Tuesday, August 14, 2012

"Trickle Down Fairy Dust"

Besides telling it as it is, this clip is worth watching just for the phrase "trickle down fairy dust:"

Posted by capper at 7:56:00 PM
Labels: , , ,

16 comments:

  1. John CasperAugust 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    Thanks capper.

    Since the EISENHOWER's administrations, we've been lowering the MARGINAL tax rates on the 1%.

    Top Marginal Tax rates 1916 - 2011

    http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2012/03/08/marginal-tax-rates/

    Nothing ever "trickled-down." They just used those tax breaks to buy both parties and the media.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ImustberacistAugust 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

    That's simple then, have Obama run on raising taxes.
    Trickle down: increased revenue will help the economy, not nearly as much as decreased spending, but help just the same. Agreed?
    Remember this, the rich are already rich. You cannot tax money they already have (until they die), You can only tax the money they make. For you and me, we don't have a choice we need to make that paycheck. The 1%, they can afford to wait out another Obama presidency if they have to. They will shelter their money until conditions improve. Proof of that theory? here:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
    But remember as you lust after their money. If we raised taxes to 90 percent on the 1% and added it to our national budget for this year alone, it would not balance it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC5Gkox-1QY&feature=relmfu

    But then again, that doesnt make a catchy bumper sticker does it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

      Something smells. Who farted?

      Delete
    2. capperAugust 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

      I believe it's Rmoney/Rayn that is running on the raising taxes platform.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousAugust 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

      I just thought it was one of the commenters stinking things up.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousAugust 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM

    The progressive income tax approach is based on the ability to pay, meaning how much income you make. It comes from the progressive idea that a poor person being taxed a flat, say 10%, with income of say $100, is left with $90 to pay for your living. That $10 taken away can have devastating consequences on their ability to live. Someone making a $1,000,000 income and being taxed that same 10% is taxed $100,000, leaving $900,000 to somehow live on. The progressives think that as long as everyone is taxed, then the tax rate should increase for those making larger incomes, because they they can afford a larger tax without it affecting their lives.
    Peoples' accumulated wealth is not taxed, it is income.
    People in the 1940s and 50s, people with high incomes, were taxed at very high rates, actually approaching the 90% rate you cynically mention. Our economy was considered the best in the world, and those rich people with big incomes you didn't hear bitching about it.
    In fact, it would have been viewed publicly as un-American for being so selfish.
    Libertarians/Tea Partiers could not be any more ridiculous when they want to extinguish progressivism, and trying to replace it with tax avoidance schemes or flat taxes. Forbes is a purely libertarian publication that is not worth the paper it is printed on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

      The vulture capitalist approach is to maximize what they loot.

      Delete
    2. John CasperAugust 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM

      Another thing the wingnuts always forget to mention, progressive income tax has Biblical roots: Luke 12:48 ".....For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

      Delete
    3. ImustberacistAugust 15, 2012 at 6:28 AM

      When that person in the 40's and 50's was taxed at 90 percent and took home 10,000 instead of 90,000 of their 100K gross, how many years do you think they did that before they sheltered enough income to be in a lower tax rate? Or do you feel they just kept grinding on thinking they owed the less fortunate? You wouldn't do it, You are angry you have to chip in for your health care for pete's sake. How do you figure they would?
      Look at the reaction in France to the proposed tax hikes.

      Delete
  4. ImustberacistAugust 15, 2012 at 6:21 AM

    If you think it will help the economy grow by doubling (or more) taxes on the upper class you really don't understand economics.
    This is what baffles me, I understand the foolish anom remarks (not to mention cappers out of character, delusional comment), not everybody in this country will ever understand how it works. But it is the truly smart that continue with this "progressive" agenda that makes me curious. I wonder "did I miss something here?". But then I look at southern Europe and I realize that if their progressive policies are failing, of course ours would too. Maybe we will get another 4 years of Obama to find out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. capperAugust 15, 2012 at 7:40 AM

      And if you think huge tax cuts for the rich, at the expense of the middle and lower classes is a working plan, perhaps you have forgotten the Bush/Cheney years and the two recessions we received from them.

      Delete
    2. ImustberacistAugust 15, 2012 at 8:18 AM

      I contend that the recessions happened for different reasons than tax receipts all together. But that's another topic.
      If you think taxing the rich will solve our problems your just hiding form the truth.

      Delete
  5. IamgreedyAugust 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    Capper, just to clarify, the recession of 2001 was the tech bubble. The government had very little influence the inflation of buying .com's.
    The 2nd recession was a direct effect from Bill Clinton dissolving the Glass Steagall act. The results were devastating and we are still trying to recover from the blow out. Don't forget, Bill Clinton is the man that came up with the subprime mortgages/lending. But hey, maybe if Wallstreet wasn't so greedy this wouldn't have happened. Everyone thinks the owner of their company is overpaid, and can sit back and collect a huge check. The hard work the lower/middle class perform is under appreciated. They always know better than their boss. How come they do not start their own business? Look at Puerto Rico. Their governor, Fortuno, cut public jobs (about 17,000) He cut corporate taxes from 41% to 30%. He managed to turn Puerto Rico's deficit around and they are once again a thriving nation. Oh, and the 17,000 jobs he cut, he helped them start their own businesses and now 80% of them are making more money in the private sector then they were in the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM

      My god, what BS conservative echo chamber did u get that bunch of nonsense from? Bill Clinton didn't "disolve" Glass Steagall, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did. The GLBA was authored most notably by Phil Gramm who also authored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that prevented derivatives from being regulated. Gramm then went on to work as vice chairman of UBS's investment bank division. Clinton signed the bill into law and deserves the blame for that but you can stop pretending that he somehow came up with and enacted GLBA on his own.

      Bill Clinton came up with subprime mortgages? Are you being disingenuous or are you delusional? Subprimes became possible after the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982. Who was president then?

      I assume you're referring to either the amendments made to the CRA and/or Freddie/Fanny. This of course ignores the fact that CRA loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages. Only 6% of high-cost loans had any connection to CRA and that loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law. Many subprime lenders were not even subject to the CRA. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. They also reported that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Aside from the FCIC report, the majority of Federal reserve economists and independent academic researchers state that subprime lending wasn't a significant cause of the financial crisis. Hell even Alan Greenspan stated that: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2010-04-07/economy/30756843_1_subprime-loans-greenspan-financial-crisis-inquiry-commission

      Wow, maybe we should strive to emulate the success of Puerto Rico on the mainland. Although before we do, we might want to consider a few things about P.R. that you forgot to mention. Puerto Rico is headed for its twelfth consecutive deficit with fiscal year 2012 with estimates of this years deficits as high as $1.4 billion. Gross public debt has increased to nearly 90% of the gross product. When compared to all of the U.S. States, Puerto Rico ranks first in worst debt-to-GDP and worst in debt-to-Revenue. Additionally, Puerto Rico has the largest debt-to-Tax Revenue ratio when compared to all of the U.S. States. Perhaps that's why you didn't mention several tax increases imposed by Fortuno. The IVU consumption tax at 7%, and a an excise tax on foreign corporations doing business in P.R. Interestingly enough the majority of those corporations are U.S. based companies who recover the excise tax as foreign tax credits in their consolidated U.S. Corporate Income Tax Returns. So U.S. taxpayers are paying for a portion of the economic turnaround you're praising. Let's not forget the 12% inflation, their BBB bond rating, and 13% unemployment. So, tell me again what it is about Puerto Rico we should emulate?

      Delete
  6. IamgreedyAugust 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

    You failed to mention, P.R. had a deficit of $1.4b but managed to lower their deficit to $930m in July. They should be able to balance their books by 2014 if they continue down this path. I am not stating the US should emulate P.R. in every aspect, but I used them as an example of being fiscally responsible. You mention great points but you are forgetting to mention the rest of the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IamgreedyAugust 18, 2012 at 6:38 PM

      And by the way, Bill Clinton signed the law of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed the separation of of investment banking and commercial banking.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)