suffering now from the effects of the Reagan led culture war against Liberalism.
Maybe it would have been better if the hicks never got electricity in their homes (not cost effective), and we were all forced to provide the sole care for our impoverished parents until their premature deaths. Among other things. Maybe . . . in a (redacted's) eye.
Maybe some people will turn down Medicare when they turn 65; or reject Unemployment Compensation if they get laid off; and who needs vacations anyway?
FRED: Don't get mad at me! I'm just attempting to look at things from an independent point of view. No axe to grind here. I'll certainly agree with you that had it not been for "liberals", working conditions for the average American would be terrible and many of the conveniences that we take for granted (such as electric power) would not be as readily available and affordable. I see that you've got a new anonymous posting to your blog. Wonder if it really is a "new" anonymous . . . .
Anonymous:
I am very proud of the fact that I can be called a liberal. I don't take it as an insult, intended or otherwise. I'm not consumed with the wealthy. I'm a hard working, middle class guy. What I do take execption to, is the fact that the ruling class has this sense of entitlement where none is warranted. Just let the wealthy keep more of their money and the rest of us will get some table scraps, if we are lucky.
The attack on the "free market" by both parties as of late is specious at best, and very simple minded at worst. The reason why the current administration, and some on the Republican side are "intervening" in the market is a direct result of greedy, immoral and unregulated excess. The bankers and finance guys on Wall Street got all of the deregulation asked for. (With the help of the Clinton Administration, I might add). The result is these titans of industry and finance shit all over themselves, and now we are left to clean up the mess.
Repealing the Glass Stegal Act is probably the biggest mistake this country has made in the past 75 years. (The war in Iraq, the only possible exception).
I am very concerned about the debt being run up under the current circumstances. I think we'll just have to figure out a way of taking our money back from the crooks that stole it, without being accused of a socialist, redistrution of wealth, class warfare kind of guy.
I'm not a big fan of the government intervening in the "free market". Under the current circumstances, there wasn't much of an alternative. If you think it would have been a bette idea to let the large financial instituions fail, well the outcome of that notion is speculative. All indications are that we'd more than likely see another great depression, problably worse than the 29' crash, and much more global than the last one.
For the record: I'm not happy with the way the Obama administration is handling the banking crisis. Propping up institutions that are too big to fail, only perpetuates the too big to fail entity. Eventually, some of these institutions will be taken over by the government, or face liqudation in the "free market".
By the way, increasing the deficit to 6% of GDP (200 billion), by Regan in 81' is a bit more than a rounding error.
Best,
Nanute
Nanute, I would say that I couldn't have said it better myself except that I'm not sure what the Glas Stegal Act did. (Was that when they let insurance companies go into banking? and visa versa? That was a bad one).
I think that you agree: I'm not at war with anybody, but thinking that our less talented brethren have value is not a crime.
Rory: don't worry, you're on the good list. You may not agree with Liberalism in all its details, but you don't demonize it. We're cool.
But I am a little worried about your fixation with anonymous Interneters. It's part of the trip, we've just got to get used to it. Myself, I never post anonymously. If I'm afraid of being responsible, I don't post.
FRED: Call it a fixation or whatever you'd like. I have no problem with that! My problem is that there appears to be an awful lot of reasonably intelligent people out there that fail to read between the lines and, as a result, they often fail to grasp the true intent of anonymous postings. I believe that the recent anonymous poster to your blog is sincere in his or her beliefs and opinions and I don't believe that he or she intended to offend. With that said, I would really like to go onto a blog and see a name or an identity attached to every comment. Just as one would do when sending a letter to the editor of a newspaper or periodical. I'm really aghast at the millions of Americans that are afraid to sign their names to their comments. And let's face facts--they are afraid for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with privacy or receiving junk-mail or unsoliticed E-mails and the like. Those are just a few of the excuses. In fact I've got a guy on one of my CPNHB site that offered up some of those excuses when I asked why he didn't post his personal E-mail address on the site. The anonymous are just plain afraid of what others will think of them as a result of others reading their comments. I feel sorry for people that spend their days walking on egg-shells, looking over their shoulders, and worrying about what others think of them--and I believe that people like that could benefit from psychological counseling in one form or another. I enjoy the serious and informative nature of your postings, Fred, and I've learned alot from reading your comments. Keep at it!
Thanks Fred. You are partly correct in your assumptions about Glass Stegall. Probably more important is the fact that it prohibited investment banks from owning traditional commercial banking entities.The Act also created the FDIC as a result of the 29' crash. Thankfully, the repeal did not do away with the FDIC. Unfortunately, under the current financial debacle, more bank failures are putting a strain on the FDIC reserves to cover deposits.
The power brokers from Wall Street spent 300 million (not a rounding error), and 25 years trying to repeal the Act. Sandy Weill, CEO of Travellers Insurance, which owned Salamon Smith Barney brokerage, proposed a merger with Citi Bank prior to the repeal of the Act. With a loose interpretation of the Act by none other than Chairman Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve, the merger was permitted,as long as the new Citigroup divested itself of Travellers within 2 years of the merger. The lobbying pressure on the Republican led congress and the Clinton White House finally paid off with the repeal of the Act, under the influence of Phil Gramm in the Senate, and Bob Rubin as Clinton's Treasury Secretary in 98'. (I think that is the right year). The rest as they say, is history.
Thanks, Nanute. I am glad to have a blog-follower who is more detail oriented than I am.
Oh! That Phil Gramm! I cannot hear his name without blaspheming.
Post a Comment