This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

There Aren't Enough Rich People To Tax

Tyler Durden's picture


The colossal size (and growth) of the US government's budget deficit is a problem that seems to remain on the sidelines all the time the Fed is buying and maintaining interest rates at an acceptable level. As we noted last night, nothing points to investor concern (yet) aside from an increasing diversification from the USD as a trade currency. Many have suggested raising taxes on the rich to cover the difference between what the government collected in revenue and what it spent. Professor Antony Davies takes on this thorny issue and demonstrates that taxing-the-rich will not be sufficient tyo make the budget deficit disappear as he notes: "the budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget"; instead we should work on legitimate solutions like cutting spending.



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:01 | 2580958 wisefool
wisefool's picture

corporations are people too. How is tax free G.E. doing? business should be booming after the dereco.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:10 | 2580981 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

What is the published annual deficit now, $1.4 trillion?  It's surely much higher than that.  There's nothing that can stop it so we are indeed heading off a cliff.


Taxes Schmaxes.  Don't mean a thing.

$16 Tril ---> $20 Tril ---> $25 Tril------------------------------------------------>>>>>>((((((KABOOM))))))

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:16 | 2581001 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

The solution is quite simple. The net worth of everyone in the US is about $65 trillion. The richest 1% own about 50% of that, or about $32 trillion. The national debt is about, what? $15 trillion?

Hence, we just have a one-time wealth tax on the 1% of 50% of their wealth and pay off the national debt in one fell swoop.

Problem solved. Ain't democracy grand?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:23 | 2581042 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

And what about the following year when the government spends another $1.4 trillion more than it collects?  Go back to the 1% for more of the same?  Democrappy is what I like to call it.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:27 | 2581060 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Thin down the wealth profile of the 1%, they don't deserve it as rentiers. This business model is corrupt as hell. By any set of standards. Kill the financial economy to start with. Make it slim and simple like before, devoted to the real economy not to derivatives and manipulaitve plays. As the man says : cultural revolution and paradigm change. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:39 | 2581098 Doña K
Doña K's picture

Before you argue with politicians and pundits who insist in taxing the rich to solve the problem, ask them before presenting them with the facts if they believe that numbers don't lie.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:00 | 2581176 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

"Before you argue with politicians and pundits who insist in taxing the rich to solve the problem"

Who's arguing? Implement a wealth ceiling of $500 million on all people, corporations and foundations.  All debt cleared. No deficit spending. No fiat money. Traitors (meaning a thorough investigation of congress and agencies) prosecuted and hanged.

Let's begin from there.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:35 | 2581292 roadlust
roadlust's picture

Excellent start.  But the nation's laws and tax policies shouldn't be ENCOURAGING the concentration of power ("money") and the marginalizing of democracy.  When tax and financial "laws" reflect what is good for the majority of people here, we can start to talk about "deficit" reduction.  The deficit is caused by under collection of the nation's wealth from a handful of people, not "too much spending" by the majority of people (through their democratically elected representatives).   

Our government is the only force big enough to deal with the international gangsters who have hoarded the world's resources.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:08 | 2581588 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Our government is the one that allows corporations (including multinationals) to exist within our borders. Our government is bought by them. You expect the problem to be resolved by those who created it? Ha!


No the deficit is the result of votes being bought. What about those individuals who are not paying taxes? Why do they get to vote themselves a paycheck?

It won't be long now. Wait for it....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:46 | 2582017 ATM
ATM's picture

Corporations lobby for one reason and one reason only - it's a great investment.

The real underlying problem is the conditions that have arisen that make such lobbying profitable in the US. the Federal government has assumed far more power than it is rightfully allowed. Remove the power and you will remove the corp money. You cannot remove the money withthe power still in place.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:19 | 2582243 Nels
Nels's picture


You haven't heard of Siemens?  Volkswagen? Daimler? Bayer? Krupp? Sanofi-Aventis? Sony?

If you have a point, you need to explain in more detail. 


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:09 | 2581590 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture



So you don't think the politicians conjure up reasons to give money to special interests for the benefit of their own political coffers?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:02 | 2581177 falak pema
falak pema's picture

we need AcTS and pronto, not words. These politicians don't deserve to be in their positions. If they stay US decline is ensured. Its for the people to ask themselves what future they want. The way the US power structure has morphed means it will get worse on its OWN past momentum. The cover up and the arm twisting will get ominous. And the can kicking. If the US people don't decide their fate, others will by opting out of Pax Americana and USD hegemony. 

Tipping times, ask the Brits what it feels like to look back to their past. Or the french or anyone else. Time waits on NO empire. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:14 | 2747937 Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:20 | 2581245 walküre
walküre's picture

Clearly there are a few agents of the 1% who are voting you down?

They keep arguing about the debt that cannot be serviced but they keep omitting that the debt is someone else's wealth.

Ergo, we cannot afford to service the huge wealth which as you describe correctly is largely built upon fraud and corruption.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:18 | 2582464 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

Must be plenty of shills here representing the 1% give the downgrades. Your cake eating days are numbered.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:28 | 2581273 Crash N. Burn
Crash N. Burn's picture

"We’ll take a hypothetical billionaire, who has an annual salary of $10 million/year (greater than that of the average billionaire). As I mentioned previously, even that monster-salary only represents 1% of the total wealth of this individual. Thus, even a 100% (income) tax-rate on a billionaire only has a trivial economic impact on this individual. More importantly, (assuming a 10% annual rate of appreciation on assets), this person’s income only represents 10% of his/her annual increase in wealth. What this means is that no income tax system could ever fairly tax such individuals – with the inevitable result that more and more of a society’s wealth is funneled into their pockets every year. Now let’s see what happens if we switch to a 5% wealth tax. It is simple arithmetic that a 5% wealth tax would result in the billionaire paying $50 million per year in taxes. In other words, using the numbers of this hypothetical example, a 5% wealth tax would result in 500% more tax revenues for government being paid by this billionaire than a 100% income tax-rate. Best of all, with the ultra-wealthy no longer being able to hide the vast majority of their wealth from taxation, the wealth tax can be set at whatever rate is necessary to stop this relentless plundering of all the wealth of our economies"

The Solution to Sovereign Insolvency, Part III: Taxation Salvation
Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:45 | 2581691 twh99
twh99's picture

I think you are overlooking the fact that people of all income levels already pay a wealth tax.  It's called property tax.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:15 | 2582092 Mentaliusanything
Mentaliusanything's picture

"the budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget"

Fixed it for you!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:16 | 2582079 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

This is so asinine as to be laughable.  The net worth of most wealthy people is in the form of assets.  In order to pay the tax, said 1%-er would have to sell those assets into a market where every other 1%-er would be selling.  Get out your Dow 1000 hats.  Or, you could just seize the assets directly.  But then you'd still need to turn it into cash.  I guess you could just hand the assets over to the debt holders.  But then, instead of Bill Gates, George Soros, and the Koch brothers as your alleged overloards, you'd have the Chinese dictatorship, the Fed, and a bunch of pension fund managers.  Boy, that's sooooo much better!

I'm sure your plan would have no negative effect on economic growth or employment. None at all.

A 50% tax on someone's net worth would likey be considered a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, so you'd need to repeal it to implement your plan.  Those pesky civil liberties!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:45 | 2582530 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Repeal? So quaint.

Why not just IGNORE the 5th. Pretend somebody imporant just took the 5th and now we can't find it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:49 | 2582750 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

The real advantage to taxing the wealthy comes from depriving them of some of the money they would spend buying politicians.  Oh wait.  The politicians would never tax the wealthy because that would cut off their benefactors.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:03 | 2581047 falak pema
falak pema's picture

absolutely, go after them and their corporates, to the Caymans, to the end of the world. And never let them do this pile up of wealth again. Today, the part of wages in GDP has never been lower and corporate profits never been higher. And taxes paid by corporates for a business model which is a screaming disgrace, for the real wealth it generates in home countries, is very low : 8% for the big boys! As they transfer price to death from Caymans. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:23 | 2581258 walküre
walküre's picture

I don't know what's the better approach. Go after the huge pile of wealth which is largely illegitimate as well as the debt or declare the wealth completely worthless unless it is tangible. At least if there was a plan to reset and reform including a jubilee, the super wealthy would have to put their capital into production.

Either way though, the end game is approaching and the balance sheets need to be blown to Smitherines.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:26 | 2581054 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

What do we do 10 years after your "one time" solution when the debt is at $1 quadrillion?

Why do we even want to fund the Federal government?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:29 | 2581279 walküre
walküre's picture

Think outside the box.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:32 | 2581063 Mercury
Mercury's picture

You mean like Bobby Mugabe has been doing since 2000 in Zimbabwe?  Genius.

Have you guys considered sending your resumes to central planning?...I bet they'd like the cut of your jib.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:47 | 2581332 walküre
walküre's picture


Speaking of "cut". What's yours under the current system? Enough to forgive and forget the oppression and the theft?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:15 | 2581416 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

The rich own Congress. Let them pay for it and it's excesses.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:14 | 2582088 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

If only.  The rich own a part of Congress.  The welfare entitlement state owns the majority.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:23 | 2582482 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

Bull shit. You're comparing the trillions to the millions. Congress pacifies the slaves to avoid an uprising.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:36 | 2581077 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

A. No such thing as a "one-time tax" in government

B. It's why the Founders wanted to avoid democracy.  However, the idea of a republic has been getting watered down for many decades (e.g., individuals voting for Senators instead of States).

Solution: Get rid of the corporate tax (which individuals pay -- just buried in the price of their products).  Tax only entities that can vote (i.e., individuals) -- then when it becomes clearer how much each of us is paying, then maybe some folks will be more inclinded to shrink the federal government rather than continue with its incessant growth.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:40 | 2581102 Mercury
Mercury's picture

You'll still likely end up with more voters than taxpayers and the incentives that go with that...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:56 | 2581160 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture



True "Democracy:" Three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for lunch...



Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:14 | 2582233 Bohm Squad
Bohm Squad's picture

Gets ugly on the third day...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:47 | 2582536 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

And on the third day, the Lord made lunch.

And it was wolf.

And it was good.

A little greasy though.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:28 | 2581269 walküre
walküre's picture

Your view is clouded by too much technocratic nonsense.

The Founders are rolling in their graves as they watch how a small corrupt group with illegitimate powers has created illegitimate wealth for themselves and oppressing the rest of the population to suck it up.

The rule of law has been suspended. We are no longer a democracy,  no longer governed by the people for the people. We are governed by the corporate interest for the corporate interest which is the interest of the bankers. Those who have hijacked the country in 1913 when they signed their currency into law. Nice gig if you have access to it. It's called Oligarchy which is a form of Aristocracy but without the titles.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:40 | 2581307 roadlust
roadlust's picture

Our "founders" wanted to avoid democracy?  We're well on our way there, thanks to morons who actually believe that.  (By the way, the world is flat.  The whole round thing is a communist conspiracy).  

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:32 | 2582135 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Yes.  The Founders did not want a democracy.  They designed a republic.  Please enlighten yourself by reading Federalist Papers #10 and #39.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:23 | 2582247 Bohm Squad
Bohm Squad's picture

You've really showed the forum the depths of your knowledge...!

The Founders wanted a constitutional republic...not a democracy...that's why we have a constitution that limits powers and protects citizens from the majority.  Well, at least it used to.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:07 | 2581393 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Corporations don't pay taxes now, so getting rid of the tax would effectively do what again?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:12 | 2581788 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

Sure bob, there is one time tax.

One time each fill-up

One time each pay check

ONe time each property tax statement.

Kinda like that, Bob.

When you die, you might have a one time estate tax, and then you are done.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:15 | 2581956 Paul451
Paul451's picture

And move the date of national elections from November to April 15th!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:37 | 2581091 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Ain't democracy grand?


Ah, an excellent point.

Indeed, as US citizens in their quest for fantasy, have built a strawsman to avoid facing that US citizenism is the prevailing system and no other, according to their depiction of democracy, this is what should happen.

Time will tell. Or a basic knowledge of US citizens...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:45 | 2581117 jekyll island
jekyll island's picture

Since when did something as insignificant as the facts stop the US Gubmint?  They have proven time and again they will not do the right thing, they will do the wrong thing, and most of the time it is exactly the opposite of what should be done.



Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:13 | 2581188 akak
akak's picture

Oh dear Chinese Citizenism troll of fabled anti-American Chinese propaganda past and now, will you please tell us all again your delightfully nonsensical fairy tale of how your supposed "US Citizenism" led to the societal and environmental collapse of Easter Island literally centuries before the USA was even founded as a nation?  That insanitation and wording of mind of yours is one of my favorites!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:16 | 2581230 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Easter Island population did not collapse centuries before 1776,July, 4th.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:27 | 2581267 akak
akak's picture

Of course it did.

"Sometime before the arrival of Europeans on Easter Island, the Rapanui experienced a tremendous upheaval in their social system brought about by a change in their island's ecology... By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population had dropped to 2,000–3,000 from a high of approximately 15,000 just a century earlier." (

But you keep on repeating your garbled and nonsensical anti-American bigotry and Chinese Citizenism propaganda, and make us laugh.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:18 | 2581425 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1!  LOL!

Troll-cleaner akak is back in action!!!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:33 | 2581479 akak
akak's picture

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:40 | 2581505 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Hip waders are essential for the job, as the Chinese citizenism is always wanting to blob up.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:45 | 2581518 akak
akak's picture

Full haz-mat suits are the recommended apparel for such tasks.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:47 | 2581122 jekyll island
jekyll island's picture

Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what to have for dinner.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:48 | 2582540 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

As one of the sheep, I'm voting for PIZZA!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:26 | 2581263 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

So, who is going to purchase all the assets that will be liquidated by the rich in order to pay this one-time tax? What kind of deflation will that bring, if there aren't enough dollars floating around so Trillions have to be printed? What if the majority of these assets in your proposed fire sale go to offshore entities?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:33 | 2581287 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

You're overlooking the basic fact that our rulers are among the richest of the rich and will not vote themselves into poverty.

The solution is really much simpler.  Outlaw sovereign debt.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:49 | 2582542 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Better yet, outlaw laws.

When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:46 | 2581395 monad
monad's picture

Sure, problem solved. For at most 1 year, as the deficit is only a symptom of the underlying idiocy. Given this much juice the cancer will come back with more zeroes and then the 1% will be the 0.001%, and its back to the stone age.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:15 | 2581602 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture



Problem solved. Ain't democracy grand?"

The only problem is, not a single "rich" person will be able to accumulate that much money when all sell their assets at once.

It would only cause the largest and most devastation market crash in the history of the world.


Remember, the assets may be valued at that, but that doesn't mean there is enough cash in the world to buy it all at once (or to sell it all at once).


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:16 | 2581800 victor82
victor82's picture

Ah democracy, the lowest form of mob rule. The banquet hall of mountebanks and demaguogues.

Where two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:21 | 2581038 johnjkiii
johnjkiii's picture

You're correct. The "official" deficit excludes Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicade and now - tah Dah - Obammycare. I think it was Churchill who said that taxing yourself to prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:25 | 2581052 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

That doesn't work?  I always thought I just wasn't strong enough or the bucket had a weak bottom.  :)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:44 | 2582165 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Depending on the assumptions one uses, total liabilities for the US are in the $50 to $100 trillion range, not counting Obamacare.  Add another $20 to $40 trillion for that.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:32 | 2581078 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture


few to nobody said it was.  It's one step of a multi-step path to bringing the debt under control.  This is why many moderates and even many lefties agree that we must increase revenue (i.e. increase taxes) AND lower spending.  one or the other alone isn't enough.

Part of the problem is that we have certain politicians who have signed a pledge that they refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances.  (as we all saw, they would not take a $10 cut in spending for $1 rise in taxes deal).  this makes any deal politically impossible, since they've signalled that they won't deal.

The solution to our debt is certainly not to lower taxes even further.  We saw what happened to the deficit and debt when GWB did that.

Obviously, we're never paying down the debt.  I'd say that's pretty obvious

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:03 | 2581185 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture



Why not just cut the spending?

Just a little US History: the United States existed for 137 years and became a world power with the world's greatest navy (TR's "Big Stick") all without an income tax.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:40 | 2581306 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Yes. That would be step #1 of a multi-step process.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:41 | 2581309 walküre
walküre's picture

Paying down the debt? Not until we have an alien invasion.

How about sustaining the debt level? How about rolling existing debt over? Servicing the debt is a major challenge at this point!

Why? Because the balance sheets are completely off the charts out of whack and we're facing 0 and negative growth. Even minimal growth rates make it next to impossible to keep going much longer. We're all dreaming here.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:34 | 2581086 FEDbuster
Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:11 | 2580989 pkea
pkea's picture

how about this idea. nationalize jpm's assets,  as well as bac and citi

tax apple, google, pharma and  the rest at the rate as everyone else, bring their overseas trillions back and tax them too

problem solved.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:24 | 2581045 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

The banks have no assets.  They traded them for paper promises.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:06 | 2581190 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

And now those promises are failing to earn more promises, so instead they suffer the loss of purchasing power in the form of

Dear Counter-party. Your assets suck. Please meet the new minimum margin requirements ASAP, else we load up on CDSes, pull the trigger, and own you outright.

Love Jamie/Lloyd.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:20 | 2581807 victor82
victor82's picture

Actually, what then happens is that the PBOC comes walkin' on in and buys the TBTF Banks for nickels on the dollar.

The Chinese aren't stupid. They're patient.

You're next mortgage will be in Mandarin.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:27 | 2581059 CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

Aren't jpm, bac, and citi's "assets" just accounts held for others (pension funds, businesses)? I thought their equity was gone and they are pretty much insolvent other than what they hold for others. So you want to confiscate the accounts holding grandma's pension, a local machine shop's working capital, etc? People assume the banks are rich, but it seems they are mostly insolvent except for the accounts they hold for customers. Am I wrong?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:45 | 2581325 pkea
pkea's picture

no, jpm doesn't need crumb deposits from grandmas since they hold all chemical and oil(chevron, exxon's assets)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:17 | 2581802 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

Yes they are thier debts. NOt their assets. Their assets are personal stock and big bonuses. Pension funds and other type deposits are their debts they play with to rob and pillage for increasing their above assets.

Strange game, ain't it?  Fun for them, but not for us on the short end of the shitstick.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:37 | 2582152 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

So the government seizes the banks assets, leaving nothing to pay the depositors back.  You've just stolen granny's life savings.  Genius. (I guess she doesn't need it now that she can live on food stamps and cat food, and her healthcare is free.)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:23 | 2581044 reddog
reddog's picture

Corporations take 70% of GDP and pay only 7% of ALL USA taxes  (see Peterson institute prpaganda).


The video shows we need to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:13 | 2581219 EINSILVERGUY

Have you ever made a payroll.  Who takes the risks on capital and the loans that they take out. Who puts the paycheck in employees hands every week. Who has to hire someonw to handle the bullshit OSHA restrcitions, Unions, HR laws, EPA edicts. Who pays 80% of their employees health care premiums and half of their Social security taxes. 

70% of all corporations that hire somone are Subchapter S. They are people who are taking risks.  Cut the loopholes for the major corporations but even they aren't going to solve this issue by paying taxes and BTW, almost all of the taxes end up being transferred to the consumer




Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:35 | 2581291 walküre
walküre's picture

Dude, he's talking major corporations and the banking sector and you're talking Mom&Pop shop where someone actually worries about "making" payroll and OSHA restrictions.

And you mention RISK? Where was the fucking risk when the banks failed in 2008? They got a bail out and they paid themselves bonuses.

For your information, why do you think we have government that is benefiting the big corps year after year and that same government creates legislations to make the small business owner sweat and suffer?

It's an ELIMINATION process of the small business owner and a PROTECTION RACKET for the big corporations!

Do you ever see the big corps complain about the restrictions? They all fucking love Obamacare because it doesn't effect their bottom line, it only effects the small business guy.

Everything else is a side show and you're falling for the entertainment.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:28 | 2581274 CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

And who owns the corporations? A lot of pension funds, little old lady investors, and probably your 401(k) (if you ever had a job other than flipping burgers).

I lot of people, even commenters here, seem to think these evil banks and corporations are the enemy. But they are all owned by us the sheeple. Tax their profits and our retirement fund drops.

There is NO MONEY. The only answer is CUT SPENDING!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:37 | 2581296 walküre
walküre's picture

The 401(k) RACKET to benefit the super rich EXECUTIVES of these corporations who are happily selling their shares to any 401(k) registered agent buyer.

You've got a lot to learn.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:33 | 2581071 takeaction
takeaction's picture

The problem with even posting this video is that the majority of people make less than 100K so they watch this video with the "F'em" mentality.  Since they do not make 100K or more, they do not care what happens to the people that do.  It is really sad, but since they are not touched by any of this....they don't care.   I wonder how many people here make 100K or more.  I do, and that is not to brag, but to put into perspective that it is impossible for any person making less to comprehend the damage done by over taxing.  I was going to open another store, and employ another 12-15 people.  We are busy, we have a great business model.....but now with this Obamacare and election uncertainty, you would have to be out of your mind to expand.  All of the business owners I know are "Hunkering Down".  Pulling what they can off the table, and are ready for what we all know is coming.  More debt, more unemployment, more people on food stamps.  It is so funny to me that if you took a person who makes $30,000 and taxed them 50% or more, they would be up in arms, but yet when you talk to this person and ask them if somebody making over $100K or even $200K should be taxed at that rate or higher, they say YES....quickly.  Idiots.   I am all in for a flat tax on 2 conditions (That will never happen).  #1 Full government Reset which halts all spending until each part of the government is gone through with a fine tooth comb for waste.  #2  Everyone pays the same.  You earn $10,000 or $10 deductions, everyone pays the same.  Period.  You earn $1, you owe lets say 15%.  That is it.  Written into the Constitution, can not be raised without a nationwide popular vote.  Give the power back to the people.  Senate, Congress, POTUS can not touch it.  No more deficit.  You are only allowed to spend what you take in AFTER your branch of government has been culled of the waste.  Just my thoughts.  Probably too long.  This is the only place I can voice this type of thinking. Appreciate this site. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:54 | 2582407 Early_Cuyler
Early_Cuyler's picture

I own a business and make 100k+/yr., so I'll take a shot at it.  Obamacare sux but below 50 employees it doesn't affect you(yet), above 50 pay the fucking penalty and go on.  "Election uncertainty"- give me a break, you say you appreciate this site but you think red/blue is going to change anything, FU.  The reasons for "what we all know is coming" are fiat and the corruption of all 3 branches of govt.  As you said a fair flat tax will never happen, so let's go back to Ike tax rates.  I'll plow the profit back into the business via employee bonuses, Sec. 179, etc.  I'll still make enough to live on, help other sectors of the economy and pay the same or less to the IRS.  The red team argues that this would cause the "job creators" to close up shop and kill the economy.  We know that the demand they are supplying won't disappear.  It will be supplied by someone else, hopefully a local small businessperson.  The blue team doesn't know enough about business to have an argument.  Cut a dollar away from hand-outs to low income, cut a dollar from hand-outs to business and cut a dollar from gov. overhead.  Keep going going until you can balance the budget.  Junk away.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:52 | 2582553 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

I like the cut of your junk!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:41 | 2581506 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Fuck Jeffrey Immelt, a cock sucking kleptocrat if there ever was one

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:14 | 2582087 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Exactly, my good citizen, wisefool.

This "professor clown" is with the Mercatus Center --- ultra-rightwingnuts financed by the Koch brotherscum, last time I checked.

It was the super-rich who destroyed the tax base with their offshoring of jobs, technology/innovation, and private equity leveraged buyouts (further tax base destruction, R&D destruction, and more jobs offshoring); then they sealed the dismantling of the economy by peddling trillions of dollars of worthless credit derivatives --- causing,

THE GREAT DELEVERAGING (or, they took the money and skedadddled)

Just get all their trillions parked offshore -- then require they begin to finally pay their taxes, both individually and that which their corporations should have been paying all along.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:03 | 2580960 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture



Federal Reserve Consumer 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:03 | 2580961 Zionist Jew
Zionist Jew's picture

Just Print It Fucktards

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:04 | 2580963 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture



...cutting spending...


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:13 | 2581000 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

If we talk about it, it must be a possibility.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:21 | 2581248 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

 "Taxing the rich" is about the stupidest fucktard notion that any plebe could ever think of...


"THE RICH"... fund the political campaigns of the future law makers... End of story...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:51 | 2581343 walküre
walküre's picture

Correct, which is why the solutions cannot be discussed in this context.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:11 | 2580988 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

I think that is the plan, as long as we have the reserve currency.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:05 | 2580965 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

OK you silver boys.  Need some tips on the best way/place/form to buy silver.  Thanks.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:09 | 2580977 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

There are numerous ways to buy, and it depends one what sort of silver or condition you are looking for. You want bars, bullion, or coins? You want quantity or just a little every month? It's not just like we ourselves haven't had to decide what we wanted and looked around to find it. I buy mine in large chunks on the dips, so I use a larger mint that can handle the order without putting me on a waiting list.  

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:16 | 2581017 CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

Bring cash to a large coin show. Lots of dealers computing in the same room will give you the best price. Silver Eagles are nice but premiums are high, 100 oz bars have low premiums, but if silver goes to $100, $500 an ounce, you can't sell for cash without IRS form 8300, "junk" silver 90% coins are good with low premiums and easy to sell small lots to coin dealers. I prefer Barber (1892-1916) junk silver because if the SHTF such old collectibles probably won't be called in by the government. Permiums are a little higher than newer coins, but I pay it for the insurance. Some people don't like them for various reasons but I buy from APMEX (with money orders bought for cash) when I don't want to wait for a coin show. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:17 | 2581024 CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

competing DUH

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:05 | 2580966 Hopeless for Change
Hopeless for Change's picture

Bwaney Fwank said there are a lot of very rich people we can tax to recover this money (stimulus, the one they told us about , not the 16 trillion they did in secrecy)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:11 | 2580984 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Who cares what actors say?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:20 | 2581810 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

But they are special actors.

Actors for KEEPS, they be. They need and get yours, all day long.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:10 | 2580985 Zionist Jew
Zionist Jew's picture

Don't you mention the secret trillions goy boy! Hookers, blow and yachts are expensive.

Lord Rothschild could cover the debt with pocket change, not that he'd want to, it's a debt owed to us.. HAHAHAHA!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:06 | 2580967 gmak
gmak's picture

Don't tax the rich's income. They have accumuated assets out of proportion to their population and out of proportion to their contribuition to the general good and economy.  Take a one time tax on their assets to level the playing field. There should be enough to cover several years fiscal deficit - especially if spending is cut.



Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:09 | 2580978 Arkilokoos
Arkilokoos's picture

great concept let the feds tax all our assets and then they can take everything from everyone.   What a loser idea.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:56 | 2582558 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

We'll all kiss our assets goodbye.

But remember that the first job of every level of government is to take your stuff and give it to somebody else. WHO they give it to gives rise to politics.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:13 | 2580990 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Fuck that.  most of today's wealthy have become so by front-running the moves of their own political front men.  I say it is far better to let everything crash.  Only then will we find out the real value of everyone's labor.  Fucking bring it.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:17 | 2581020 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Thats called a wealth tax, and it's fucking awful idea. The uber rich already have their wealth spread out internationally and tied up in "trusts". Just another scheme to milk the middle class of their hard earned savings.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:21 | 2581249 youngman
youngman's picture

You are going to see first hand what taxing assets does to prices very soon...if the Capital gains tax is not will see lots of sales by year end to get the gains this year....prices will drop bigtime..and then your wealth tax will get less and less every year as people have to dump assets to pay the they willl go out of business as they cannot compete with the lower costs of dumped assets......and then it all falls apart...less jobs..more peole on welfare..less tax revenue..more deficits...but sounds good to yell at some occupy protest...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:08 | 2580970 ArkansasAngie
ArkansasAngie's picture

I actually don't believe ...

There Aren't Enough Rich People To Tax.

Not when I saw ... here I believe ... that the Forbes 400 richest own 60% of the assets of America.

I'd say that 400 is plenty.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:16 | 2581016 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

While I realize there is a fine line between tax and confiscate, I think you're advocating the latter.  My only question, or reservation, is where the mob stops its confiscation and what this does to capital formation down the road.  I suspect it will be too tempting for the mob, but I have serious reservations about its legitimacy as well as its legacy.

I think you have to go case by case and claw back all the money you can...  see where that gets us first...  if I made my scratch by manufacturing or creating something that actually benefits society (as opposed to just shuffling money around), then I'd be mightily pissed when the jackboots come a knockin...  and, as a result, would probably no longer meaningfully contribute (because I would no longer have the incentive).

Of course, so long as we refuse to punish any wrongdoers worse than a slap on the wrist (at best), then there will never be any restitution.  The inevitable result is mob confiscation...  it isn't just the currency on the line.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:44 | 2581324 pods
pods's picture

I have really come to appreciate your level headed, well articulated commentary Macho Man.

A big thanks to you!


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:03 | 2581758 allocater
allocater's picture

I'd say the sooner the confiscation starts, the milder it will be. Prolong it and it will hit  harder. Prevent it and the masses will try communism again. Capitalism was saved by giving something to the masses via government. It is in perpetual need to be saved.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:39 | 2581101 johnjkiii
johnjkiii's picture

Two things:

1. Sweden tried a 90% tax and collected? Zero - after the 2nd year because those thus taxed left the country.

2. Go to the Tax Foundation website and look at the data:  If you took the top 5% and taxed them the $1.4 Trillion to cover the deficit, you would have to have a rate of 77% on their income. The first year, as they adjust their lives, you might collect that amount. Year 2 & beyond you would not. This assumes the cronies of the government (big contributors) are not exempted and there are no carve outs for other special friends etc.

Taxing the rich at the levels required have never worked for long anywhere, anytime in history. It is why socialism always fails and the proof is out there for all who seek it.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:45 | 2581114 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So what are the taxes in Swenden now?  And what does Sweden's social system look like now?  Wake the fuck up moron.    

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:54 | 2581354 walküre
walküre's picture

Forget Sweden. They don't have what it takes. Norway does and they're hugely successful. Some argue the richest nation on the planet.

Why? Because the nation benefits from the sale of all the resources the country produces. Mainly oil.

Who benefits from the oil & gas wealth of the US? Not this country and not the people of this country.

Wake the fuck up moron.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:10 | 2581399 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Better learn how to read there sparky.  Where do I say anything about oil, which is nationalized  in Norway.

No shit private international oil companies profit in the U.S.

Any other obvious things you want to point out for us?


Tue, 07/03/2012 - 02:32 | 2582838 walküre
walküre's picture

you don't get my point.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:08 | 2580972 LouisDega
LouisDega's picture

Now what?  Im intreguied 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:08 | 2580973 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

No shit, I will only add that there aren't enough people with excess income to SPEND either.

Rock meet hard place.  Have physical assets of real value? You fucking better.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:18 | 2581027 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Exactly.  In a world where price discovery is impossible, the only thing to grade assets by is utility...  get em while they're cheap (but increasing in price at 6-12% per annum, at least).

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:08 | 2580974 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

This is a bigger strawman than the guy in that Wizard of Oz thingie....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:11 | 2580983 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I swear, you're the dumbest excuse for an semi-literate person I have ever seem. You're a disgrace to the heritage that you represent here. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:15 | 2580993 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:14 | 2581003 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why don't you go off into a corner and fist yourself....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:21 | 2581036 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:25 | 2581050 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You are a cute troll, how many accounts are you running here now?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:32 | 2581074 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:09 | 2580976 manich
manich's picture

Professor Davies doesn't get it. The rich are the ones promoting and benefitting from all the unnecesssary wars. Tax them heavily whenever they pull Washington's strings to start a new one, and we will see the wars against the weak 3rd world countries cease, and the deficit decline.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:12 | 2580996 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You really think that Warren Buffet is the one pulling the strings to start wars? Give me a break, he's a bit player. It's not about paper BS fiat, it's about control and power. Nothing else matters to the people in charge, and if they wanted more of that fiat paper BS they simply print it. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:17 | 2581022 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

  Who said Warren was pulling strings?  Are you saying Mr Buffet does not profit from the wars?  Instead of simply parroting what the politico tells you too like a good sheep, why not pull your head out of your ass and look at the companies Mr. Buffet owns, many of them (such as Haliburton) are in fact directly connected to the industrial war complex.  Wake the fuck up, this is precisely how the elite maintain the status quo and power and control.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:23 | 2581043 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

"The rich are the ones promoting and benefitting from all the unnecesssary wars."

The guy I responded to said it, learn to read dipshit. 


Buffet doesn't own anything, if you knew anything about Corporate law structure you would understand that a holding and ownership are two completely different things. Holdings only give you right's to the post taxable profit's from revenue streams. You have no say in how it's generated. The Corporations are ran by boards that work with Lawyers and Bankers that determine how it's structured and how the money is used. 

I think it's amusing to hear dipshits like you telling me to wake up, especially when everything I have ever read from you is BS tripe that has no basis in reality.

It's the Bankers and Lawyers running the show, not the fucking people that finance them. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:35 | 2581076 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So you wouldn't promote war, if you knew your portfolio would benefit greatly?  You really are a dipshit.


"It's the Bankers and Lawyers running the show, not the fucking people that finance them. "

Not quite moron, the banks get free money from the fucking Fed, (hello ZIRP).

How fucking stupid are you?  You really think that the banks have been getting the majority of their money from investors?  HA HA HA HA  HA HA HA HA  HA HA HA HA  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA  HA HA HA HA  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .

You are an idiot, that is the whole fucking problem, the money has been coming from the Fed at NO COST (aside from costing the TAXPAYER-who hasn't had a raise in 6 years).  I wish investors and savers were earning interest from bank investments/deposits, then we would have a healthy economy.


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:06 | 2581191 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

The Bankers create the money using the capital from the rich to pump the stocks. 


ZIRP only makes it easier for the Bankers to get people to dump their savings into their portfolios. The whole CDS scam started this way. 

I'm a moron, but you are pushing all of the blame on the rich for merely trying to make more money while the bankers and the lawyers are there pushing for the laws to work in the way that is benefitial for easy profits for the banks.


Hey, maybe you should have stopped at the reply button and simply thought, hmmm, who is the Federal Reserve anyways? Could it be a board of 12 that is working for the shareholder banks? Hmm, maybe you should have actually looked into how the Fed is structured first. Yeah, I'm the moron here alright, you don't even who the Fed is. 


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:53 | 2581352 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

No-one knows who the Fed is, a COMPLETE audit has never been performed.  Now everyone here knows that you are full of shit.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:17 | 2581233 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I'd like to further add that your class warfare shit may be popular on other sites, and you may even get some idiots to go along with you, but I as well as many other long time ZH readers know that it's more of the same divide and conquer BS pushed out by the MSM that also works for the bankers and lawyers that seem to love creating fictions in efforts to steal the prosperity of others. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 14:58 | 2581368 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Again, you show your ignorance.  The problem has always been with accountability and real fucking consequences for BAD BEHAVIOR.  If this isn't incorporated into your money or monetary system (via a gold standard or basket of real commodities/assets) then the paper-pusher will always win.

The only thing I advocate is crashing the system so that we can find out precisely what the real value of everyone's labor really is.  The only people who fear collapse are paper-pushing fuckers who know that the value of the paper-pushing is zero.  I say, fucking bring it!  

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:02 | 2581380 Chump
Chump's picture

Why not just eliminate the Department of Defense entirely?

Oh, shit, we've still got a trillion dollar+ deficit...

And then all those newly unemployed soldiers and civilians start collecting unemployment and food stamps...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:59 | 2581560 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture


Who creates federal taxes and sets their rates? The Congress

Who collects federal taxes? The IRS

OK? The federal government creates the taxes and sets the tax rates.

Now then, WHO OWNS AND CONTROLS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? .............................................................. BINGO! The very same people these 'tax the rich' imbeciles assume are going to ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE TAXED by their very own mafia - which you call the federal government.

There's a reason tax loopholes exist for the richest of the rich, because they write the fucking tax code!

Meanwhile in cloudcuckooland, let's say you manage to create and enact a wealth tax, wonderful, you've just instructed all the people with all the wealth to remove themselves from your jurisdiction and divest themselves of citizenship, post-haste (oh and their assets were already outside of your jurisdiction all along).

Bottom line: you will only get at the wealth of the top 25% to 10% - rich, but not nearly rich enough for the 1% mafia's (fedgov's) expensive tastes.

Oh and then there's the issue of sorting out the "ill-gotten gain" from the "legitimate profits" - which is not even hypothetically possible and would instantly devolve into an all-out, no-holds-barred asset-seizure-palooza that would make V.I. Lenin blush.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:09 | 2580979 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

We need some REAL solutions here... taxes to 0%, print $5 trillion per year. Problems solved.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:22 | 2581040 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

and then what of the inflation tax?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:00 | 2581373 Hype Alert
Hype Alert's picture

Seriously, if we can just print money to fund the government, which is what the Fed is doing, why is anyone paying tax?  And the obvious answer is control.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:11 | 2580987 mrktwtch2
mrktwtch2's picture

doesnt affect me as i know i'll never be "rich"..never earned more than 48k a year over the last 16 yrs but my home is paid for and so is my car and ihave about 30k in my iras and savings (would be more but i was in a bad marriage for 9 yrs..)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:14 | 2581005 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You are still holding onto an IRA??? You're ballsy with these psychos running the show. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:20 | 2581034 Its_the_economy...
Its_the_economy_stupid's picture

Still think the the college children w 1 trillion in debt are gonna pay your monthly SS every 3rd of the month? Better stay well and work to the last.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:24 | 2581048 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

That's awesome...  but know that failing to call bullshit affects everyone who cares to achieve more...  there IS a glass ceiling.  Have fun in your cell.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:19 | 2580994 Bob
Bob's picture

Taxing them seems so inefficient, though.  And complicated. 

Wouldn't the sensible thing  be to seize all wealth above, say, $10M?  We could save fuckloads of time and trouble using that approach. 

Not to mention how good (regardless of how they might kick and scream) it would be even for them.  They would be far less effective assholes and toadies without all of the money.  Letting them have it is like passing out nukes to gangbangers.

Sounds like win-win to me. 

They'll thank us in the end. 

And maybe we'll forget about the guillotines and shit. 

How would the math work on that solution? Just curious . . .


Mon, 07/02/2012 - 13:19 | 2581029 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Debt. you're talking about seizing debt. These are not your grandfathers assets.
