Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Could You Please Pass the Fifties, Sir/Ma'am
Michael Moore is constantly referring to "our wealth", "our resources" (yes, folks, he's speaking of cold, hard cash here), the fact that the country isn't broke, etc.. I mean, it's almost as if this fellow thinks that we're living in a commune or something. Can somebody out there please explain to this blankety-blank the difference between public and private property. At least from what I can gather here, he doesn't really grasp it (well, save except for his own huge portfolio) very well.....................................................................................................Now, this isn't to say that the rich SHOULDN'T be paying more in taxes (I personally would like to say the top rates go back to 40% - preferably for deficit reduction). But that, folks, is a decision which is made via the political process. It isn't arrived at via the musings of some heavily (no pun intended) ideological/hypocritical film-maker.....................................................................................................P.S. And, neither, either, is it (the raising of somebody's taxes) something that we should ever do lightly - as if in fact it WERE our money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I could accept the top rate of 40%, as long as it is not just a stepping stone by the greedy statists to a much higher rate.
"Can somebody out there please explain to this blankety-blank the difference between public and private property."
If you want... perhaps I could. I communicate back-and-forth with him from time to time. But when I see him around, I tend to avoid politics.
And like I said, dmarks, I'm not at all proposing this tax rate lightly. I'm just looking at the deficit and trying to spread the sacrifice around.
I know you are not proposing this lightly. You aren't one to propose such a thing lightly, let alone like some who see it as just one way for the government to crush the people (and would really prefer an 80% tax rate)
I support Robert Reich's tax plan that calls for a 70 percent rate on the highest "earners".
This, btw, is what Michael Moore is referring to when he says, "we're not broke". He knows the US isn't a "commune or something". He does not need anyone to explain to him the difference between public and private property.
It appears to me that Will is so filled with blind/angry partisan hatred for Michael Moore that what he really meant just doesn't matter to him. What matters is that he is able to bash a great advocate for progressive values.
I vociferously (though respectfully) disagree with Robert Reich on this one. A 70% tax today isn't the same as a 70% tax 50 years ago. The (nonpartisan/revenue neutral) Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the rates, but it also eliminated many shelters and loopholes. The way that I see it, if the government can't get by on 40% of what a person makes, then that government really needs to reassess what it's doing. And, please, keep in mind here, in my proposal, capital gains is taxed at the SAME rate as regular income AND mortgage deduction is capped at $500,000.
I vociferously agree with Robert Reich on this one. Keep in mind that that rate would not apply to the tax payer's entire "earnings".
"What matters is that he is able to bash a great advocate for progressive values."
I am probably the only one here with a nuanced version of Moore...
However, where does it fit in that Moore opposes tax subsidies in general for the rich/big business, but he personally benefits from this (a moviemaker subsidy) and as a result opposes such bailouts to everyone, except for those in his own industrial sector?
Let's see, wd, 70% plus the 7.65% from removing the SS cap, plus, if from New York, the 8.97% state income tax for high earners, plus the $30,000 in property taxes for a $1,000,000 home, plus the plethora of luxury, sin, gas, and sales taxes - my God, at some point under your and Mr. Reich's system, these people will be working for basically nothing. What, pray tell, incentive for success is THAT?
Will: Let's see, wd, 70% plus...
No, clearly you do not see. The 70 percent rate only applies to income "earned" OVER 15 million. If you "earn" more than 15 million the 70 percent rate only applies to whatever you "earned" in EXCESS of 15 million. A LOWER rate applies to everything else (actually multiple rates).
You don't seem to understand that. Or you're lying about it. What I don't get is why your heart bleeds so much for people "making" 15 million freaking dollars! A YEAR.
It's beyond my comprehension. Are you a millionaire? Are you being paid by a Republican organization to take this position?
Regarding what dmarks said... I suppose Will thinks this makes MM a hypocrite (I imagine Will thinks MM is a hypocrite for other reasons, but I'm talking about JUST what dmarks said)?
I did a quick Google search and found that MM qualified for a tax credit for filming part of his last film in Michigan... and he took it even though he previously said Michigan shouldn't offer it.
About that Michael Moore said, "I am under pressure from the studio to apply for the tax credit for Capitalism: A Love Story".
I don't think this is proof that he "opposes such bailouts to everyone, except for those in his own industrial sector".
Just because he took it (under studio pressure) doesn't mean he doesn't still oppose it. It's up to Michigan (or whomever offers such incentives) to change the law.
Also, dmarks referred to "tax subsidies" and then "bailouts"... which aren't the same thing... although in my response (above) I assumed he was talking about the former when he mentioned the later. MM wasn't "bailed out" as far as I know (nor would he have been eligible for any kind of bailout).
Yes, dude, I DO understand, the 70% applies to income over a certain threshold (I didn't know that it was 15 million - and, really, why 15 and not 14 or 16, is 15 some magic number or something?). And according to the scenario that I provided, that person will not be able to keep much of any of that money over the threshold. That would be a huge disincentive to create and invest. If you think that you're not going to be able to keep virtually anything for your innovation and ingenuity, why would you even bother?
Will: That would be a huge disincentive to create and invest.
I think that would be a GREAT thing! The disincentive part... the rest I don't believe. IMO nobody can do anything that is worth that much. They are being overpaid. If we can disincentivize these overpayments I think that would be a very good thing.
Unlike dmarks I oppose overpaying people on the high end instead of the low end.
Believe it or not, wd, investing and entrepreneurship can often be a good thing. It helps to create jobs, innovation (as in new products and services), commerce, etc........And no offense, but I don't want to live in a country where a spate of angry have-nots sitting in front of a computer screen determine the worth of people. Hell, wd, you might even say that it's a flat-out non-starter with me.
Will: And no offense, but I don't want to live in a country where a spate of angry have-nots sitting in front of a computer screen determine the worth of people.
Is Robert Reich a "have-not"?
No offense, but I think you don't know WTF you're talking about. (1) My belief that nobody is worth that much has nothing to do with my being (or not being) a have-not. (2) There are other things people can do with the money that might otherwise go to a high salary. I think disincentivizing high salaries would be GOOD for the economy.
The money that would have gone to a high wage "earner" can be invested back into the business and grow the business... or the workers can be paid more. The stock holders could recieve a higher dividend.
There are numerous other thing that could be done with that money that would be better for the economy than giving it to one person.
I think increasing taxes on higher income earnings would increase investing and not harm entrepreneurship... which, believe it or not, I also think can be a good thing.
The silly "determine the worth of people" argument you've put forth is a total non-starter for ME.
You know what I find really really strange? The fact that you're OK with the have-mores determining the worth of everybody else.
That is what is going on when there is no union. Employers are not seeking to pay workers a fair wage, they want to pay them as little as possible.
I really don't get the corporatist mindset.
"Employers are not seeking to pay workers a fair wage, they want to pay them as little as possible."
That is how fair deals come about: One side wants it one way, the other side wants it another. The deal is sealed when a middle amount is agreed on by both.
It's not remarkable that one side wants to give as little as possible. But the other side won't let them.
So what happens when workers are paid a fair real-world value? Check the KIA factory in Georgia. Low skill, low worth jobs. But the workers dont' make "pennies" at them: they get $20 an hour. All with NO union. Honda workers get about $30 an hour.
"I really don't get the corporatist mindset."
I don't either, but I'm not a corporatist and I've hardly ever met one.
"Unlike dmarks I oppose overpaying people on the high end instead of the low end."
I oppose overpayment on ALL ends. Wages should be determined by the real value of the work.
Will said: "That would be a huge disincentive to create and invest"
Very true. Such greedy high tax rates would force the creators and innovators to find another country where they can do this without being stolen from so much.
dmarks: That is how fair deals come about: One side wants it one way, the other side wants it another. The deal is sealed when a middle amount is agreed on by both.
That's baloney (unless you're talking about the rare individual who has some unique talent). You assume both sides in the negotiation have equal power, which they most often do not.
Most often the "deal" is sealed when the employer finds the best qualified person willing to work for the least amount of money (which means if there are a lot of other qualified people applying the wage could be driven down quite low).
Also, should manual labor jobs pay so little that a worker has to apply for government assistance just to get by? I think dmarks must really hate the working poor.
It's not baloney at all.
"You assume both sides in the negotiation have equal power, which they most often do not."
They have equal power come to try to make the deal, or walk away.
"Most often the "deal" is sealed when the employer finds the best qualified person willing to work for the least amount of money"
Yes! That is the way it should be. Paying anything more is a waste. Just like going to the store to buy a gallon of milk and choosing the store that charges 20 cents less than the other one.
"which means if there are a lot of other qualified people applying the wage could be driven down quite low"
Yes, of course.
"Also, should manual labor jobs pay so little that a worker has to apply for government assistance just to get by?"
No. These jobs should be for starter jobs, not for supporting entire families. Anyone doing anything like that is making lousy choices. If people want more money they should excel a lot and improve their skills. There's no good reason to apply arbitrary high values to low-worth jobs and turn employers into welfare agencies.
"I think dmarks must really hate the working poor."
The word that makes the least sense in that statement is "think". That is what you are NOT doing.
My biggest problem with forcing employers to hand out unearned money (overpay) is that so much of it goes to middle class (or higher) teenagers who are NOT supporting families. It's not means tested.
Pay should be for the value of the work. Not according to the extravagance of one's lifestyle.
Paying people wages people can live on is NOT a "waste". Nor can not living out of your car be called "extravagant"?
But these are the kind of views you'd expect from someone who believes the wealthy elites should rule, so I'm really not surprised.
dmarks: These jobs should be for starter jobs, not for supporting entire families.
This is a common Republican lie. There aren't enough individuals to fill these so-called "starter jobs". I wouldn't say it's OK to underpay anyone in any case... even for a "starter job".
Saying someone who is barley scraping by a victim of their own "lousy choices" is how Republicans justify their hatred of the working poor. Frankly it churns my stomach.
Post a Comment