Kati, my darling cat with the
beautiful face, we need to have another conversation. Kati, I fear you are
developing an eating disorder. You seem to be constantly hungry. Every time I
enter the kitchen you seem to believe you should be fed. You are obviously
getting fatter. That grieves me no end as I like you as you were before, sleek
and elegant, almost blue in the sunshine, energetic and gorgeous. I try not to
give in to your piteous whining. I know you cannot possibly be that hungry, but
you always win.
But our personal problems
aside, there are apparently those who are worse off than we are, billionaires
and multi-millionaires who feel they are being unfairly attacked because they
are rich. One of them, a particularly obnoxious billionaire, even went so far
as to claim he fears a Kristallnacht targeting them. You don’t remember
Kristallnacht, of course, as that was at least half a century before you were
born, maybe more. It was a terrible night when the Nazis attacked Jewish stores
and property, breaking windows, thieving, brutalizing, and so on. He thinks the
progressives are in the process of doing the same thing to the rich. He later
apologized for using the term Kristallnacht but it’s obvious he fears something
like that may happen to the rich. Personally, I think his fear may be a result
of his guilt although you would never know it because of his arrogance and
disregard for reality.
It is pretty obvious there is
unlikely ever to be a real Kristallnacht here. But it is not unlikely, I think,
there may eventually be a dramatic change in the tax code when the filthy rich
are finally made to pay their taxes. Not just their “fair share” but real
substantial taxes, perhaps even up to the ninety percent they paid under the
Eisenhower administration. The fact is that even if they paid that much in
taxes their life styles would probably not change much. I mean, after all, they
would still have their millions and billions, private airplanes, yachts, gold
faucets, Rolexes, and they would still be able to feast on unborn lamb and
thousand dollar truffles. They might have to reduce the number of their
mansions but it is unlikely they would truly suffer like the single moms that
can’t feed their children, or the children themselves who are ashamed to go to
school because of their rags. So pity the rich, they have it pretty hard these
days.
Not that anything like that
might happen to them. You might notice that neither Obama or anyone else is
seriously suggesting they might actually have to pay more taxes. The idea is
not to increase taxes on the wealthy but, rather, to throw a few more sardines
to the poor, to increase the pathetic minimum wage from $7.25 to the outrageous
$10.10 per hour. Wow, that’s really going to solve the gap between the
obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor. It is absurd, on the face of it, that
any individual person in any society, should have a fortune of a billion or
more dollars while the majority lack even enough food to eat. I don’t believe
everyone should have the same amount of money but the current imbalance is so
great, so unnecessary, so unrealistic, so damaging it simply should not be
permitted. I don’t know how much is too much but there should be some kind of
formula that allows us to keep things on a much more even keel, so to speak.
The argument that those with
money are the job creators is utter nonsense. The idea of trickle- down
economics will work is even more nonsensical. I don’t know where this strange
economic theory originated but it was certainly put into play by Saint Ronnie
the Moron and we are suffering from it still. In spite of President Obama’s
speeches and promises it doesn’t appear to me any substantial changes are on
the way, the Banks and Wall Street are still in charge, the Insurance companies
and pharmaceuticals continue to rip us off as if there is no tomorrow, the
military/industrial/political complex still claims most of the national budget,
the poor continue to be poor although perhaps with a bit more oatmeal. Capitalism,
the greatest boon since the Black Plague continues. But not to worry, Superbowl
Sunday is imminent.
Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any
effective power but that of self interest backed by force.
4 comments:
well said my friend
Ever the voice of reason. I am going to use Bernard Shaw's quote- Thanks for sharing
Banks require repayments for their loans with interest. That repaid money like taxes is destroyed, and moves out of the economy. Only the interest payments survive - but only a small amount of the interest is spent back into the economy. On the net, unless the loans produce NEW REAL ASSETS, the result is a transfer of financial assets from the 99% to the 1%. So unless the (monetarily sovereign)federal government replenishes the financial assets to the 99%, the net result is an increase in inequality, and an impoverishment of the bottom in the form of wage slavery (at extremely low wages). Eventually when no new real assets are being created the loans cannot be repaid and results either in a systemic collapse, as happened in '08, or a continuous transfer of the newly created assets to the top 1% at the time of bankruptcy.
The first thing that needs to be done is to ditch the unrealistic assumptions that underlie the neoliberal view of the world and the socio-economic models that are used to justify it, such as free markets, free trade and free capital flow leading automatically to optimal social, political and economic outcome because it is assumed that they are based on laws of nature. This has no basis in reality.-Steve
Economics is a study of morality.
The answer is not a 'take-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor approach.' Asking rich corporations to pay poor people more may seem to be a moral approach but is it economically moral? Will it benefit American society as a whole for our businesses to be 'penalized' for employing American workers?
Rather, the solution should be to give the poor more, while taking nothing from the rich. That would provide the most benefit to the entire American populace.
How can we do it? Our (MONETARILY SOVEREIGN)federal government (not state or local governments who indeed do need revenue) could institute a reverse income tax. The less you earn, the more the government will pay you.
Since taxes do not pay for federal spending, no one would be punished. The poor would be lifted, and even the rich would be lifted, because the entire economy would be lifted.
The reverse income tax would operate like the current federal tax, except that below a certain income level(say $50,000 per year?), the federal government would pay Americans rather than Americans paying the federal government.
The logistics are in place. The IRS already is set up to accomplish this. It would cost nothing, not for you, nor for me, not for anyone.
All that would be required is the admission that federal taxes don’t pay for federal spending, and federal deficits are necessary for a growing economy.-Steve
Post a Comment