Soak the Rich? Or Get Our Wealth Back?
When we had controls on our capitalism, the capitalists needed growth to grow their wealth.
During that time the middle and lower classes shared the growth and the wealth. Free and abundant resources helped the growth. However, when the resources became scarce, the huge combined wealth of the middle and lower classes became a very tempting target for the rich. The rich discovered it was easier to buy some Congress-Critters, get the restrictions lifted, and steal from the middle and lower classes. This was not growth. When the middle and lower classes ask for their money back, they are accused of wanting to “soak the rich.”
When the rich are stealing our wealth (they say “it’s just business) like they did when the banks failed in 2008, no growth results. When the rich run the market up by buying and selling back and forth, it isn’t growth it’s a pyramid scheme that will eventually fall.
But if the rich invest in jobs and infrastructure, that will lead to real growth that we can all share. The government (us) needs to strongly encourage the rich to do just that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)nor do I want them soaking me as they have for the last 30+ years.
I am all in favor of taxing them into the dirt, but that might be just a tad bit excessive. 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Far better to insist on regulations that keep jobs here inside the USA, that keep tariffs in place, so that farmers are not undercut by produce from South America and Turkey, etc.
As far as keeping jobs here in the USA, might I mention the excellent job that comedian Larry Wilmore did on his show last night? (The Nightly Show, via The Comedy Channel, a newcomer in Stephen Colbert's old slot.) Wilmore showed that Apple had posted a record 18 billion dollar profit in ONE QUARTER recently. Yet we don't expect Apple to utilize people here to make things? Instead, we as consumers allow Apple to use slave labor in China and other places. (Oh well, they are young Chinese people, far from our maddening shores. So who cares that they are slaves!)
Another needed regulation - the $ 29 to $ 40 surcharge when a checking account has insufficient funds. If the state of Oregon could keep banks from charging more than $ 30 for such an item way back in the 1990's, then surely the technology now exists to make sure poor people are not charged more than three bucks. Bankers receive some 48 billions of dollars from poor people on the current extremely expensive surcharge fees.
salib
(2,116 posts)And should be done also. Unfortunately we cannot have a stable Democracy with such wealth inequality, and the only likely effective solution to that is high (90+%) marginal tax rates over a significant amount of time to start to reduce some of the inequity.
Right now we will be lucky to wrest the power away from a few families who can basically buy nearly politicians, or even an army the size of the U.S. armed forces. We must eliminate this undemocratic disaster waiting to happen. Otherwise, we will never be able put into place or hope to maintain any of the policies you rightly suggest.
Unfortunately it is the most difficult and dangerous thing that must be done first.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)That's really lame.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)They either waste it or use it to do things we should not be doing.
Did you know for instance, despite so many politicians' claims that these are times that indicate a need for "austerity" -- the USA is opening up a branch of the FDA over in India, so that the USA can suppress the people of India and force the impoverished farmers there to buy Monsanto genetically modified seeds?
Personally I would not care whether or not we started to tax the 1 percent at a rate of 65% or more. It would be fine by me. [h2][font color=red] But until we start regulating the derivatives stock market, and regulating the banks, we will all continue down a path started under Bill Clinton and the Senate of 1999-2000, when we began policies that now have come into maturity.
What does the maturity of those policies look like? The amount of money that goes from every single dollar of profit generated inside the USA and that ends up inside Big Banks and Financial Firms is now 49 cents. Forty nine cents out of every single dollar of profit ends up in the pockets of the one percent. Only regulation will bring this back to a sane level, such as we had in the 1980's, when that amount was eight cents out of every dollar.[/h2][/font color=red]
What does this amount of profit for the Big Financial firms and their lack of regulation mean? It means that the only way most small and just starting out businesses can generate a loan is to go on TV's "Shark Tank." It is far easier to amass some $ 100,000 in loans by being a student and getting student loans (for which you will owe Navient, formerly Sallie Mae, and whatever other agencies that are out there the rest of your own profits for ten to forty years!) than to be a small time business person trying to get a legit loan.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... campaign donations end and bribes start.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)books, and outright bribery.
Warpy
(113,130 posts)First, we need a substantial rise in the minimum wage. Doubling it is not out of the question. There will be some inflation associated with this, but that's not a bad thing unless you're a rich man who relies on paper value of investments instead of on their income.
Second, we desperately need a Wall Street transaction tax to take the profit out of HFT and make it much more difficult to skim money off every transaction as is happening now. Likely the bite from the Feds will be cheaper than what HFT is doing.
Third, we need a progressive taxation system tied to inflation that will cover earned and unearned income. That will avoid shafting retirees who rely on interest and dividends as well as have the wealthy pay their fair share.
Fourth, we need some real teeth in the inheritance tax to make sure plutocrats can't pass on their ill gotten gains intact. That means tightening up on the foundation scams.
Fifth, we need to be willing to enact the death penalty on scofflaw corporations hiding money overseas. Withdrawing their charters and making it impossible for them to reorganize unless the cash comes back into the country and their taxes are paid might be just the incentive they need.
Sixth, with revenues increasing from all of the above, we need to roll back regressive taxes that were used to disguise the damage that tax cuts for the rich did to the treasury by beggaring the rest of us.
Seventh, we need to enact real tax breaks for corporations that move their manufacturing back into the US, something a lot of them would love to do for a number of reasons but need an incentive to trade for the loss of cheap labor.
Eighth, the Pentagon has to go on a diet, a strict one. We can't afford a bloated military being misused in wars of corporate convenience.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)antiquie
(4,299 posts)
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Funded ELECTIONS to make sure the rich cannot rig the system again.
4) Put the RIGHT to VOTE in the constitution and and put anyone interfering with it in Federal Pen.
5) Require Paper ballots hand counted in every federal election.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)but especially the voting changes. With this 7 million voting strong Crosscheck fiasco used in 28 states, were going to have problems
How about FREEZING the bank accounts of corps that have stashed money overseas. Maybe that will activate the return of taxable money to the USA
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,021 posts)accumulated enough money and all it can buy to practically ensure that nothing that costs them a penny ever gets passed again. They are pathologically compelled to that end.
airplaneman
(1,273 posts)
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I may not agree with all of it, but this is the dialog we should be having.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)soak them, of course. They just don't taste right, otherwise.
I recommend marinading overnight before cooking.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
rock
(13,218 posts)Since the rich soaked us to build up their wealth. That was my first thought on seeing your question.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that we peons want to "soak the rich".
world wide wally
(21,827 posts)A caller suggested that the top tax rate should be equal to 10 times the unemployment rate. Since the current unemployment rate I'd 5.5 %, the top tax rate would be 55%.
if unemployment were to rise to 8%, the top rate would be at 80%.
I think the percentage could be tweaked a little, but it would definitely be an incentive for those glorious "job creators" to actually create jobs.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Remember ten or twelve years ago on DU, when DLC spokestrolls would advise those of us who are really sensible Democrats that "class warfare is a bad idea"?
I think we know by now that any one who would utter such nonsense knows quite a bit about class warfare -- they're just on the wrong side of the barricades.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)When we try to get them to pay their share, they whine that we want to "soak" them. Well I say, Frack them!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Get up off your ass, everybody, turn off the teevee and vote.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Here in California, an initiative has now mandated that only the top two vote getters during the Primaries can be on the ballot. (I think the Presidency and the State Secretary of Education are immune from this directive, but you don't have much choice.)
Voters, clearly fed up, are not participating. In the recent November 2014 election, only 29% of all registered voters in California voted. This percentage is down eight or nine percent from back in 2010, when we all felt there was still some hope of change.
Once people realize that what separates the two parties is that under Dems you can eat one shit sandwich a day, while under Republicans you must eat two, well, it is all so depressing. While I was out tabling on a local issue, person after person announced that "the lesser of two evils" meme HAD TURNED THEM OFF POLITICS FOR GOOD.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)when they murdered and stole, "It's only business, nothing personal."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and the tactics presented to address that frame. For example:
I completely agree; but, the framing of the problem is far too general ... and, more problematic, the solution being proffered is raising taxes or the wealthy and/or corporations. That solution does not directly address the framing of the problem, i.e., the removal of regulations that allow for the looting of the middle and working classes - or, at best, the proffered solution is three (or more) steps away from the problem.
Now, raising taxes will, in fact, reduce the money that the wealthy have to influence the laws that lead to the lifting of the restrictions, that allow for the looting of the middle and working class. All that is true; but, who among the disengaged electorate is going to follow the logic?
Likewise, raising taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations is equidistance from "promoting growth", i.e., raising taxes will, in fact, reduce the money that the wealthy have to influence the laws that lead to the lifting of the restrictions that allow them to sock money away off-shore, rather than, invest it in job creation. All that is true; but, again, who among the disengaged electorate is going to follow the logic?
I agree that infrastructure investment is an/the engine for growth; but, taxing the wealthy and corporations is the wrong framing for attaining that goal. Yes, we can promote increasing taxation, then lobby for the bought and paid for Congress that we lament to allocate that tax revenue to infrastructure investment (I.e., repair projects). But that is widely seen (and spun by the wealthy) as confiscatory, even among the middle and working classes.
Wouldn't the better strategy be to create tax credits for infrastructure repairs investment? Yes, it could very well have the effect of lower the effective tax rate for the wealthy and/or corporations; but, so what ... the revenue would flow into domestic infrastructure repair, and not off-shore bank accounts. And that investment will create jobs, which creates demand, which creates more jobs.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as I do not know much about cap and trade. But, my first inclination would be no ... I can't see a corporation seeking to reduce its tax liability, trading it away for revenue.
I would be presented as an above the line, dollar for dollar tax credit with specific infrastructure projects, or newly proposed projects, qualifying (as determined by an Executive agency and administered by the IRS).
antiquie
(4,299 posts)It should have been obvious to me that how we frame our arguments could repel those we need to convert.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the biggest obstacle blinding us to economic truth is article after article after OP lamenting the problem; but a complete lack of convincingly, workable plans. Convincing is a matter of framing and workable means recognizing the interests of others.
It really is as simple as that. I would love to see Reich and Krugmann and Black and all the other economic Guru's of the Left, locked in a room with Warren and Sanders and Franks and other political operators, along with President Obama (and his team) to facilitate the planning, for as long as it takes to develop such a convincingly, workable plan and its roll-out.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Does policy come from demand
or does demand come from policy?
The OP highlights the meme the 1%
push to spread misinformation and discredit
a fair tax system and economic justice.
When the dominant group plays the victim
in a thinly veiled class war what is the
proper response? Make policy, not demands?
It seem that most significant social and
political change has come from demands from
the Public to which Congress Critters respond.
Asking for a policy that the Public should then demand
seems like putting the horse before the cart?
antiquie
(4,299 posts)Many believe to become part of 47% they should support their policies. I am simply agreeing the we need to frame our whatever you call the fair "policy" to change minds and not alienate people with rhetoric.
To get where we want to be we will need to have policy to effect change, won't we?
I found this interesting Inequality sustains itself by generating an ideology which favours the rich.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)I would quibble with the notion
of joining the 47%.
If more people join the 47%
it won't be "47%" any longer.
What you seem to suggest it that
more people want access to the resources
afforded by having the economic power
embodies by the 47%.
Unfortunately, in practice, it's not possible
in the current economic dystopia.
The factors which create the economic stratification
prevent more people from moving up in economic opportunity.
In order for people to have more economic power
they need more economic resources. That represents
a change in the status quo.
The attempts to re balance the economy are
portrayed as "soaking the rich".
The majority do believe they are at a disadvantage
Senator Warren calls it as it is...
the playing field is tilted.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)That to join the 47% I should embrace those policies?
antiquie
(4,299 posts)You drove me from this group.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)You would flee a discussion group
because you were misinterpreted?
You offer no clarification or open dialog...
just take you ball and go home???
Ok, cheers
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)shouting into the wind.
Those of us on the Left understand the problem ... it is spelled out in article and OP after article and OP. And as we have seen, simply decrying that the playing field is tilted/rigged in favor of the wealthy, and demanding that it be corrected gets us nowhere towards a/the solution.
What we do not have is a convincingly, workable plan to resolve the problem. The convincing part is mostly a matter of framing the problem and the workable part is equal parts, having a plan that clearly meets the frame AND having a plan that is politically feasible (i.e., cognizant that we live in a "democratic" environment where approximately 47% of the population, including the wealthy, because it is against their interests, and the working class, because they believe the wealthy's frame, oppose changing the system)
seems like putting the horse before the cart?
Again ... everyone (on the left, and arguably on the right) knows the problem, what we don't have is an action plan (which is more than a policy) for the people to demand.
Basically, we're still at talk/act cross-roads.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The problem is continual capitulation
by the Congress to the demands of Wall st.
Blocking a living wage
Repealing Glass-Steagall
Corporate tax loopholes
Capping FICA tax
etc etc etc
Is it honestly your position that we need
to reinvent the wheel, rather than reinforce
the policies we know work?
Isn't it obvious that the banking/investment
industry is a drag on the economy despite
what the "market" says?
And isn't it true that the velocity of money
is fastest when injected into the lowest rungs
of the economy...ie, food stamps, low wage workers,
middle income wages that create REAL growth.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What we do not have is a CONVINCINGLY. WORKABLE convincingly, workable plan to resolve the problem.
What you are doing is providing solutions that are proving, either ... unconvincing, or unworkable.
to reinvent the wheel, rather than reinforce
the policies we know work?
Maybe, but we need to DO something, beyond decry the problem. So, How do we do that? IOWs, what is the convincing and workable plan to do so?
industry is a drag on the economy despite
what the "market" says?
Yes. How do we do that? IOWs, what is the convincing and workable plan to do so?
is fastest when injected into the lowest rungs
of the economy...ie, food stamps, low wage workers,
middle income wages that create REAL growth.
Yes. How do we do that? IOWs, what is the convincing and workable plan to do so?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)FDR and Eisenhower managed two huge
successful infrastructure programs which
could serve as a template for new plans.
Work Projects Administration and Interstate Highway
would serve just fine as both an example and as
a convincing argument for the economic benefits.
The general public can surely comprehend those
two projects and the benefits they have brought?
Again, why reinvent the wheel?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)You're making the case that a workable and
convincing plan needs to be created that frames
the issue for a particular audience.
Who is the audience?
The public or the rich?
You're saying that there is no "workable" plan to turn
the economic engine through infrastructure investment.
FRD and Eisenhower already did this.
We need to follow those examples, applying
the latest technologies.
What is unconvincing about the WPA as a template?
Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)convincing plan needs to be created that frames
the issue for a particular audience.
Yes, I am.
The public or the rich?
Both.
We need to follow those examples, applying
the latest technologies.
Okay ... Now, how is that to be implemented today?
Go out side and ask the first 10 people you see to tell you what the WPA is/did.
No ... I recognize the difference between a idea/fantasy and a workable plan.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Clearly this is beyond the scope of one mind.
IF there was the political will in Congress
a close look would be taken at the latest
infrastructure report card
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
A prioritized list of the most immediate needs
and the most expansive forward thinking projects
would be created, highlighting the economic benefits,
both Public and private.
A federal government managed public/private
partnership would contract out bids.
Winning contracts get bonus rewards for finishing
deadlines ahead of schedule... no cost plus.
States would have limited influence to avoid pork spending.
All state initiatives need to dovetail with Federal objectives.
I could go on but, time...
One of the elements of the WPA was communication with the public.
In today's media environment raising awareness is simple.
Offer a mass of good paying job opportunities and the applicant list
would exceed the needs.
Getting the word out would be easy peasy with social media.
I don't see public ignorance or lack of enthusiasm to be an obstacle.
Its the reticence and recalcitrant interests in Congress and Wall st.
Wall Street's biggest objection would be the "public" part of
any such program. They would insist on privatization.
And that privatization issue the single biggest obstacle
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)indicates the plan is either unconvincing or unworkable.
Wouldn't a more workable plan be to establish a tax credit for corporations and/or the wealthy to fund this plan? There already exists the political will to give tax credits (except for in the folks on the Left).
And allow the corporations and/or wealthy folks to select from among the designated projects (i.e., from the infrastructure report card) to invest to receive the tax credit.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Your suggestion is intriguing.
It's definitely "outside the box"!
I would be interested in thinking such
a proposal through more thoroughly.
TheKentuckian
(26,006 posts)enrich the wealthy and the corporations while further shifting the tax burden to the working class with a side of shrink the pig tactics since we can't afford the shifted burden means it goes to debt that the service on eats up more and more of purposefully declining revenues.
This in a time of an already record wealth gap to the ones already not carrying their share.
Plus, you have to make the benefit out weigh the cost so it is automatically a losing proposition. The return on investment eaten up bribing the rich just a little more.
The poster is pushing a payday l Ian to rake advantage of the desperation for infrastructure investment.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)I disagree with your characterization of his position, but that's up to him to defend, not me. I left this group earlier, so no need to worry yourself that a couple of weeks ago I agreed with someone with whom you disagree.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And substituting private businesses for what used to be government services is not creating wealth, jobs or economic prosperity.
Private charter schools for example add no value to our economy. They just churn tax revenues into butter for the pockets of the owners of the so-called schools.
The worst is companies that buy up the parking meters. Chicago is an example. The government used to collect that revenue. Corporations add no value when they "buy" the parking meter business, raise prices and squeeze the folks in the middle class who pay for the parking.
Just a couple of examples.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Allowed to frame the argument as "soaking the rich"...but that's not the way I see it. It's not the way my friends and family see it either.
It isn't that we want to Soak the rich ... We just want "our shit" that was Wrongfully Taken From Us...Back.