Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 1 Percent Solution - Soak the Rich

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The 1 Percent Solution - Soak the Rich

    A great example of why we need to think before we speak!

    The 1 Percent Solution - Why Not Just Soak the Rich? By Daniel McGroarty, former White House Speechwriter.

    "First, the philosophy behind my policy, drawn from careful consideration of the debate to date: For any plan to work, we need a federal tax policy that’s simple, fair, and this is key–to the maximum extent possibile, involves someone else’s money.

    With that in mind, we go where the money is: America’s billionaires. Under my plan, billionaires aren’t gust going to pay more, they’re going to pay it all. A 100 percent tax rate. And not just on what they make in a year–100 percent of their lifetime net worth.

    As for the “99 percent, relax. We’re cutting your 2012 rate to 0 percent. That’s right: You’re going to live like you’re a hedge fund manager on the Gingrich plan.”

    . . . “Let’s get started. The Obama administration has requested $3.7 trillion in federal spending for 2012. Conveniently, that’s a bit above $10 billion a day. Fittingly, Bill Gates leads us off with his $59 billion. Microsoft’s founder could pay from the moment we rang him in 2012 to almost midnight January 6. Up next, Warren Buffet, whose $39 billion will get us to Jan 10, followed by Larry Ellison, the Koch brothers, the four Walmart heirs, George Soros (Obama’s friend), Sheldon Adelson (Newt’s friend).”

    “Forbes top billionaires total nearly $310 billion. It’t now Jan 31. Forbes’ No. 11 to 99, and they carry us through February and March. Then the remaining 390 billionaires carry us to mid-May, but by then the federal burn rate reaches $10 billion dollars per day. Somewhere on the afternoon of May 26, we’ve run through our last billionaire. All together, the lifetime earnings of the Forbes 400 have pain for more than $1.4 trillion. We’re still short $2,219,999,999.999.99 and Jan 1. 2013.

    So on to the millionaires. We’ve got more of them–but it takes 1,000 millionaires to equal one billionaire.”

    “IRS data tells us that in 2009, 236,000 Americans made $1million or more. All told, at our 100 percent rate, that $610 billion–another two months of federal spending. But there are still five months left to fund. Let’s move from the people who earn $1 million a year to the people who have more than a million in net worth. They’re millionaires too, right.

    After we’ve taken away all that wealth and fed it to the U.S. Treasury, what’s the take away from all of this? For one thing, $3.7 trillion is an enormous amount of money–far more than our mortal minds can comprehend.

    But back to the budget. It’s 2013, and not a billionaire {or millionaire}in sight. Wait a minute: Where’s that 99 percent? Please step forward. Your turn.”

  • #2
    Former White House speech writer Daniel McGoarty:

    a) Doesn't understand economics very well.
    b) Is counting on the notion that his readers don't understand economics very well.
    c) Forgot that corporations are people too, my friend. ;-)

    Disregard basic definitions, add a handful of obfuscation, and any point can be made sensible.

    Read critically. Judge articles (even the satirical ones) based on something other than the degree to which they confirm your pet narratives.
    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "**** it, cut em up!" - MH

    Comment


    • #3
      Disagree. He's not giving an economics lesson. His points are only two-fold:

      1) shed light on just how absurdly large the numbers we are dealing with really are, and

      2) demonstrate how much money the 1 percent has in relation to the spending going on.
      Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Wu du Nord View Post
        Former White House speech writer Daniel McGoarty:

        a) Doesn't understand economics very well.
        b) Is counting on the notion that his readers don't understand economics very well.
        c) Forgot that corporations are people too, my friend. ;-)

        Disregard basic definitions, add a handful of obfuscation, and any point can be made sensible.

        Read critically. Judge articles (even the satirical ones) based on something other than the degree to which they confirm your pet narratives.
        Oversimplification, yes, but my friend, I believe you have overlooked the main point of his article which is to point out that no matter what we do as a nation, we can not even come close to paying for next year's budget as so outlined.

        We are close to $15 trillion dollars in debt now, yet we are budgeting more than $1 - $2 trillion more dollars to spend than we can pay for this year, and the interest rate on just today's present debt, is a fast approaching tsunami which will bury this country unless we get hold of our spending.

        Further that the solution to our problem is not who pays what percentage or the actual dollar amounts, because we simply cannot reach the required totals no matter what we do. This debt is growing like an uncontrolled terminal cancer of which we all know what the final outcome usually is.

        My generation and your generation. and all in between, are responsible for this. What we desperately need a way and means to try and resolve it.

        I'd be very interested in hearing any solutions you might have.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think we are at a point where it is going to take tax increases and spending decreases to fix the problem. Painful, sucks, but is reality. The only candidate with the jewels to basically say as such is Ron Paul, who has no chance of even getting the GOP nomination, let alone winning the general election. I like some of what he says, love the fact he is honest and frank, but he has baggage that would keep me from voting for him, given the chance. But living in Kansas, and knowing Kansas would go GOP even if the ticket were Hitler and Stalin, I may just write in myself. At least I would agree with that candidate most of the time. :)
          Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr. Seuss

          Comment


          • #6
            I'll write ya in too.
            Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 60Shock View Post
              Oversimplification, yes, but my friend, I believe you have overlooked the main point of his article which is to point out that no matter what we do as a nation, we can not even come close to paying for next year's budget as so outlined.
              Funny, I read the point of that satirical essay as an attempt to mock and marginalize arguments and discussions regarding the possibility of raising the (historically quite low) tax rates on upper income brackets. The author is deliberately trading on recent discussions regarding America's rising income inequality for the purpose of disparagement. I'm not really a fan of the OWS movements, but I do view it as a critical conversation to have as a nation. There are certainly other methods available to highlight the size of the US National Deficit.

              I'd be very interested in hearing any solutions you might have.
              Getting rid of old people would be a pretty good start. They're expensive, needlessly condescending and often boring. ;-)

              Actually, like most, I find the US National Deficit to be perplexing. I acknowledge it's complexities.

              I don't believe the line of educational material introduced by McGroarty to be helpful.

              I've heard that size matters; however, context is what allows size to have meaning.

              Is 6 bucks a lot? It's a lot for a stick of gum. It's not a lot for a bottle of wine.
              Last edited by Wu du Nord; February 5, 2012, 02:41 PM.
              I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "**** it, cut em up!" - MH

              Comment


              • #8
                Income inequality has very little to do with economic health or the conditions under which the “poor” (however you want to define poor) live - just because country A has greater income inequality than country B doesn’t mean that country A’s poor are worse off than B’s.
                Last edited by Maggie; February 6, 2012, 10:37 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Wu du Nord View Post
                  Funny, I read the point of that satirical essay as an attempt to mock and marginalize arguments and discussions regarding the possibility of raising the (historically quite low) tax rates on upper income brackets. The author is deliberately trading on recent discussions regarding America's rising income inequality for the purpose of disparagement. I'm not really a fan of the OWS movements, but I do view it as a critical conversation to have as a nation. There are certainly other methods available to highlight the size of the US National Deficit.


                  Getting rid of old people would be a pretty good start. They're expensive, needlessly condescending and often boring. ;-)

                  Actually, like most, I find the US National Deficit to be perplexing. I acknowledge it's complexities.

                  I don't believe the line of educational material introduced by McGroarty to be helpful.

                  I've heard that size matters; however, context is what allows size to have meaning.

                  Is 6 bucks a lot? It's a lot for a stick of gum. It's not a lot for a bottle of wine.

                  Did a few of your feathers get ruffled a wee bit? If anyone on this entire board is condescending with a vast air of false superiorty, you would win the contest, hands down.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 60Shock View Post
                    Did a few of your feathers get ruffled a wee bit? If anyone on this entire board is condescending with a vast air of false superiorty, you would win the contest, hands down.
                    you noticed also ...:surprise:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SB Shock View Post
                      you noticed also ...:surprise:
                      I have at times suffered from the same “malady”. If you have a problem with what he writes – explain why.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Maggie View Post
                        I have at times suffered from the same “malady”. If you have a problem with what he writes – explain why.
                        Why? It is not worth the effort. He is here to show in his mind his supremacy, but when challenged he just becomes more condescending. At least you know what and why you believe and can articulate your arguments. He is simply trolls imo.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SB Shock View Post
                          Why? It is not worth the effort. He is here to show in his mind his supremacy, but when challenged he just becomes more condescending. At least you know what and why you believe and can articulate your arguments. He is simply trolls imo.

                          Why? Arrogance. You have someone actually making an argument and you shy away? Things that are not worth time – they are abundant. And maybe I am wrong and you are right – but I hope, as always, to learn something.

                          Besides, the fact is he has made some good points – not definitive in my judgment, but good points.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Maggie View Post
                            Why? Arrogance. You have someone actually making an argument and you shy away? Things that are not worth time – they are abundant. And maybe I am wrong and you are right – but I hope, as always, to learn something.

                            Besides, the fact is he has made some good points – not definitive in my judgment, but good points.
                            I agree with this. I didn't agree with his conclusion but he threw out a reasonable argument.
                            Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Maggie View Post

                              Besides, the fact is he has made some good points – not definitive in my judgment, but good points.
                              Good points?

                              Actually, like most, I find the US National Deficit to be perplexing. I acknowledge it's complexities.
                              That is good point? Perplexing? There is nothing perplexing about it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to solve the spending problem our nation has.

                              1) Stop spending what you don't have

                              2) If you do raise taxes, it has to be across the board. You can't just raise taxes on the 1%. That was the whole intent of the original story (oversimplified of course). It sound good, "we will just tax the millionaires and billionaires" - but there is not enough money there to make the difference. The truth is if you want to increase you revenue through taxes you have to go after the middle class and those who are not paying taxes.

                              Think about how much money is just being thrown away to pay interest on the debt each year? $454 billion last year (and growing) - that is just wasted.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X