Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale

[_Analytics]

It didn’t say anything about corporate tax rates, did it? I thought the focus was squarely on individuals--masters-of-the-universe types (investment bankers, hedge fund managers, etc.)--who have gotten obscenely wealthy, paid low taxes on their obscene incomes, directly caused the financial crisis, and then got bailed out.

Their solution is presented at 7:40: "Tax the Rich" - "Tax Corporations"

I tried to review it, but the video is now blocked as being private.

I actually appreciate the video for it's clarity. It presents the worldview of a powerful public employee union for all to see. If people want to support that worldview, I can't say they were tricked. It's set out right there, for all to see.

Hopefully the mayors of San Jose, Detroit, Harrisburg, San Bernardino, and Vallejo can watch it so they can understand why their cities are bankrupt. Because I've heard their explanations and according to the video, they were way off!

I think it is clear about the world view, and is designed to counter the right-wing populism about how governments "can't create wealth," and only engage in "redistribution," which is painted as a very bad thing.

The root causes of why cities are going bankrupt is a different issue that the video doesn’t claim to address.

[_cinepro]

I tried to review it, but the video is now blocked as being private.

Interesting. It looks like it's still available here:

http://mrctv.org/videos/ed-asner-narrat ... fairy-tale

I wonder why they took the YouTube one down...?

[_cinepro]

I did hear one commentator ask to what degree public-sector pension plans invest in "Wall Street"? If they do to any appreciable degree, it certainly makes the video more interesting.

And if part of their solution is to "Tax Corporations", what does that mean for union workers who work for corporations? Their bargaining power has to be weakened if the corporation has less profit at the end of the year.


photo storage

[_Analytics]

I did hear one commentator ask to what degree public-sector pension plans invest in "Wall Street"? If they do to any appreciable degree, it certainly makes the video more interesting.

How so?

And if part of their solution is to "Tax Corporations", what does that mean for union workers who work for corporations? Their bargaining power has to be weakened if the corporation has less profit at the end of the year.

Perhaps they should argue that corporate taxes be eliminated and replaced with corporate welfare--that would increase the companies' net-profits, which would give the unions more bargaining power.

[_cinepro]

How so?

The video vilifies "Wall Street" pretty severely, so to have union pension plans handing over their money to "Wall Street" and saying "Here, please take this and make us as much money as possible" isn't entirely consistent.

Obviously there is "good" Wall Street and "bad" Wall Street, and everything in between, but the video paints with a necessarily broad brush in order to support their contention that all rich people have been behaving selfishly and irresponsibly (and even unethically and illegally), so they need to be taxed more.

Perhaps they should argue that corporate taxes be eliminated and replaced with corporate welfare--that would increase the companies' net-profits, which would give the unions more bargaining power.

With union participation at an all-time low, that would be a pretty ineffective tack. I was just wondering how unions that are in a corporate environment feel, compared to public-sector unions. Basically, corporate taxes are transferring money that could potentially go to corporate unions to public-sector unions.

Obviously, lowering corporate taxes could do the opposite without a commensurate rise in other taxes.

[_Analytics]

How so?

The video vilifies "Wall Street" pretty severely, so to have union pension plans handing over their money to "Wall Street" and saying "Here, please take this and make us as much money as possible" isn't entirely consistent.

Not entirely. But when the pros on Wall Street make a killing and their clients don't, it's fair to wonder what, exactly, the pros were paid for.

Obviously there is "good" Wall Street and "bad" Wall Street, and everything in between, but the video paints with a necessarily broad brush in order to support their contention that all rich people have been behaving selfishly and irresponsibly (and even unethically and illegally), so they need to be taxed more.

The takeaway I got was a little different. I think the message is that the playing field has been tilted in favor of the rich, and that society as a whole would be better off if this change was reversed.

[_just me]

I prefer looking at real numbers and stats, personally. Take out the vilification of an entire group of people.

The History of Taxes

I have a tough time when words like "fairness" and "inequality" are used in discussions of fiscal policy, as if appeal is being made to some universal standard. Everyone has a different idea about what is "fair", and no one actually wants "equality" (whatever that means) when it comes to the economy.

So if you think the "rich" should be taxed more, just say what you think the necessary rate is and argue for it.

Honestly, I'm more in favor of consumption taxes than income taxes anyway, since that seems much more "fair".

But I am mystified at the Republican angst over tax rates going back to the pre-Bush levels for >$250k earners. It was a temporary cut! Let's be glad the other rates aren't going back up too! No one should criticize them for allowing temporary cuts to go back up in a time of deficit spending.

Sure, get some spending cuts thrown into the deal while you can, but I'm not sure they've picked the right hill to die on.

I think both parties are playing us. It's all about power and posturing. The vast majority of Americans don't even really know what is going on and the sound bytes are always inflammatory and geared to instill fear. The TV dudes never tell the whole truth about the situation. And honestly, a lot of this stuff is way over the average person's head.

If Americans knew the reality of what was being argued about they would all throw their hands up in disgust. The political system we have seems like a cruel joke sometimes.

[_cinepro]

The takeaway I got was a little different. I think the message is that the playing field has been tilted in favor of the rich, and that society as a whole would be better off if this change was reversed.

I'm all for leveling the playing field. I just don't think taking points from one team at the end of the game and giving them to the other team is the best way to do it.

[_honorentheos]

The takeaway I got was a little different. I think the message is that the playing field has been tilted in favor of the rich, and that society as a whole would be better off if this change was reversed.

I'm all for leveling the playing field. I just don't think taking points from one team at the end of the game and giving them to the other team is the best way to do it.

I think the analogy of Texas Hold 'Em works better than a game of sports. In sports, the game clock runs out and the score is the score. In cards, the game's end is determined by the distribution of money vs people's willingness to buy chips and get into a game.

Often when I see libertarian-style free market arguments I get the impression they see life as a game of Texas Hold 'Em where everyone starts with the same number of chips. Those more skilled and slightly lucky end up with their just share of chips while those who lose their chips justifiably did so.

But anyone who's played the game knows that having a decidedly large chip advantage also changes how you play and gives a person options they don't otherwise have. Eventually, the game will reset because there isn't an incentive for new players to buy in unless they can afford to do so at a comparable level up front.

For that reason, i think the card game analogy works better since life is more like a game that keeps going. People die, pass on their chips, other people enter with few chips or even none. When the inbalance is too great, we have plutocracy or aristocracy. I'm not sure it's right to say a more socialistic solution is best, but I think the system overall is benefited when the inbalance is corrected to some extent. It seems the ideal game would be one where a person benefits from their skill and luck, but not to the extent that new players are discouraged from buying in or having a reasonable chance of improving their station without remarkable strings of luck.

The fact so many people want to see the table reset suggests we're out of balance to an unhealthy level for the table's long term prospects.

[_moksha]

This is so true. Corporations will be forced to relocate to the Caymans and Galt Island, then where will all those whiney workers be? Without a job!!!