Category: Tax the Rich

By on

Mike Lindell lost the Minnesota Republican governor nomination by about 45,000 votes. Because this doesn’t even come close to Minnesota’s threshold for a state funded recount, the losing candidate has to pay for the recount. Lindell want that recount so he must pay close to a million dollars for this recount. A recount that he will surely lose. Throwing one million dollars down the drain to learn something that you already knew for free.

Now I am only too glad that he is spending money on this losing cause since this means this million bucks can’t be used to defeat Democratic candidates later. It still sticks in my craw though. It is an insult to anyone who a million dollars actually means something.

It is also depressing because his hidden motive is to discredit American elections. He doesn’t care that he will lose a million because he is publicizing his belief that the American election system is a fraud and it isn’t to be trusted. Any speculation about fraud just adds fuel to the fire. But, hey, it is his million dollars, right?

This is precisely the problem. This isn’t money to reinvest in his business or to buy a home or even to keep his mistress in jewels and chocolates. It is to discover that he has lost an election. Something he already knows.

Anyone making so much money that they can throw it away in such a careless manner simply has too much money. The money would be better spent giving every derelict in Los Angeles a steak dinners and a bottle of whiskey — at least someone would be happy in the end. But no Lindell wants a recount just for the thrill of undermining the integrity of American Elections. That is it.

By on

Elon Musk is pissed off about Christoper Nolan’s version of the Odyssey. From what I can tell, it boils down to casting a Black woman, Lupita Nyong’o, as a Ancient Greek woman in a fictional story. He is so pissed off about it that he is willing to give $100 million to Mel Gibson to remake the film that is more faithful to Homer’s original.

So much here to consider.

Let me start with the thing that pisses off Musk so much that he is willing to pay $100 million to remake another version. It is a fucking movie Elon. Get a grip. He is free to criticize the movie and because he is a trillionaire people actually will give him media space to vent his spleen. A remake to a more pleasing version seems like a bit of an over reaction.

Next, and more importantly, a disagreeable version of a movie has made him so mad that he is willing to drop $100 million to correct it. A movie. Wars in the Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza, people starving all over the world and what really moves him to shell out his hard earned cash is a Black Helen of Troy.

If he really wanted to make the world a better place, donate the $100 million to bring down the prices of oil. It would do two things — help real people with an actual problem and it would make him a hero for doing it.

But no a Black Helen of Troy is to big of a problem for Musk which, lets face it, makes him look like an asshole. I know, I know, he already looks like an asshole but now he looks like a racist asshole. He is only making himself look worse.

Taking that $100 million and spending it on anything else, and I am talking drunken orgies on Skid Row, would be better spent and it would do wonder for his damaged image. I mean if you can’t bring yourself to think about actual poor people, think of poor Elon Musk. He needs all the image repair he can find. I call that a win/win.

By on

Why do our poor needs so little help and the rich are constantly needing help? If we don’t give the rich more, they just can’t produce the needed wave to lift all boats. The poor, on the other hand, must suffer or else they won’t come to their senses and invest their money in the Stock Market, vacation homes and crypto currencies. Right?

There are two ways to get government assistance. Government can give you assistance through programs and services or government can reduce your tax bill through tax breaks. People who have less money tend to get their assistance in government services while people who have more money receive their assistance through tax breaks. Both, however, are handouts.

But only one carries the weight of does this person deserve to be helped. The idea that if you receive government benefits you also need to prove you are deserving of these benefits. So, for example, a person who receives SNAP benefits are unable to buy alcohol and cigarettes with the money they receive while a person who receives a tax break can buy as much alcohol as they want. Nobody would dream of questioning their purchases.

Why? They are getting money from the government. Why isn’t it monitored with the same vigor that SNAP benefits are watched.

They even get a different spin on their handout — the rich are job creators who need that extra money to power the economy while the person who receives benefits is a welfare recipient — a non-productive member of society, a taker. This glaringly different view of these two handouts also has an effect on how government benefits and tax breaks are perceived so that if belts need to be tightened, it is the poorer people who are squeezed.

Tax breaks, on the other hand, are sacrosanct. Why?

Taxes are an obligation. Now, you may not like paying taxes nor the programs that taxes are used for but this doesn’t take away from the fact that taxes are an agreed upon method for us to pay the government bills. If you don’t like they way taxes are collected or the programs the government uses them for, you can take your position to the public during an election. It is an imperfect system, especially if your position always loses, but it is the one we have and, unless someone has a better idea, the fairest way for government to work.

I am not against tax breaks. I do, however, think that there should be a real verifiable return for the government for any break given. The tax breaks need to prove they are indeed more beneficial than the financial loss to the government tills. So my question is how are tax breaks measured as being successful — good for society or a good return in additional taxes. And, if they aren’t producing the desired effect, why not cut them instead of programs that help our most vulnerable citizens.

The tax breaks will, or so we are told, pay for themselves because the rich will invest in the economy which will eventually raise all boats. But, if this was the case, shouldn’t the government be rolling in dough. This isn’t the case. In fact, the biggest single expenditure in the Federal Government is tax breaks. Since the Reagan years, government has given tax breaks and cut taxes numerous times and yet we are further in debt. The income from tax breaks and tax cuts have failed to raise the promised revenue.

To get rid of these tax breaks, even some of them, would bring in enough additional money to offset some of these expenses. But, eliminating tax breaks is nearly impossible because you are hurting the job creator. They need help. But, then, so does the mother using SNAP. Who needs more help?

Herein is my question then, why do our richest citizens always seem to need so much help? Why can’t they stand on their own two feet, pull themselves up by their boot straps and just pay their taxes without any breaks? It is really sad that the rich have sunk into such dependency on government handouts. It isn’t really helping them they continue their proliferate ways — drinking alcohol, taking vacations — on the government dime. They just need to learn how to live within their means.

All I know is I am getting tired of their constant whining about how difficult it is for them as I have seen very little evidence that they are having a difficult time.

By on

One of the most remarkable accomplishments of modern marketing is the one the Rich have pulled on the American Middle Class. They have managed to make Americans more afraid of taxing wealthy people in the unlikely event that these members of the Middle Class become billionaires than the much more likely event that they will need, at some point in their life, available social services that will help them weather a financial storm.

It is peculiarly American trait which turns its full power against the Poor for being poor and fuels fear in the Middle Class that if they tax too much the whole money machine we have come to depend upon will come crashing down around them and, then, everybody will be poor. Is that what you want? Everyone being poor. How this message continues to attract believers is beyond me but lets face it, it somehow continues to hold a large segment of the American population in it’s thrall.

By on 2 Comments

So the wizards in Silicon Valley are spending $50,000 to screen their fetuses for intelligence. They only want the best apparently and are willing to pay top dollar before going through the whole trouble of pregnancy and childbirth.

This shows a startling narrow view of intelligence — it all can be found in the genes and nothing else, say education or environment or, even, dare I say, loving parents. Who knows but I am certain that a DNA test is only part of the story.

And the data may cause more questions than answers. What if you never get a fetus that has an IQ that you want? Say you want a baby with at least a 130 IQ and you keep getting fetuses stuck in the 120 range. Do you bite the bullet and work with you 120 kid or keep trying? What if your 160 IQ fetus also has an incurable disease that will cut the baby’s life short? Possibly before they can express their genius. Or your 160 IQ fetus has genetic predisposition for alcoholism or drug addiction? Or what if your 160 IQ fetus is on the spectrum. Yes they are a genius but they an incredibly difficult time being around other people? What takes priority – the potential genius or the kid who can’t socialize with his kindergarten class.

Babies are a crap shot. You get what you get and you do the best with what you got. Spending $50,000 to comb through DNA data to find the best baby seems like an incredible waste of money to receive dubious data. Really if you can afford to throw away $50,000 on developing a perfect baby, you can afford $50,000 for better schools for everyone.

By on

One of the enduring mysteries of American Tax laws is why do the Rich need so much help.

Let me start with tax laws because this is where the Rich do their best to milk the rest of us. A tax bill is money owed the government for services provided. Now you may not like to pay taxes (who does?) but the political institutions that guide our communal living has determined this is the money a person owes. Citizens have an opportunity to change these laws by electing people of a similar mind in the frequent elections held in this country.

It is the price for living here in the USA — the greatest country on the face of the earth, right? But the Rich are constantly complaining that they need more money in order to juice the economy and if you give them more money it will actually help everyone else because the Rich will be spending money on their businesses. So since the election of Reagan in 1980, taxes have been routinely cut and tax breaks have been instituted to such a degree that many rich people and companies presently pay absolutely no income taxes.

How is this working for everyone else? Have the rich fulfilled their promise to make the rest of us rich with their selfless spending. Surely the Americans must have the richest poor people on the face of the earth. They must be swimming in luxury — great health care, cheap housing, good public education.

But this isn’t the story. Why hasn’t all this largess to the Rich had any effect? Hmm. Let me think about this. Perhaps they haven’t been juicing the American economy. How could this be? They claim to love this country so much, why hasn’t all this love and money translated into a more stable economic situation for everyone else. What could be wrong?

The Rich do have an answer. They just need even more tax cuts. They just haven’t been given enough money to juice the economy. This means everyone else will have to suck it up when cutting government funded programs for the poor and the middle class. The American taxpayer simply can’t afford to help everyone and it is vital that the Rich get even more money then, and only then, will the rich have enough money to spend the rest of us into prosperity.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. What if, instead of giving money to the rich, we gave it to poor and the middle class. They will buy groceries, cars, air conditioners, and a whole array of products that, you got it, will juice the economy. In fact, because there are more just plain folk than there are rich people, it might just juice the economy better and faster than giving money to the rich. I don’t know but I would like to give it a try. Giving to the rich hasn’t exactly worked as promised.

But the budget. We haven’t collected enough in taxes to pay for all this help. Right. Because we are giving the Rich so much back in tax reduction, we are going into debt and unable to afford actions that might help everyone else. Get out your handkerchiefs. Why is it that the only time the Republicans care about the budget deficit is when it involves expanding programs that help the poor. They don’t give a damn about the budget deficits when they are cutting taxes for the Rich which has exactly the same effect — budget deficits.

The whole premise of helping the rich in order to help the poor is so demented. It is a topsy turvy Alice through the looking glass view of living. Our most economically secure citizens — the people with the most money, the best healthcare, luxury vacations, personal airplanes and such — always need our help while we can’t help our least economically secure citizens who don’t have money, or healthcare, or even a safe place to lay their head at night. Helping the poor is always seen as bad while helping the rich is necessary. How does this make sense?

That this story keeps being told, with a straight face no less, is depressing. Years of low taxation and cuts in social services have shown, it to be patently false. But hey ho, I’ve got mine.

Until I don’t.

By on

Because government programs like SNAP and Medicaid are paid for by the government, the government qualifies and monitors the people. who receive these benefits in order to ensure they aren’t buying liquor and cigarettes. There are legitimate arguments on whether this type of costly monitoring is necessary, however, I am willing to go along with them because if some people, in order to maintain programs that help the poor, need this kind of information in order to have them, I am all in. Qualify and monitor. These are the type of compromises that make governing in a politically diverse country possible.

What is annoying is the same oversight is not given to people who receive tax breaks. They just get the money and can do whatever they want with it including buying liquor and cigarettes. Now the notion here is that these good people are going to spend the money they received in tax breaks in investing money in their businesses thus creating more jobs however they are under no obligation to prove this. They could be spending the money on call centers located overseas and spa vacations for all we know. But no one asks them to show how they are spending these breaks on creating jobs here in America.

Here in lies the problem I have with tax breaks. They are unmonitored and given without nary a thought on how these windfalls are actually spent. So what, you might ask. Even if the jobs are created for call centers located in India and European vacations — this money eventually gets put back into the economy for the good of all. Right?

Well, yes but then very same thing can be said for giving money to the poor. Buying liquor and cigarettes at the local convenience store juices the American economy too. In fact, giving money to the poor is more likely to juice the American economy because the poor stay locally while the rich might wander off to Tahiti or Bali to spend their money.

Some people would argue that tax breaks are allowing the rich to keep their money and they should do anything they want with it. I would argue that it isn’t their money. The American people have a tax rate, whether you like that tax rate or not — it is the law. The tax obligation is the amount owed before tax breaks are calculated. The tax breaks then become government benefits — like Medicaid or SNAP.

If government benefits for the poor need to rigorously monitored then the same idea applies to tax breaks for the rich. I would like to see more tangible evidence that the rich are using their money wisely.

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

Since Trump’s election, I continue to be puzzled by the passivity of the Billionaires Boy’s Club. The system, though imperfect and could be a lot better, has worked reasonably well for a broad swath of the American people particularly the wealthy. The very same men who explicitly or tacitly support Trump’s rampage against the Federal Government are attacking the system that made them rich.

What more can these people at the very top of the heap want? Despite their frequent complaints to the contrary, the American people, and the rich in particular, are taxed very little. These billionaires act as if the government has actually hobbled their chances on obtaining wealth. Musk has in the neighborhood of 244 billion dollars. Bezos has 197 billion. You can see the whole list here. They are billionaires for Christ’s Sake. What has government deprived them of? A 15% Federal tax bill?

Also, notice how Musk and his DOGE buddies are only going after programs that help the poor and the Middle Class — Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare — while remaining silent about tax breaks for billionaires. Tax breaks, which almost exclusively benefit the wealthy with no expectation that the money they save from eliminated taxes are reinvested into industry, are good. While government programs that help the poor and the middle class are bad. Helping people only encourages dependence on the Federal Government.

So, the already wealthy are demanding even more sacrifices from the less wealthy in order that the already wealthy can make even more money so that they will, hopefully, reinvest this money into the economy. Why are the already wealthy so dependent on the Federal Government for investment money? Of course, few people phrase the question that way.

More troubling is that there is no credible plan on how to replace this functioning system other than the economy will be so good that there will be no need for the federal government. I find it a little difficult to believe that the homeless will be shocked so profoundly by these new limitations that they will suddenly become employable. I, for one, would like a little more detail. What happens to the poor? What happens when Social Security is gone? How does this support better public education? How will healthcare became more accessible? Nothing but silence.

These people, who have benefited most from the present system, are just hoping that their immense wealth will protect them from the fallout of this chainsawing frenzy. The rich no longer have the idea of noblesse oblige that, because they have benefited from the system, they also have an obligation to help other people. They will watch the carnage from a safe distance. At least this is what they hope.

Burn it all down. None of it is any good anymore. We will figure out how to rebuild later. The old Viet Nam war adage applies here — we had to burn the village in order to save it.

Thanks for nothing.

By on

So Donald Trump is having a party to celebrate his Inauguration. Good for him. He also wants somebody else to pay for it. Unsurprisingly billionaires are ponying up millions for this little shindig. New York Times reports he has $200 hundred million. I suppose tossing a million dollars into Trump’s party is the price of doing business. It, hopefully, keeps Trump from hassling them for the next four years.

On the other hand, it fails to convince me that they need less taxation. These men can give millions for a party. They are obviously not terribly worried about the cost. Indeed, I suspect it might be less expensive to pay a million dollars to Trump than pay actual taxes. and this is precisely why the very rich need to be taxed more.