Tag: Tax the Rich

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

Reality Star Heather Dubrow threw a party that may have cost as much as $140,000. The average American makes in one year $66,622. So, Dubrow spent more than twice the average American salary for one party.

Some will say, it is her money to spend how she wishes.

I would argue with that. If she is receiving any tax credits to lessen her tax burden, some of this tax money is actually being spent on a party. How would you feel if a poor person spent their benefits on a party? Of course, we would be outraged. So, why are rich people, who gain income through not pay all their taxes, seen differently? Aren’t they manipulating the system to obtain money they don’t need to pay for a lavish party? Why is the Welfare Mom (which is largely mythic and not real) who buys a Cadillac demonized while the socialite (which is real) can use her tax reduced income on lavish parties and nary a word in protest is spoken?

It’s not so much the cost of the party, it is the misplaced sympathies we have for the rich. The temerity of these people who constantly complain about their tax burden while they can still afford lavish parties. They are doing fine and will continue to do fine if they pay their full tax bill.

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

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.

By on

So a Florida Millionaire was trying to kill his wife. After numerous failed attempts, he only managed to scare the shit out of his wife and his children. He upped the game a bit by paying a hit men $150,00 to kill wife with an additional $150,000 if the hitman could complete the task before their court date.

The man had hundreds of millions of dollars but he would rather kill his wife than give her a divorce settlement. I don’t know about you but I can’t understand such foolishness. He would still have a fortune if he had to give her 50%. But no, he would rather risk killing her than give her a penny. His wife, however, got the better end of the bargain as the cops found out about it. He was forced to commit suicide before they arrested him. I also am assuming that she might get a portion of his estate, so win win for her.

This man clearly had way too much money. Better that it went to taxes to buy solar panels in Seattle.

By on

Here is the thing If rich people put money back into their business and their employees, I can see giving them some kind of tax break. But a lot of their money is spent on bull shit. If they can afford the bull shit, they can also afford the additional taxes. It isn’t taking money away from investing in their business either. It is taking money from them spending it on bullshit. There is this notion out there that we can’t afford to help the poor with government programs that bring more equity to the society. The money is there it is just misallocated.

Here is another glaring example of this misallocation.

Andrew Garfield’s new girlfriend is apparently a witch. She charges $1,000 for a Tarot reading. I would rather it went to a street person buying cheap wine than it went for this bullshit. At least the homeless person would get drunk for a number of days which is certainly a much more tangible result than telling the fortunes of rich people and bilking them out of a few dollars.

Every time someone claims we just don’t have enough money, I hope you keep these waste’s of money in mind.

By on

Elon Musk announced his intentions to give $45 million a month to a pro-Trump Super Pac. If he is true to his word, he will, at least, contribute $180 million to the Trump campaign before the election.

Think about it. He has an extra $180 million free dollars to contribute to an election campaign. This is a fairly large sum of money in anyone’s books. Unlike most people, his donation will not be missed in the least bit. He has billions so it doesn’t matter to him if he loses $180 million dollars.

If Trump wins, there is no way that Trump could pay off Musk other than through favors. Even the best person would have difficultly saying no to a man who gave you $180 million and Trump is far from being the best person. To be fair to Trump, in his crooked understanding of wealth, he probably thinks there is nothing wrong with billionaires draining the public trough any way but this makes it ridiculously easy for him to say yes.

More importantly, if Musk has this amount of money, why not divide it among his own employees instead of investing in a political campaign. $180 million divided among the employees of Tesla and Instagram would bring real benefits to his own employees, encourage other rich people to do the same and it spreads the wealth around a bit to people who can then make campaign contributions of their own.

Musk is free to use this money in any way he wanted yet he choose to use this money to support a political action committee. With all his billions, he would rather gamble with a political candidate that may lose than giving more money to his own employees. Spreading the wealth this way would also give some political power to his employees. Now, because he is such a generous leader, these employees might follow his lead and contribute to the pro-Trump Pac or they may choose to give to the Democrats but it wouldn’t be one man using this money to gain more political leverage.

But Musk would much rather spin the wheel with Trump. To get what exactly? More billions? This disproves this oft repeated notion that billionaires will do the right thing with their money if only left alone. Musk would much rather keep the money which also keeps the political power this money can provide strictly within his hands.

If the government took only half of the $180 million, Musk would still have $90 million to contribute to Trump. Wouldn’t it be good for Musk to help pay off the national debt the Republicans are so worried about and it wouldn’t be a bit of a problem for Musk because he wasn’t planning to put the money back into his business and creating in the first place. Win Win, I say.

By on

After hearing unpleasant information from one of his executives, Elon Musk makes a snap decision to fire her and all 500 members of her staff. He now is trying to rehire some of them back as they are necessary for his business. If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because Musk made a similar decision when he acquired Twitter. Which leads to the question, how smart can the man be if he keeps making the same mistake over and over again. Has he learned nothing from his dubious acquisition of Twitter? Apparently not.

This notion that we owe the rich some kind of deference because they are better at making decisions is a myth. The big difference between regular people and Musk is that Musk can afford to make mistakes while the rest of us can not. In this case, how many millions of dollars were lost trying to retrieve people who shouldn’t have been fired in the first place? Well, continue on Elon, your brilliance continues to be disputable.