I left the following:
Tom Usher Says:
January 10th, 2009 at 1:48 am
If you cut taxes on the rich, they do not necessarily invest it wisely in things that result in a sustainable return. Also, they often do not share the return by plowing it back into their businesses but rather hoard it paying capital-gains taxes only when required and/or spend it on personal high living. Meanwhile, the poor and lower-middle class and middle class do not do better in constant-dollar terms (adjusted for inflation). Of course, the method of calculating inflation has been altered to make it appear to be lower than it has been.
If you raise taxes on the super rich, the 19.5% [I been given to understand from the capitalists that generally speaking, 19.5% represents a static percentage of GDP constituting general revenue from the income tax regardless of tax rates on the rich] can remain while the percentage of tax paid by the poorer people can go down or disappear entirely, thereby allowing them to save or spend more into the economy in the form of demand. The rich may not then keep more for themselves but so what? They won't be poor, not even close to it. They will be surrounded by more people able to live decently thereby making the quality of life for those with higher incomes all the better without having to pay to be insulated behind high walls with hyper-security.
The economy was not small in the early 1950's when the tax rate was at its highest. In fact, the U.S. economy was about 50% of the world's economy. Granted it was just after WWII and the other nations had sustained war damage. The truth though is that one-income families in the 1950's were doing better in real terms (equity and purchasing power) than two-income families have been doing for a long time, ever since the tax rates were so dramatically lowered with the promise of all ships rising with the tide for the rich. Trickle down didn't work though. The Laffer Curve turned out to be a laugh, as predicted.
There are other costs involved in the equation as well, such as the costs of environmental damage and other costs of no regulation and insufficient regulation. Just using GDP doesn't take those into consideration.
One must look at the overall quality of life across the entire society. Some of the social democratic nations have had much better statistical results in that regard than has the United States for instance. Infant mortality, literacy, longevity, healthcare, crime, vacation time, and many other factors must be weighed as well. Total quality of life for all is the proper gauge, not just what will afford the most growth of any kind (including detrimental to the environment and human health) and tax revenue.
Let's not forget that it was military Keynesianism that finished pulling the U.S. out of the Great Depression and military spending isn't as productive as infrastructure such as with the case of the U.S. super highway system built up under Republican President Eisenhower. Those super highways were and are socialist highways (at least the ones that haven't been foolishly privatized into toll roads).
There is absolutely no truth in the notion that government cannot plan but only react. That idea is just false propaganda pumped out by those who stand to make the most selfish gain at the expense of everyone else. The ultra-rich pay people to conjure up public-relations sound bites to drill into the minds of people to duped them and make them or keep them as minions and servants and who don't hear the alternatives, because the ultra-rich control the mainstream media and actually own the government that was supposed to belong to all the people. That's why the losses on Wall Street were socialized for those hand picked by Henry Paulson but profits were not.
If you want to go far in cleaning up the mess, get rid of the Federal Reserve and switch to United States Notes. Get rid of the usurers. Adjust the volume of notes to exactly match the needs of productivity.
If you do this, it won't be inflationary or deflationary. You don't need any metals backing it up. You don't need to issue any bonds, because you don't need to borrow from anyone. Use the notes to pay off the National Debt, and be done with it.
Blessings to all, not just the greedy.
Beyond this of course lies the Christian Commons Project where all money (unrighteous mammon) would be translated into the moneyless society.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)