You call me stupid. You claim I deny the facts. But the truth is that, when you say things like “THEY have done for government FAR MORE than government has done for them,” it is obvious that you do not have a very solid grasp of history, and it is you who are embracing falsehoods.

You also claim that

any inequality in the tax code is AGAINST the “super-rich.” They pay higher rates and pay far more of the overall burden than anyone else. This is, by definition, unequal.

This is called progressive taxation, which is present in nearly all tax systems in the world. Even Adam Smith embraced progressive taxation, when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

And, as I’ve pointed out, nearly all of the income gains for the past 30 years have gone straight to the top, so it is little wonder they are paying “more of the overall burden,” especially compared to those classes whose incomes haven’t even kept up with inflation.

In the book I cited above, David Cay Johnston (2003), the former tax reporter with The New York Times for thirteen years, put it this way:

The economic changes remaking our world are affecting all of us from the blue-collar workers whose wages have been falling for the past three decades to the investment bankers whose incomes have soared along with their clients’ assets. The response of our elected leaders has been to adjust the tax system to shift the tax burdens onto those with good incomes and little political power.

The clear trend in America for the past two decades has been to cut taxes on the rich and to raise taxes on those in the middle class and the upper class to make up part of the difference (p. 307).

He also considers social security taxes and notes that

A tax rate structure that falls too heavily on most Americans and lets the most prosperous save more means that over time the already huge gap in wealth will widen even more.

The income tax is collected only against reported income–and therein lies the real issue about our tax system. The rich have myriad ways to avoid recognizing income for tax purposes (p. 308).

And, as Davesix points out, most of this is perfectly legal, and why not? The super-rich have an undue influence over public policy in the U.S.

As Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said last year:

And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.

Republican politicians know where power lies in America, and when it has come to tax policy, they’ve given the super-rich preferential treatment. Indeed, Republicans have given the power elite nearly everything they’ve wanted, and why not? Their lobbyists vastly outnumber our Congressional representatives, the bulk of campaign contributions come from the top, the super-rich craft policy in the think tanks that they fund, and they’ve convinced conservative voters to actively push elite interests. Even Davesix believes that “The taxpayers in the highest brackets, have high incomes, but are, for the most part, not rich.”

I guess he doesn’t know much about the super-rich who comprise the power elite. I guess he hasn’t seen their mansions, flown on their private planes, or sipped their champagne. Way back in 1976, Collier and Horowitz reported that David Rockefeller owned 85 fully-staffed mansions around the world, where the linens were pulled down every night in each master bedroom, because they never knew when the boss might show up. Heck, they even pay Rush Limbaugh $400 million a year to spout their propaganda, while he’s nothing more than a demagogic talk radio host.

During the past presidential election, the propagandists had middle and upper class conservative voters fearful that Obama was going to “re-distribute their income.” A friend of mine, who is a staunch Republican with a six-figure income, told me in 2008 that his greatest fear about an Obama presidency was that the government would confiscate his income and re-distribute it to the poor, “who are obviously that way, because they are too lazy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Of course, as any serious student of social stratification and economic history knows, most of these propaganda messages are a load of hooey.

My conservative friend makes a lot of money, lives in a very large house in a smart suburb, owns three cars, vacations overseas, and yet he is nowhere near being a member of the super-rich. In fact, he merely works for them in the oil and gas industry.

The truth is that members of the power elite rarely appear in our media, and the average American knows nothing about them, which of course, is just what they want. Instead of believing what you hear from right-wing media or conservative think tanks, both you and Davesix would do well to read the books I previously cited.

I never advocated limiting peoples’ right of assembly, so why would you suggest such a thing?

You misquoted me, Todd.

You said you want to take away their money so they won’t have that sort of power.

No I didn’t.

That is EXACTLY what you said! You said you wanted to raise taxes, in part, to fight against “income inequality.” Then you said, “There are many arguments against inequality, but I am concerned that the elite enjoy too great an influence over our political affairs, compared to other classes.”

Oh, horsepucky. Increasing the tax rate for the top income earners by another 3 percentage points isn’t going to “tear them down.”

Again: you’re arguing against undeniable facts, Todd. It will “tear them down” at a marginal rate of precisely 4.6 percentage points. How can you argue otherwise?

In fact, after all the government has done for them, I think paying the higher rate is the least they could do.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, THEY have done for government FAR MORE than government has done for them.

our current tax laws unfairly benefit the super-rich at everyone else’s expense

You’re denying the facts. Half the country pays NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL, and everyone else pays less than they did before. What mythical “expense” are you referring to? And how is paying a much higher percentage, and a continually much higher portion of the whole, an “unfair benefit”?

You’re just making things up, Todd. I know it sounds nice and makes you feel good to say that, but it’s just flatly contradictory of the facts.

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would only be a minor first step in the direction of a more equitable tax code

Except, of course, that the facts prove that any inequality in the tax code is AGAINST the “super-rich.” They pay higher rates and pay far more of the overall burden than anyone else. This is, by definition, unequal.

Not that I will shed a tear for them, but to pretend that the majority of the country that is paying no federal income tax at all is somehow getting “the shaft” because the rich is not taxed even more … it’s just plain stupid.

Would you be happy then?

While these energetic people bust their butts working to make money, the truly rich work to shelter their income from any kind of taxation. They do it very successfully. The truly rich don’t work for wages, do they? They invest in tax-sheltered instruments of various kinds, all perfectly legal. The ’shelter’ features of those investments have a public purpose, which is to reduce the cost of debt for government entities. Perhaps you’d like to change that?

Nothing that you’ve proposed would tax the rich.

What it would do is reduce employment and suppress capital formation.

Read this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html

“Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues. ”

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President

pudge Says:
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:13 PM

not take away the liberty of people to band together into groups

I never advocated limiting peoples’ right of assembly, so why would you suggest such a thing?

You said you want to take away their money so they won’t have that sort of power.

No I didn’t. I said we should repeal the Bush tax cuts to help alleviate our deficits.

That is precisely what it does, in fact

Oh, horsepucky. Increasing the tax rate for the top income earners by another 3 percentage points isn’t going to “tear them down.” In fact, after all the government has done for them, I think paying the higher rate is the least they could do.

it makes you feel some sense of justice because you stuck it to The Man.

That’s just silly talk.

Just like many other government policies, our current tax laws unfairly benefit the super-rich at everyone else’s expense. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would only be a minor first step in the direction of a more equitable tax code, which in my opinion, is sorely needed in this country.

The truth is that big business has long used government to secure favorable regulatory environments, suppress competition, ensure quazi-monopolistic pricing, and gain unfair access to public resources and the public purse.

Yes. You are not disagreeing with me.

Big business interests have also frequently used government to exploit the working class, fleece consumers, corrupt politicians, and engage in fraud, deception, and misrepresentation.

Exactly. So the problem is GOVERNMENT. Thank you for agreeing with me!

Indeed, without collusion with politicians and government protection from free-market competition, big business oligopolies would be unable to compete with more efficient, more agile, and more responsive smaller businesses.

You’re just giving conservative talking points now, Todd!

The concentration of economic power in the hands of persons controlling our largest corporations has also long been used to unduly influence government trade policy, tax policy, labor policy, environmental policy, and foreign policy through lobbying, the formation of policy planning groups, and even outright bribery.

Yep. The hands of those people at our largest corporations like Chevron and SEIU!

Indeed, the history of modern capitalism for at least the past 120 years shows how private interests have repeatedly usurped government …

No, in fact, you’ve made the opposite case. You’ve made the case for collusion, not usurpation. Very different.

That said: mostly yes, and the problem is to fix it so Chevron and SEIU cannot control government, not take away the liberty of people to band together into groups with their own money. That is a fundamental evil.

Who said anything about getting rid of the elite?

You said you want to take away their money so they won’t have that sort of power. What else could you have meant?

And, increasing their tax rates by 3% is NOT going to “tear them down directly.”

That is precisely what it does, in fact. Perhaps you thought I meant it would ruin them or make them poor or middle class or something. No, I mean it will tear them down by about … three percent. Well, more, since you’re wrong, it’s not a three percent tax increase, it’s about a 10 percent tax increase, but three percentage points. (Though you probably meant that.)

All I want is to level the playing field with fair and equitable policies

Then — again — you’re going about it completely the wrong way. Raising taxes obviously is not fair or equitable (it’s the opposite: you are treating rich people differently, worse, than everyone else), and it results in no increase in fairness or equality. At most it makes you feel some sense of justice because you stuck it to The Man.

so the elite do not have an undue influence over our government, compared to the people

But you argued the opposite: you said this will hardly affect the “elite.” It’s only three percentage points, after all.

And, I want the elite to pay their fair share.

As proven beyond any doubt, they already pay far more than their fair share.

We need to term limit all national incumbents and for any of those who will be newly elected, let’s make it well known that to do the bidding of the special interest over WE THE PEOPLE will get you term limited too!

To say one has not been as bad as the other is to say bad is not bad!

AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!

Big business interests and the power elite do not care all that much about political parties these days; they use Republicans and Democrats with nearly equal aplomb and ease. However, there is little doubt that, historically, the Republican Party has been far more closely allied with corporate interests, whereas the Democrats have far more often championed the interests of labor, the working class, and the poor. Of course, this is especially true of more progressive social democrats than Blue Dogs or so-called “moderates.”

As for contemporary personalities who serve the same function once reserved for the likes of Howard Hughes, media portrayals of the nouveau riche and ostentatious displays of wealth have more to do with perpetuating a myth of upward mobility and very little to do with the exercise of raw political power, which more often than not, happens completely outside of the peoples’ awareness.

Tedd: There was no smoke or fire, it was a suicide attempt and they used the ladder to talk the young woman down.

Chrispy: Oh please, you gave not a single shred of evidence that there was even a truck let alone it’s color, if it was daylight, the siren probably didn’t even work on that old truck and besides, I could care less what you tell me Tedd. I care about what I think about me and what I say is true. Once again you’re making things up.

Chrispy: You’re wrong Tedd. It’s not broad daylight. Daylight can’t be broad only bright.

And since you think it is broad daylight, maybe it is really dark, since you say nothing of brightness.

And you’re just as wrong about it as you can be that because it’s a firetruck it is red. Some are yellow.

Are you sure you’re not confusing red with yellow. I think you mean yellow. You’re just wrong as usual, and stupid too.

You really mean yellow.

Tedd: Quit putting words in my mouth. It is red. It is daylight. It is a firetruck and now the siren is screaming…

Chrispy: I never put words in your mouth. I only said maybe it could be yellow, since some are you know.

But I’m still not sure you can discern daylight. You know red looks black in the dark.

Maybe it was early daylight, almost dark and of course anyone’s perceptions would be hindered by the dark.

Also what kind of siren. Maybe it isn’t a siren at all. Maybe it’s an alarm. There is a difference.

I think you mean it sounds like a siren, but it probably is an alarm since what would a liberal know about a siren.

It’s too bad you just keep resorting to half truths. You don’t know if it is early, daylight, dark, light, yellow, red or anything.

You have not scored any points in this debate my friend. I’m right, you’re wrong. Usually happens that way.

Tedd: They’re getting out a ladder now and hoses and one fireman is going up the ladder to rescue a woman.

Chrispy: How do you know it’s a woman. it could be a man dressed as a woman. It could be a small boy or a cross dresser.

As usual you are resorting to assumption to further you’re argument and once more you are wrong.

Tedd: It says station three on the side and so do the other trucks surrounding it.

Chrispy: Maybe you should pay attention to me and quit relying on your lying eyes. So now it’s other trucks, but you don’t say if they are fire trucks or dump trucks. You also didn’t mention them before. So I think you just made that up. You said there was Just the one vehicle and you didn’t know if it was red or yellow, if it was daylight or dark or if it had a siren or if a car alarm was going off nearby and you mistook it for this vehicle. Nothing yo say makes any sense, you have not changed my mind in any way and you will always be wrong. Nice try.

Tedd, you are just wrong again. Why don’t you try reading up on Federalist 69. it’s hard to read but it’s everything to me.

A CASUAL OBSERVER MIGHT CONCLUDE WHAT IS THE FIBRILLATING POINT!

“If the Republicans would have won in 2008, they would not have been able to do what President Obama has accomplished, simply because it would have looked like the Corporate Takeover of the Century.

AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the list goes on and on.

The Housing Crisis was manufactured by the Conglomerate Banks – and the two biggest still survive – Bank of America and Wells Fargo – which combined, own approximately 70% of the outstanding bad asset loans.

Now, all of the banks that paid back the FAKE TARP money – can LEGALLY give huge bonuses to their top echelon banking elite. Hundreds of millions of dollars – TAXPAYER dollars – in the form of salaries, bonuses and future stock options are being paid out….

Warren Buffet, the richest man in the WORLD, is an Obama supporter.

Bill Gates, the second richest man in the WORLD, is an Obama supporter – and heavy contributor.

George Soros, one of the richest men in the world, is an Obama supporter – and heavy contributor. It has just been RUMORED that he has a very large stake in an oil drilling consortium off the coast of Brazil, that has received money from the US government – TAXPAYER MONEY.

These are not Republican fat cats. They are Democrats.

http://www.theamericantelegraph.com/?p=272&utm_source=The+American+Telegraph+List&utm_campaign=2f145a7921-Edition_24&utm_medium=email

AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!

pudge Says:
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:40 AM

I think we need . . . a smaller government in both scope and size. This is the way to make all of us freer.

Republicans have been promising us “a smaller government in both scope and size,” ever since Reagan said he’d get an intrusive government off our backs. But, instead of getting government off the backs of small businesses or average Americans, he actually expanded government, weakened unions, increased military spending, gutted environmental regulations, and freed the financial sector to run rough shod all over American consumers. Republicans also doctored the tax code to unfairly benefit the super-rich, at everyone else’s expense, and they instituted a set of policies that have dramatically increased economic inequality in the United States. Of course, they did all of this while waving the flag and chanting mantras to liberty and freedom. Well, I ain’t buying it anymore.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/936893/how_to_avoid_an_argument_with_someone.html?cat=4