The nation is now seeing that there is a broader story to be told about the roots of the violence that broke out in Baltimore this week. In addition to the mistreatment of African Americans by police, there is also the story of extreme economic deprivation – the consignment of entire communities to virtual jails of joblessness, poverty and neglect.
"all that government can do is redistribute funds from productive areas of society to unproductive areas of society"
That's why the government should adjust taxes upward as needed to pay each adult citizen a living salary, regardless of whether they can or will participate in the productive economy. This way there's no need to set up these dummy ditch digging jobs you refer to, and people can either hold regular jobs or do anything else they find meaningful (eat marshmallows all day, play the guitar in the park, train for a marathon, write poetry, you name it). The idea is called Basic Income (look it up), and in this era of ever-intensifying automation its time has come. One bonus: you can get rid of minimum wage, and a positive side effect will be that the jobs that survive will likely be good, meaningful jobs. So you can even call this a "good jobs policy", in keeping with the goals of the writer.
More from the pro-business, anti-government right wing Libertarian shill.
Notice that he NEVER mentions the types of tax advantages the rich enjoy.
No mention that the Social Security deduction is capped at $106,000 in annual salary.
No mention of the types of corporate largesse--a/k/a WELFARE--that major companies get, or the way they offshore their profits to avoid tax obligations.
No mention of a Tobin Tax on stock trades.
No mention of the fact that the income tax rate on the rich had not long ago been as high as 90% and has scaled back to about 15%, and that people like Warren Buffet relate that his secretary pays a higher tax percentage than he does.
Instead, genius here sets up a frame that is so Calvinistic, one would assume he stepped out of an earlier century in asserting the LIE that those with lots of $ earned it.
By pushing the idea that the govt. can only pay people to fill potholes--rather than rebuild cities and provide the manpower for greening the nation's infrastructure--he further hammers in the FALSE idea that baboons like Steve Forbes born to wealth (as most billionaires are) somehow showed major aptitudes in earning it.
PLEASE go back to your think tank boiler room office and write better copy, shill!
Voice of Reason? Ridiculous!!!!!
You wouldn't need to take ALL the money, just some fraction of it. It's not that complicated. But politically it will be challenging, of course. It would mean that those used to hoarding societal productivity, i.e., the so called "1%", wouldn't be able to hoard as much.
Where I sit: with 'TheVoiceOfReason'.
You would get more respect from me if you got your facts straight.
* TheVoiceOfReason isn't obliged to mention all those things that you mention. You may, and have, bring them up.
* It isn't the Social Security Deduction that is capped at $106,000 in annual salary. There is no such thing as a 'Social Security Deduction'. There is a cap on the taxable income for Social Security (FICA) taxes. That is because it was started as 'social insurance', and there is a cap on the maximum benefits anyone can draw. By insurance fairness then there has to be a cap on the taxed income. Below the cap benefits are progressive. A low earner gets a better benefit, for taxes paid, than an at-max earner. I will bet that you have no intention of uncapping the max benefit. It is typical of socialist greediness that you would tax beyond that.
* In America is has been more than 50 years since the top marginal tax rate has been 90%. Typical American Lib-Progs say that America's economy did good in that era. In the early 1960s people at the time didn't think so. But more to the point, America was a special case. Britain also had >90% top tax rates. Beatles George Harrison sang about it, "one for you, nineteen for me." Britain kept those rates into the 1970s. Britain did so badly that by the 1960s one-time dirt poor Hong Kong had a higher per-capita income than Britain did, and people made note of the brain drain.
* Yes, some of those with lots of $ did earn it. Such as Oprah Winfrey and Ron Howard. Dave Thomas was an orphan.
* Steve Forbes is probably not a billionaire. Definitely a multi-millionaire. In the past few decades a lot of magazines and newspapers have become shadows of what they once were. That 'Forbes' magazine is still looking good is a credit to his ability. BTW, years ago he wrote that in the 1960s his family would travel to a vacation home in the midwest. They DROVE. (Who would have thought?). They thought the greasy spoons along the way weren't worth it, so they stopped at grocery stores and bought bread and sandwich filling, and ate at roadside parks. (Who would have thought?)
To dispute your first paragraph,
* First, about 'no one should be forced by circumstance to work at a lousy job." It is a sign of our prosperous times and the socialism of some people living in it that you could think that. In earlier times when poverty and hardship were more prevalent people understood that people have to work or they don't eat. It is even the first bullet point in 'The Communist Manifesto': everyone has an obligation to work. If the place is going through a depression, and only lousy jobs are available, then people worked lousy jobs.
* About "When taxes were 96% tops ..." As noted now, and noted then, because of deductions, etc., not that many people actually paid 96% on their income. It is also an 'American exceptionalism' to believe that America got rich and richer in that era. America was a special case. Other nations in the same era, with the same tax rates, stagnated and went down hill. Most conspicuously Britain.
A curious fact underappreciated by socialists: The societies that are rich, even the poor people are 'rich' compared with the rest of the world, are capitalist societies. Europe's socialist societies got rich before they got socialist. They have done not so well since they went socialist. India was avowedly socialist and was dirt poor, until a decade or two ago when they voted out the socialist Congress Party and changed economic policies and have prospered a bit, compared to back when.