Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue
posted at 12/2/2010 2:13 PM EST
In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue : The point of this thread is that tax cuts for the "rich" means more tax revenues for the Treasury. Republicans realize this. Our Democrat leadership does not, becasue they are too busy collecting political points by spreading the lie that Republicans only care about the "rich".
Posted by schadenfreude99[/QUOTE]
And yet, the article you linked to supports my argument: That only makes sense where we provie the rich with tax shelters.
There are all sorts of tax loopholes, tax havens, tax-free investments sit around; that's where the rich run when they make less from their now-higher-taxed investments than the lower-income but tax-free investments.
You say government would increase its revenue if we cut taxes on the rich; but it would increase its revenue even more if we let taxes on the rich go back to the 90s' levels AND close their tax-free shelters. They would have no where to run.
And again; what is it that modern CEOs do that is so much more important than CEOs in the last several decades to justify their 100x income? Nothing. There have been any number of articles on the increasing disparties between CEO pay, midlevel pay, and bottom level pay. To the tune of 100x, yes.
Well, you would expect that if our economic system is functioning according to theory, these modern CEOs, with bonuses larger than a pincedom, would actually be producing WAY more than the past ones. But they aren't.
Our economic growth is actually far weaker now. That isn't to say that high executive pay reduces GDP, but it does say that executives aren't truly earning their now ghastly bonuses.
What could explain it? I dunno. Here's one guess.
They've effectively hijacked the capitalist system, at least insofar as it depends on publicly owned corporations. If executives also all sit on other companies' boards, approving massive bonuses that are completely out of whack with what they've done, then they themselves will end up with their own massive bonuses. If they simultaneously pump that money back into their own ownership of other companies and participation in funds investing in them, the shareholders won't be voting them out - they are the shareholders.
It's effectively a massive, invisible cartel. The system works to funnel money to them at expense of the country, only if they all play along. They like money, so.... they do.
of course, what can be done about it? We can't simply nationalize the corporations. Or we can, but that would actually be socialism and/or communism depending on how we go about it. And that has never worked terribly well.
We literally have a new aristoricacy forming.