HOW TO GET THE MOOLA OUT OF THE SUPER RICH, Emperor Vespasian's Method.
also. PRESIDENTS, PARTIES AND The History of TAX RATES
Liberterians, Democrats and Blue states seem to feel that the first fix the country needs from Obama is nailing the rich. They hoped Barack would reverse Reagan's tax break to those having estates of over $3.2 million or is it earnings annually of over that amount? . "That abrogation of their taxability is the root of ALL our problems. Before THE GIPPER, the tax was 70% if you earned over that 3.2 mil amount." says a Democrat. Oh, I guess they're talking about income taxes, not estate taxes.
What Obama just did in Decmeber 2009 is he cancelled the repeal on Estate taxes. I could not figure out what that meant. Did he abrogate the Reagan tax break? Did he put the tax back at 70% for the super rich?
I DUNNO. So I scrutinize this headline NEWS December 09, "House cancels estate tax repeal, extends current tax rate. The House votes to cancel a one-year repeal of the estate tax, set to begin next month, and instead permanently extends the current tax, with a top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than $3.5 million."
I swear it still means NOTHING to me. Utter Gobbledygook. I google history of Taxation , US GOV has a website: http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
Who wants to hear it like THEY tell it. That's as dumb as going to the FEDERAL RESERVE website for info on our tax system. So I go to this online TAX MUSEUM to get the real scoop on the history of income tax. http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/26/federal-income-tax-began-in-1913/
And I am shocked to find INCOME TAX began in 1913, the same year that the major bankers of the world got Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve so Americans could be income taxed and that money would GO to the FEDERAL RESERVE and they'd print our money. And guide us.
SO Now I know when this evil happened. The museum deliniates different rates from decade to decade They started slow. 1% tax for everyone. Then 6 %. Slow growth industry. Up to 70% I guess. The ole Lobster in the cold stock pot bit.
I quick phone up a Republican mortgage banker a real fascist and a senior and a veteran of WWII with a hefty pension who snarls at me: "It's just another tax grab by this administration. They don't want any private citizens to have any money. They are artificially trying to create a Marxist proletariat to drive this country into communism. Obama is a Marxist and always stated that he wanted to redistribute the wealth and he is doing it. They will achieve their goal if we don't hammer on them." And he took another swig on his martini, didn't look like he was going to hammer on anybody so nobody has to worry. I discovered my G.O.P friend was what I thought was a Liberterian.
Maybe I should ask a real lumberjack Utah or Idaho Liberterian about this whole tax matter but I'm sure he'd throw an axe at a log and say he hates all taxes, none are legal.
I'd ask a Democrat but he'd say take that estate tax as high as is possible -- why shield just the super rich, with 3.2 million, if they earn or have more than 100 thousand lying around, tax it! So I start googling.
YALE LAW REVIEW PUBLISHED THIS:
Why Tax the Rich? Efficiency, Equity, and Progressive Taxation
In Greek mythology, Atlas was a giant who carried the world on his shoulders. In Ayn Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Atlas represents the "prime movers"--the talented few who bear the weight of the world's economy. In the novel, the prime movers go on strike against the oppressive burden of excessive regulation and taxation, leaving the world in disarray and demonstrating how indispensable they are to the rest of us (the "second handers").
Rand wrote in a world in which the top marginal federal income tax rate in the United States was 91% (beginning at taxable income of $400,000). This is an unimaginably high rate by today's standards, when the dominant view in Washington is that a marginal rate of 39.6% (the top rate from 1993 to 2001) is too high. The key turning point in the process of abandoning high marginal tax rates occurred in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan became President in 1981, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70%; when he left office in 1989, the top rate was 28%.
The reduction of marginal tax rates in the Reagan years was driven by a new policy consensus that still persists today. That consensus is that high marginal tax rates on the rich come with an unaffordably high price for the U.S. economy in the form of reduced incentives for the rich to work and to save, and increased incentives to engage in socially wasteful tax planning. And yet 1957, when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged and the top income tax rate was 91%, falls in the middle of the period from 1951 through 1963. Those were the golden years of the U.S. economy, in which the average annual rate of productivity growth was 3.1% (compared with about 1.5% after 1981). Of course, the growth might have been even faster had the marginal tax rates been lower, but the coincidence of high rates and high productivity raises challenging questions for those who believe that high marginal tax rates carry an unacceptable cost.
Thus, the question of whether high marginal tax rates come with an unaffordably high cost to the U.S. economy remains unsettled. Does Atlas Shrug?, a recent collection of papers written mostly by public finance economists and superbly edited by Joel Slemrod, represents the most recent attempt to answer this question. Unfortunately, no clear-cut answer is forthcoming in the book, and the debate is sure to rage on.
This Review is divided into three Parts. In Part I, I summarize the main findings of Does Atlas Shrug?, emphasizing their contribution to the debate on taxing the rich. In Parts II and III, I discuss a question that is only briefly touched on in the book: Why should the rich be taxed? Part II surveys the existing--and to me incomplete--legal literature on this issue, while Part III begins to outline some tentative alternative answers. In my view, the debate about the economic consequences of taxing the rich has obscured this fundamental normative question, and answering it is essential to assessing the merits and relevance of the findings contained in Slemrod's book.
THE VESPASIAN MANEUVER
VESPASIAN was the emperor who followed Nero (after a few, quick-come, quick-go 'loser' emperors) who inherited a burned down city, bankrupt treasury. He had to rebuild ROME and capture back a lot of satellite provinces. His coffers were nearly empty. A huge tab was being incurred for among other things, building the Coliseum! V. invented THE VESPASIAN MANEUVER is one OBAMA could well adopt for those
pesky, un-taxable oligarchs that run around not paying a cent of income tax, leaving that job to the middle class.
Vesp. knew every aristocrat in town, every blue blood family! He knew who the brigands and pirates were, the real FORTUNES up in the 400,000,000,000 talents or sesterces neighborhood.
HE gave these rogues THE HIGHEST POSTS in government. When they invariably embezzled money, took bribes, sold favors, he hit them with dismissal, court trial and jail and execution and took their lands, their treasure
chests, all of it. He quickly had the money to rebuild Rome from Nero's fire, build a coliseum and lots more
goodies, look him up! He was born late SCORPIO, the sign that knows how to get other people's money. Scorpios are also cunning, tricky S.O.BS's with x-ray eyesight into others' foibles. Great psychologists. Freud's ruling planet was in Scorpio. Last, SCORPIO rules death and taxes!
A SECOND TRICK was up the Emperor's 'SLEEVE'. V. had insider knowledge of the corruption of the Senate. He had scorned the senate before, publicly refusing the 'date' they gave him the post as a holiday, taking the day that his soldiers 'elected' him Emperor, earlier. Which wasn't the real date at all so this was the man who was to DESTROY THEM and take their money, not necessarily in that order. He had insider knowledge of the entire Roman aristocracy a very insular community. After he caught all the pirate senators with his 'here take this important government post' method, after he'd seized their holdings, he followed an interesting 'hope and change' maneuver to bring NEW PEOPLE TO ROME to take posts in a new Senate ..men with none of these insider gambit manias, none of the 'good old boy school ties' either. He pulled the brightest and most successful new blood in the PROVINCES i.e. tradesmen from the far away cities, men who'd worked hard to become leaders MILES from corrupt ROME and made THEM SENATORS! The blue blood, venal, immoral families suddenly were on welfare or dead.
I like the sound of it. Don't you? OBAMA, if you really are a progressive and we've come to doubt it, TAKE NOTICE! They'll never know what hit them! The HISTORIAN SUETONIUS (contemporary of Vespasian,) had these facts in his bio on V, they rarely appear elsewhere. But Will Durant cited it in CAESAR AND CHRIST one of his 11 books on world history. STORY OF CIVILIZATION but each has its own title. You want to find them used on ABEBOOKS, sometimes a buck a book. Caesar was second tome after "ORIENTAL HERITAGE."
bone up on the BANKSTERS, prime recipients of these 'skate on taxes' Bush Obama law!
GOOGLE THIS COMBO OF SEARCH TERMS: budget cuts + taxes for the rich
ALSO "Why no prosecution of BANKSTERS? " as a phrase.
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Why_No_Prison_for_Banksters_Who_Caused_Financial_Crisis__Yet_110415Google term "LIARS' LOANS" or LIAR LOANS
Google term "Predatory Lending" with 'prosecution' + "tougher regulation"
<=== BACK TO THE HOW TO SURVIVE WITH THIS @$*)%& ECONOMY WEBPAGE