« Obama should BYPASS CONGRESS on The Debt Ceiling | Main | CONSERVATIVE Constitutional fairy tales and the Affordable Care Act »

06/26/2011

Comments

Mahilena

Why we need GOVERNMENT'S role in protecting the Free-Market system and preventing abuses of Extreme Capitalists> Sarbanes Oxley Law protecting public investors who, unlike investors in privately held corporations, are presumed to be at a greater distance from management and therefore more vulnerable. Any and all companies, of any size, the stock of which is publicly traded (whether on a stock exchange or over the counter) are subject to SOX; thus it touches a certain range of small business as well
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sarbanes-oxley/

Mahilena

Our FOUNDING FATHERS skepticism on WEALTH PERMEATED THE CONSTITUTION - SPREADING WEALTH Actually, it has been part of the American economic system since its founding. In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.” During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes. “The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” The theme of spreading the wealth has ebbed and flowed throughout American history, but it has constantly been present. When Abraham Lincoln introduced the first federal income tax in 1862, it was at a flat 3 percent rate for anyone making more than $600 a year, which was then a respectable salary. For instance, farmhands, who earned an average of $200, did not pay the tax. A year later, the tax was revised so that richer Americans would pay a higher rate than those with median incomes. The tax rate rose from 5 percent for the lowest bracket to 10 percent for the highest. Again, nobody making less than $600 paid the tax. Although the income tax was abolished in 1872, the idea of using taxes to share the wealth remained an important part of the public discourse. Teddy Roosevelt was a vocal proponent of this idea in the early 1900s. “I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate,” he said in 1910. Three years later, the modern income tax was created, initially structured so that it affected only the richest 5 percent of Americans. In times of economic peril, the tax rates were raised – rather than lowered – to ensure that money was more evenly distributed. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's administration boosted the highest tax rate from 63 percent to 79 percent in order to fund his New Deal programs. He pushed it to 94 percent during World War II. Roosevelt was matched by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, who, with the aid of a Republican Congress, maintained an income tax rate of more than 90 percent for top earners. It took Lyndon Johnson to lower the upper tax rate to 77 percent. It remained near that level until the second year of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Was this socialism? Was the government trying to play Robin Hood? Or was it using sound economic principles? If you use tax dollars for programs that help build a stronger middle class – or so the theory goes – you can build a broad consumer base that will ultimately benefit the captains of industry who get their wealth by selling goods and services to the masses. But doesn't a high tax rate strangle economic growth? It's hard to make that case. During the 1950s, when the upper-income bracket was taxed at its highest peacetime rate in history, the economy grew at a robust 4 percent per year, using inflation-adjusted figures. The 1950s growth rate certainly did not occur because of the high taxes, but the tax rate apparently didn't impede it. Reagan had a different idea. If you lower the tax rate on the moneyed class, he and his economists suggested, they will invest that money in ways that will increase employment and economic growth. Reagan slashed the upper rate to 50 percent in 1982 and 38.5 percent in 1987. It has been in the 30s ever since. And it would stay in the 30s even under Obama's tax plan, which would restore the upper bracket to the 39.6 percent level of the Bill Clinton era. It is hard to argue that those low tax rates helped spur economic growth. Even after the tax cuts, growth averaged 3.3 percent under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 3.7 percent under Clinton and 2.2 percent under George W. Bush, who slashed the upper tax rate to one of its lowest points since the Roaring '20s. In the meantime, we have made up for our tax cuts by increasing the national debt. We are now the world's largest debtor nation, owing trillions of dollars to such countries as Saudi Arabia, China and Japan. And we continue to add to our debts with the trillions of dollars spent fighting in Iraq and bailing out Wall Street. This could have easily been foreseen. “Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt,” Eisenhower warned in the 1950s. “The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer.”
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/business/calbreath/20081026-9999-1b26dean.html
And here we have Thomas Paine arguing for progressive taxation: http://tinyurl.com/y9q7qom

Mahilena

GOP Control Of Congress A Disaster for America.-.article from Oct 2010 but so true today http://t.co/olEObgr

Mahilena

Our main enemies Corporatocracy, American Empire, #aynrand extreme capitalists/Radical right http://bit.ly/iQ1GRE

Mahilena

Fallacy behind AYN Rand "Individualism/Capitalism" vs. the American Constitution http://bit.ly/mP06ez

Mahilena

Capitalism does not make people free. It enslaves people. The free-market fallacies of AynRand http://links.org.au/node/1221

Mahilena

Greenspan former AynRand disciple: the “intellectual edifice” buttressing radical free-market ideology has, in his words, “collapsed.” http://globaleconomy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/extreme-capitalism/

Mahilena

Affordable Care Act > Good for the Economy and Good for Jobs!!
http://www.aanp.org/NR/rdonlyres/B5ECD067-A15B-4F58-A633-E51F04C29045/4491/HealthReformGoodfortheEconomyandGoodforJobs.pdf

Mahilena

REPUBLICANS Believe A BAD ECONOMY and INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT Is GOOD FOR THEM http://poplarstreetviews.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/republicans-believe-a-bad-economy-and-increased-unemployment-is-good-for-them/

Mahilena

Lack of Demand, Not Lack of Confidence, Is the Reason that Businesses are Not Hiring: http://t.co/mDyGa2A

Mahilena

The Rich Don’t Create Jobs – We Do http://t.co/BK5Dm6f

Mahilena

Producers and Parasites is a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites"
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011051913/do-we-depend-rich-create-jobs

Mahilena

Obama & Democrats done nothing for Small Business? SmallBusinessJobsAct of 2010. Signed into law by President Obama Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/small-business-jobs-act.asp#ixzz1Oqpxh48q http://t.co/8gnHucC

Mahilena

Romney is a businessman – That’s the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We do not need businessmen as Presidents
http://race42012.com/2011/03/10/romney-is-a-businessman-thats-the-problem/

Mahilena

"Well, you know, I was a human being before I became a businessman" - George Soros ALSO APPLIES TO @MittRomney BRINGING #BLIND FAITH IN THE VIRTUE OF THE FREE MARKET Every aspect of existence its byproduct - religion, family, morality, creativity, politics, community, tradition, ethnicity - was declared merely a byproduct of the marketplace. The true costs of Real free-market self corrections would be to kill inefficient workers(or let them starve to death). Because they can't adapt fast enough. Humans are obsolete. They can't keep up with progress
Disappointed in #Austrian #aynrand Economics http://j.mp/lJwo4T

Mahilena

ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE. Those who cannot OR DON'T WANT TO compete MUST NOT SURVIVE they must be expelled from the gene pool. Modern capitalism is economic Darwinism carried to the extreme http://www.planetization.org/reigning.htm

Mahilena

Fallacy of "Trickle Down supply side" economics in helping middle class.

The truth is that "Trickle-Down" was never intended to help middle income and poor Americans; it was intended to help the wealthy and Corporate America The issue is that the economic policies of the Reagan administration were designed to primarily benefit wealthy Americans. At the time a lot of smoke and mirrors were used to convince average Americans that these policies would help them as well. A similar set of lies has been used by those, like Steve Forbes, who promote a flat tax system. What the "Trickle-Down"/Supply Side policies of the Reagan administration were designed to do was to increase the amount of money available to wealthy Americans for investing and developing businesses. This was intended to create an increase in production of products and services and hence and increase in new jobs. The reason that the policy is called Supply Side, is because the supply of goods increases before there is a demand for goods. So, in that case, the supply of goods is intended to then spark demand, resulting in economic growth. This use of Supply Side policy led to a huge increase in consumerism and the use of credit. An environment of consumerism was created in American society through the media via advertisements, movies, and television shows, etc. that promoted consumerism. Consumers though, did not have the money to fulfill the desires created by society so debt was used to participate in the economy. Restrictions on credit were loosened under the Reagan administration making it easier for individuals to gain credit lines because the use of credit was essential to growing the economy because real wages were not going up for the average American, yet it was essential that the average American increase spending in order to fuel the economy. This situation fueled female entry into the workforce as more households require two workers to maintain their standard of living Conservative policies failed America and it was deliberate and yes they still try to sell the same nonsense

Mahilena

How We Can Kick-Start the Economy, Save Lives, Give Working People a Raise and Turn a Deficit into.. http://bit.ly/mbMeDa

Mahilena

GOP Tax Cuts > No jobs: Between 2002 and 2007 http://t.co/4klge1K

Mahilena

Thanks to Republicans > Has America Become a Corporate Police State? http://bit.ly/kdR1xP

Mahilena

INSIDE WALL STREET GREED - NO TAXES POLICY? MY FOOT! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43246304

Mahilena

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. http://t.co/uyp73u2

Mahilena

Why Tax Cuts for Corporations? THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR JOB CREATION no resurgent DEMAND which justifies massive new business spending. Corporations can sit on their PROFITS and REINVEST THEM IN TRADING AND OTHER THINGS http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20061014/why_democrats_are_good_for_the_economy_and_republicans_are_good_for_big_corporations

Mahilena

Tim Kaine Slams Ed Gillespie and Republicans for Exploding the Deficit http://t.co/J4T59bn

Mahilena

Selling Us Short: The Limits of Markets (and Governments)’, with Joe Stiglitz and Jim Chanos http://www.newdeal20.org/2009/06/04/test-breakfast-post-2193/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan