home

Let Them Eat Cake

Matt Yglesias points to a great article by Louis Uchitelle in the NYTimes about our new Gilded Age tycoons and how they "earned it." I agree with Matt on the key quotes:

The Question of Talent

Other very wealthy men in the new Gilded Age talk of themselves as having a flair for business not unlike Derek Jeter’s “unique talent” for baseball, as Leo J. Hindery Jr. put it. “I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career,” Mr. Hindery said, “who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.”

He counts himself as a talented entrepreneur, having assembled from scratch a cable television sports network, the YES Network, that he sold in 1999 for $200 million. “Jeter makes an unbelievable amount of money,” said Mr. Hindery, who now manages a private equity fund, “but you look at him and you say, ‘Wow, I cannot find another ballplayer with that same set of skills.’ ”

A handful of critics among the new elite, or close to it, are scornful of such self-appraisal. “I don’t see a relationship between the extremes of income now and the performance of the economy,” Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve Board chairman, said in an interview, challenging the contentions of the very rich that they are, more than others, the driving force of a robust economy.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hindery seems to believe he benefitted not at all from anything the government and society provided him, from infrastructure, to legal recourse, to customers who could afford what he was selling. All hail the great Hindery! Let the rest eat cake. More.

Paul Volcker, a man whose achievements dwarf those of Hindery, is of course much more attuned to reality. See also some surprising pther "great men" who agree with Volcker:

“The market did not go up because businessmen got so much smarter,” he said, adding that the 1950s and 1960s, which the new tycoons denigrate as bureaucratic and uninspiring, “were very good economic times and no one was making what they are making now.”

James D. Sinegal, chief executive of Costco, the discount retailer, echoes that sentiment. “Obscene salaries send the wrong message through a company,” he said. “The message is that all brilliance emanates from the top; that the worker on the floor of the store or the factory is insignificant.”

A legendary chief executive from an earlier era is similarly critical. He is Robert L. Crandall, 71, who as president and then chairman and chief executive, led American Airlines through the early years of deregulation and pioneered the development of the hub-and-spoke system for managing airline routes. He retired in 1997, never having made more than $5 million a year, in the days before upper-end incomes really took off.

He is speaking out now, he said, because he no longer has to worry that his “radical views” might damage the reputation of American or that of the companies he served until recently as a director. The nation’s corporate chiefs would be living far less affluent lives, Mr. Crandall said, if fate had put them in, say, Uzbekistan instead of the United States, “where they are the beneficiaries of a market system that rewards a few people in extraordinary ways and leaves others behind.”

“The way our society equalizes incomes,” he argued, “is through much higher taxes than we have today. There is no other way.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Levelling used to be a virtue in America. The lionization of the CEO and Corporate America that began to occur in earnest in the Media in the 80s has helped turn it into a vice.

This is a serious problerm that our country has not come to grips with in a serious way - mostly I think because of the Iraq Debacle, which has crowded out all other major issues. But days of reckoning approach. Warren Buffet said:

This is a significantly richer country than 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago,” he declared, backing his assertion with a favorite statistic. The national income, divided by the population, is a very abundant $45,000 per capita, he said, a number that reflects an affluent nation but also obscures the lopsided income distribution intertwined with the prosperity. “Society should place an initial emphasis on abundance,” Mr. Buffett argued, but “then should continuously strive” to redistribute the abundance more equitably.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think what Buffet is missing is that the two have gone hand in hand in America throughout its history

< What About The Spending Power? | Webb v. Graham >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Tom Frank wrote an excellent book (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    before What's the Matter with Kansas called One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy. Inside is the best excoriation of Tom Friedman I've ever seen. It's worth reading.

    jim (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:55:21 AM EST
    you asked for a link, with regards to taxes as an issue:

    www.irs.gov

    check out the internal revenue code, assuming you can read it. in it are phenomanel breaks for the wealthy (15% rate for unearned income vs. 35% rate for earned income), all you need do is look.

    you do know how to look, don't you? you just open your eyes and read.

    snark snark (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    The same 15% is enjoyed by those who worked, paid taxes on their savings and then used the remainder to invest.

    To call the income "unearned" is grossly incorrect.

    "Delayed income" would be an accurate description.

    Parent

    Obvious flaw in the system (none / 0) (#2)
    by Al on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    Unregulated capitalism promotes and rewards greed.

    And not only do the greedy get to be obscenely rich, but also with their riches they can buy political power, which means among other things that they can buy the media, they can buy the Congress, they can even buy armies and direct them to make wars. I can't think of much purer examples of a plutocracy than the United States.

    Interlocking corporate boards (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    make it as close to a rigged game as possible.

    The next question is why people like Buffet and Volker adress this greed and rapaciousness melt-down more directly than Hillary, Obama and Co -- we dont expect the pathetic Shrub to -- ever will.

    Check this out as to Clinton: (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    oculus (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    Please read the site guidelines and format your links.

    Regards,

    Sailor

    Parent

    Best I can manage at present: (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:52:54 AM EST
    Headline and first paragraph:

    Clinton Backs Higher Taxes for Investment Firm Managers

    By STEPHEN LABATON
    Published: July 14, 2007
    WASHINGTON, July 13 -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday became the latest Democratic presidential candidate to support efforts to raise tax rates for private equity and hedge fund managers.

    Parent

    To post a link in a comment (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:48:37 AM EST
    Type a word or words e.g. Clinton Backs Higher Taxes for Investment Firm Managers

    Highlight the word, click the link button (the little chain thingy above the comment box) and type or paste in the url and click OK. Use preview to make sure it works before you post.

    You'll end up with Clinton Backs Higher Taxes for Investment Firm Managers

    Parent

    Thanks. My method works in (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    preview, but, then, I have TimesSelect.  I'll try your method next time.

    Parent
    You're welcome (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    It won't get past subscription walls, however. But you can always quote a little more of an article that is behind a wall.

    Parent
    Always good for some firewarks. Why not. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:25:40 PM EST
    Whatever (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:33:13 PM EST
    warks for you. ;-)

    Parent
    False Comparison (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    ""The market did not go up because businessmen got so much smarter," he said, adding that the 1950s and 1960s, which the new tycoons denigrate as bureaucratic and uninspiring, "were very good economic times and no one was making what they are making now." "

    Bear in mind that the 50's and 60's were an easier time for the US - the rest of the planet's advanced economies were still coming back from the ashes of WWII.  

    That's no longer true, and nothing like it will be true again, anytime soon.

    Reason to subscribe to NY Times: (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    The article, which is on page 1, is accompanied by a very large color photo above the fold.  Here's the caption:  Sanford I. Weill, below, chairman of Carnegie Hall, sees similarities between his life and that of the hall's first patron, right.  

    Weill is pictured standing in Carnegie Hall's opulent interior.  Quite striking.

    The economy is great! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:47:44 PM EST
    The stock market is booming, unemployment is at record lows our standard of living is unprecedented in human history but yet the boo birds have to find something to complain about.

    I guess class warfare is getting harder and harder BTD.

    Yes there are abuses but the overal eqaution is good for everyone.

    If the dem's takeover these people aren't going to stop being rich.   They simply will stop contributing as much to the rest of us as they are right now.    The so called "tax breaks for the rich" have resulted in the rich making more money and giving more money to the government.  

    Enough with the class envy.   If people break the laws put them in jail but this theme of class envy is ridiculous.

    How do explain the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    close to fifty percent increase in foreclosures, Slado?

    Yeah, "the economy is great!" (trans: Rush told me).

    If the fact that the affluent are getting huge tax breaks and allowed to move their business adresses offshore during a time of "national sacrifice" and while predominantly working class kids are getting blown to pieces isnt a kind of class warfare, I dont know what is.

    Just keep sayin' yazza boss.

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    A large amount of foreclosures are caused by lenders making marginal loans, the same reason that so many people are going bottoms up because of credit card debt.

    Combine the CC debt load and the ARM jumping a couple of hundred bucks and the borrower gets in trouble. Increases in real estate taxes to pay for the new schools needed by the new subdivisions and the downward spiral becomes worse.

    As for the "huge tax breaks" I find that silly. Can you tell us what they are??

    Parent

    Lenders making marginal loans? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    Wingnuts cheating and taking advantage of people.

    Greed is good. Greed is RIGHT!!!

    Screw everyone else - I got mine!

    Parent

    Why, here they are (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:41:18 PM EST
    You're not going to get an argument from me. Go back and read my comment.

    Your problem is that you think a definition of the problem is a defense.

    The issue gets back to personal responsibility, and how much leeway should society give the "sellers" to bamboozle the "buyers."

    But let's not forget that the "buyers" wanted to be bamboozled.

    I confess I don't have an answer. People were rich in 1929 until the ballon popped. People were rich in 2000 until the balloned popped.

    Parent

    troll (none / 0) (#75)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:25:35 PM EST
    definition of a troll:
    You're not going to get an argument from me. Go back and read my comment.
    I read your comment, it was this:
    As for the "huge tax breaks" I find that silly. Can you tell us what they are??


    Parent
    Well, can you? (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    jondee (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    Well, if you can't tell us what the problems are, I understand.

    Like edger you are a complainer, with no solutions.

    Parent

    How's the market for blinders these days? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:51:16 PM EST
    Did you have a point? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    The economy isn't great?

    Parent
    If you just look at the shiny paint, it's great. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    What's not great about it? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:59:33 PM EST
    Again I ask?

    Parent
    It's wonderful. Just look around you. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    Poverty in America Project
    Recent Census estimates reveal that the population percentage considered severely poor has reached a 32-year high. Between 2000 and 2005, the percent living at half of poverty-level income increased by 26%.
    ...
    The abjectly poor in America are individuals living on $5,250 a year. For a family of three, two adults and a child, the level of income is $6,922; for a family of four, $10,222.

    You Must Be Mad Or You Wouldn't Have Come Here

    One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years? What shall we do for an encore... shoot for $100 trillion?.

    The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our combined federal deficits now total more than 400% of GDP.

    That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare.

    Christ, if it got any better it would be intolerable, slado.

    Parent
    Good thing revenue is up? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    Yes we know Fox reports "the good news" (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    Slado.

    The entire premise that you're using is classic, text book, voodoo economics, i.e., if the investor class is "doing great" than the economy "is great", "all boats rise" (demonstrably wrong) etc

    The answer is, as it has always been, "it's a good thing" for a diminishing number it's a good thing for. Now all you have to do is explain how this economy thing, that's doing great, relates to the Shrub approval rating.

    Im sure Fox can supply your answer.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:02:47 PM EST
    The "shrub's" approval rating sucks because of Iraq.

    If he hadn't gone into Iraq he'd be riding a Clinton economy boom right now but he did.

    The economy is still great no matter what the doomsday democrats whould have you believe.

    Are you in the market?  If you are you aren't complaining.

    Parent

    I got mine screw eveyone else? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:13:27 PM EST
    About sums up your attitude, slado.

    Parent
    wrong as always (none / 0) (#88)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:10:19 PM EST
    If he hadn't gone into Iraq he'd be riding a Clinton economy boom right now but he did.
    no, he trashed the greatest deficit in history before he invaded iraq.

    BTW, the stockmarket having record high trading is a sign of instability, not money. The stock market still hasn't recovered from bush.

    Parent

    But what the hell. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    Will work for food
    Will die for oil
    Will kill for power and to us the spoils
    The billionaires get to pay less tax
    The working poor get to fall through the cracks
    Let 'em eat jellybeans let 'em eat cake
    Let 'em eat sh*t, whatever it takes
    They can join the Air Force, or join the Corps
    If they can't make it here anymore

    Parent
    Poor? (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:23:58 PM EST
    Let's define poor before we get all fussy about the statistics.

    Brazil, Mexico and Africa poor is poor.

    Parent

    Like I asked you. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:29:45 PM EST
    How's the market for blinders these days?
    The abjectly poor in America are individuals living on $5,250 a year.
    Care to try it? Or do you have a family?
    For a family of three, two adults and a child, the level of income is $6,922; for a family of four, $10,222.
    Or do you just want to brush it off again?

    Parent
    To start an actual debate... (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    What are you proposed solutions Edgar?

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    Edger

    Parent
    Well, since I'm not an economist (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    I'll continue doing what I've been doing all along.

    My best to eliminate the root causes by utterly marginalizing and turing into pariahs that nobody will listen too except when they are entering a plea to a court and begging for mercy the people who create the problems by holding and spreading the wingnut mindset of "I got mine - screw everyone else".

    Once the wingnuts are reduced to ineffectual nothings and the goverment is reduced to something you'll need a microscope to find, I have faith in peoples ability to take care of themselves quite well.

    What's your plan? Besides telling yourself how wonderful everything is, I mean?

    Parent

    Slado (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    Shorter

    Edger is a complainer, not a fixer.

    Don't expect him to have solutions. Aint his job, man.

    Parent

    You know my solution, ppj. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    Eliminate the problems. Dig up and destroy the root.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:30:50 PM EST
    Your threat to my personal safety is noted.

    Now. Do you have any soultions that you would care to share??

    Parent

    WTF (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    Threat to his personal safety??????

    Bedwetter central aka the 101st keyboard kommandos.

    Parent

    You're welcome. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    Don't forget to check under the bed and put the dresser in front of the closet before you try to sleep. Sweet dreams. I don't think they eat cake.

    Parent
    I'll see your Brazil, Mexico and Africa (none / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:02:34 AM EST
    and raise you Alabama.

    Parent
    What's... (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    wrong with Alabama?

    Parent
    Have (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    a look. Be prepared though.

    Parent
    The economy isn't great (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:54:47 PM EST
    disparity in wages at an all time high. Foreclosures at an all time high. Deficit at an all time high.

    Parent
    True... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    But aren't foreclosure at a high because people thought the housing boom would never end and got upsidedown with their mortgages or second mortgage?

    Isn't this a sign of a culture credit everything and also people rely to much on credit as opposed to a society where life isn't fair to the poor?

    Also I agree the deficit is too high but it's all from your prespective.   If we cut spending and the neverending entitlement programs we'll be fine.

    Unfortuantely neither party is ready to do that.

    Parent

    Yep. It's all their own fault, slado. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    At some point (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:13:06 PM EST
    it is their fault.

    If you can't manage a budget then it's your fault.

    At what point does personal responsibility play into this when this country rewards hard work?

    Obvioulsy bad things happen to good hard working people and that is what welfare and unemployment are for.

    Parent

    Rewards (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    come to those who work hard and those who attempt to cheat the system get punished. Thats the theory.

    As far as foreclosures, there was a risk inherent in those loans made to risky borrowers. These large banks now have to pay for these foreclosures. That hurts the overall economy. What will likely happen is that these banks who made the risky loans will appeal to the government for some relief. These banks made billions during the housing boom and their CEO's were rewarded handsomely. What makes the economy work effectively is if these same Banks will have to now pay for their bad investments. It is unlikely they will pay the whole cost though, since they have the connections to change laws and get relief from the gov't. The CEO's who were rewarded for the profitable years will now be rewarded again for savign the banks through gov't welfare. That's how rewards and punishments work in our market economy.

    The problem is our economy cannot afford for all these banks to fail at once, so the gov't steps in. Perhaps they have too. But this only feeds the system which always rewards these large risk takers - even when they fail.

    Parent

    The banks lobbied and got the law changed (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:23:04 PM EST
    As far as foreclosures, there was a risk inherent in those loans made to risky borrowers. These large banks now have to pay for these foreclosures. That hurts the overall economy.
    uhhh, no. These large banks now own property. and they don't have to pay $hit. The new bankruptcy laws allow then to not only own the property but to go after the children of the folks who were subject to the predatory lending practices passed by the rethuglicans.

    The economy was damaged by bush being 'elected.' But 'damage' is a relative term, rich folk have done extremely well, poor folk just got f**ked again.

    Parent

    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:56:35 PM EST
    but to go after the children of the folks

    Could we have a link?? I want to find out how a minor can enter into a contract..among other things.

    Parent

    As everyone else and Jeralyn is aware ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:21:06 PM EST
    ... you contribute nothing but off topic and personal attacks to this site.

    The links were provided over and over, including on this thread.

    Your question is dishonest, and after all the crowing you have done about how bush's economic policies have benefited you, you still complain that NHC doesn't relieve you of your financial medical burdens IRT your family.

    You've made your bed, now watch your family die in it.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    I still can't find the link that supports your claim that a bank can enter into a contract with a minor.

    Or how how a bank can sue a minor for the actions of the parents..

    Until you provide same I'll just file it under "Sailor's Urban Legends."

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:15:53 AM EST
    I know,

    I was speaking from a point of a just world where punishments and rewards are applied equally across the board. Slado was arguing that people should be held accountable for their actions. I was pointing out that we don't hold the same standards for everyone and Banks and the investors who made those loans would be bailed out. You need to read my entire comment and not pick out quotes that were intended to point to a fallacy. Perhaps, my writing was not clear. My point is in agreement with yours, however on banks. My point on responsibility is in agreement with Slado, provided we extend the same responsibility to everyone and don't hold double standards.

    Parent

    Sorry Peaches (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:32:59 AM EST
    I did read the whole comment, and I wasn't clear on your meaning.

    Parent
    of course! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    They just have to manage a budget! Gosh, why didn't they think of that when their kid got sick, when repubs stymied the minimum wage bill, when bush gave all those tax cuts to millionaires and took the largest surplus to the largest deficit in record time, when repubs corrupted school loans and gutted college grants ... but most of all, why didn't they think of it when they were choosing their parents!

    Parent
    At what point (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    does personal responsibility play into this when this country rewards hard work?

    At about the same point the country stops rewarding screwing people and rewards hard work instead.

    Parent

    Fair Taxes (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    The right wing rag the NYT's has a great article aobut taxes.

    who's overpaid (none / 0) (#18)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    And I suppose certain highly paid trial lawyers and law firm partners have a "unique talent" which justifies their pay?

    Ask Scooter (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:52:41 PM EST
    edger (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    Based on results his answer might surprise you.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    I don't think so. Scooter is (was, he's had his license lifted) now) a lawyer.

    And he had unique wingnut talents that got him a commutation.

    Probably has sore knees too.

    Parent

    Welfare queens..... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:50:28 AM EST
    if you ask me.

    Take the YES Network guy...without taxpayer funded sport stadiums and infrastructure, his network would have had no programing to air. Take GDub, the Texas Rangers increased in value due to a government handout ballpark.  

    I wish they had the self respect to get off the dole, or at least admit their wealth is due, in part, to government handouts.

    If you want fairness (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    in taxes then the real deal is one of two things.

    1. A national sales tax, or

    2. A flat tax.

    A flat tax appeals to me. Let's give everybody a "x" deduction and then tax the remainder at the same rate.

    Of course most of the Left and many others don't want fairness. They want someone else to pay for the things they want. They especially want to use someone else's money to give to someone else...

    Twelve million a day (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    for religious settlements notwithstanding..

    Senile old cold warriors who dont mind tens of billions in "defense" as long as it goes from the tax payers into the right pockets.

    Parent

    Speaking of wanting "someone else" (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:13:28 PM EST
    to pay for the things you want, seems like ppj and the rest of the Far Right have had it pretty their way the last few years. But, some can never get enough of a good thing I guess.

    Parent
    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    Well, tell me what these things are??

    Are you gonna be another edger? Complaints but no solutions??

    Parent

    Interesting - Got links?? (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    Right (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    edger continues to complain, (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:51:36 PM EST
    but has no solutions.

    I mean his idea of a "solution" is to provide a link to Google.

    Way to go edger!!

    That's really helpful, don't you know!!

    Parent

    Well, things don't sink into you (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    when I do the work for you, ppj. So I gave you the tool you need to do the job yourself like big people do. Is it too complicated for you?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:41:56 PM EST
    What you do is demostrate to everyone that you have nothing to add. Your total input is "Bush bad" no matter the subject.

    I'll give you the last word becase you haven't said anything worth responding to.

    Parent

    That's ok, ppj (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:22:09 AM EST
    You can have the last words.

    You know you just can't help yourself.

    Parent

    "I took the W off my car today," (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:25:04 PM EST
    And it was a Volks Wagon.

    Parent
    Of course... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    As my link shows we have a very progressive system and rich people pay their "fair" share.

    What democrats really want is for them to pay more then their share and not only more way more.

    When you see taxing the rich as unrealated to how well the economy preforms or the economy as static you don't realize that there is a limit to taxing the rich.   Unfortunately it takes the Carter's of the world to figure this out and the JFK's and Reagans to fix it.


    Parent

    slado (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    The problem is defining "fair."

    I always thought it was fair for me to get a deduction for the interest paid on my home mortage.

    People who don't own a home probably think otherwise.

    People with children in public schools probably think real estate taxes paying for schools is fair. My children are out of school and my grandchildren are in private schools. So I think that we need vouchers for the school rather than direct dollars from the state...

    I paid taxes on the social Security money the government kept, and now pay taxes again on (at least) part of it...  I paid taxes on the interst earned on the money I saved to buy stocks with, and now they want me to pay taxes on the gains..

    etc., etc....

    Currently a family of 4 pay no FIT on approximately $38,000 are less... Some people get money back who have paid nothing in...

    It all depends on whose ox is being algored...oops.... gored.

    Parent

    everyone benefits from an educated populace (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:05:59 PM EST
    People with children in public schools probably think real estate taxes paying for schools is fair. My children are out of school and my grandchildren are in private schools.
    Ahh, the old 'I got mine screw you jack' approach.

    What would be fair is to distribute the property taxes evenly around the state/nation so that poor people get the same education as better off neighborhoods.

    Parent

    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:46:44 PM EST
    I understand the argument and am all for education. I just want the taxes to be distributed more fairly.

    You are for fairness, aren't you??

    BTW - This is what I wrote:

    So I think that we need vouchers for the school rather than direct dollars from the state...

    That would:

    What would be fair is to distribute the property taxes evenly around the state/nation so that poor people get the same education as better off neighborhoods
    .

    Gasp. We agree.

    Divide the money and let the parents give it to the school of their choice.


    Parent

    have you stopped beating your wife? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:33:34 PM EST
    You are for fairness, aren't you??
    Yes, but you aren't.

    Now gfy and stop trolling with your dishonest and willfully ignorant alcohol induced rants.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    So, are you saying that you aren't for giving vouchers to the poor parents so they can then select what school they want thier tax dollars spent on??

    Wow.

    BTW - Do you have children??

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:49:12 PM EST
    Thanks DA

    I knew I could count on you to dot the i's and cross the t's.

    Again. Good job.

    Parent

    ppj never lies. (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:57:27 PM EST
    Just ask him. ;-)

    ..............................................
    You never lie, whether straight up baldfaced or even through omission or misrepresentation, do you ppj?

    Do you ppj?

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    And I appreciate your help in explaining to everyone that the feds consider children to be 17 and under for the purpose, I guess, of earned income credit.

    Silly ole me, I was thinking that 18 would be the age.

    Oh well, carry on. I can always use another assistant.

    Parent

    The link does not point to that (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:24:25 AM EST
    It clearly points out that capital gains are taxed at a much lower capital gains comprises a significant portion of the richest of the rich's income (such as Buffet) that we can infer has contributed to a great extend the growing disparity of income in this country.

    What concerns me most, Slado, is not the comparison of poverty in our country with other nations (although, our inner cities and poverty there is very troubling), but rather this growing income disparity which contributes to the segregation of class and power between the elites who control the money interests and have influence over policy, politics, and national/regional/local decision making and the rest of the majority of Americans who have little power to build institutions based on consensus that can challenge the money-interests. This is not compatible with democracy, in my opinion, and we are currently seeing much evidence of this with our current administration.

    Parent

    If you going to play doomsday (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    don't just target republicans.

    Fact is the democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the rich and the elite while claiming to be for the little guy.

    I share your concern but goverment redistribution of wealth is not the answer.   What is?

    Parent

    Yes, it is the only answer (none / 0) (#90)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    but goverment redistribution of wealth is not the answer.
    Unless you prefer weapons.

    Parent
    I wasn't targeting Republicans (none / 0) (#91)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    I was targeting elites. I have only slightly more faith in Democrats than Republicans, although I realize they are beholden to the same Wealth interests in this country as the Republicans.

    As far as redistribution of wealth, I favor raising the tax upon capital gains and reducing Federal Spending and taxes upon ordinary Americans. I favor Federal programs such as Unemployment Insurance, Social Security and National Health Insurance covering everyone. I favor drastically reducing spending on National Defense and imperial pursuits.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    What would be a fair capital gains tax rate?

    What percent of the budget is now military versus entittlements and other social projects??

    Parent

    Fair (none / 0) (#97)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    As you said earlier, fair is subjective.

    I give some consideration to a flat tax proposal as long as Capital gains is treated the same as any other source of income. If we continue with a progressive tax rate, I would still favor taxing capital gains the same as any other source of income.

    From the War Resistors League [Cmon, now, don't accuse them of having a bias. ;) ] here is a chart with the break down.

    OK, in the interests of being fair I give you this one as well

    I'm partial to the WRL breakdown, myself. ;)


    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    is with the phrase "THE party of the rich and the elite" as if the Republicans weren't.

    That's just a little bit of a disengenuous characterization, dont you think Slado?

    Also, most of us are aware that any significant change which adresses "hidden" wealth and closes loopholes will be spun as "wealth redistribution" by the usual suspects who live to spin and defend the status quo.

    Parent

    How is legislating (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 05:36:28 PM EST
    at the behest of lobbyists or intervening overseas at the behest of lobbyists NOT "wealth redistribution", a form of "entitlement" and a form of "social program"? If not redistribution, at the very least it's distribution.

    Please Jim and Slado, do explain.

    C'mon Jim, put on those dancin' shoes.


    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 05:57:41 PM EST
    But even were it true, being rich and elite is not remotely mutually exclusive of looking out for the little guy, that is unless you are a republican.

    Parent