Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

October 2024
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

TAX THE RICH

No, seriously, follow me on this: It’s a fresh, exciting, new idea, this taxing the rich angle I’ve come up with, and I think we can sell it to The People. After all, the rich are like, rich and stuff, and that’s just not fair to those of us who aren’t. Rich. And stuff.

Everybody should be equally rich! Which, think about it: were that the case, snap! No poverty!

And while I’m at it, I suggest we invest more government money into, like, jobs and things. If the government buys us all jobs — and they can certainly print up all the investment money needed to do just that — we’ll all be able to purchase what we want, which in turn means more tax revenue to the government. So it’s a total win win.

We should all get houses and cars, too, so that we’ll all have to buy homeowners insurance and car insurance, and pay taxes to keep up the roads and neighborhoods, which means even more jobs! But that’s an idea for another day.

Honestly. I’m surprised no one has thought of this tax the rich / government invest in jobs thing before, it seems so simple.

And to think, all it took for me to come up with this can’t-miss plan was two pretty serious Arjan’s Haze #2 bong hits, a pack of Little Debbie peanut butter bars, and a nap.

(h/t Jim M)

42 Replies to “TAX THE RICH”

  1. Mikey NTH says:

    We just need to change the definition of poverty and Voila! No more poverty!

    I need a job at the Brookings Institute, one with a nice view. Not the loading dock (old office) or the drive way (temporary refugee camp office).

  2. sdferr says:

    …this time opening a symbolic “soup kitchen.”

    Symbolic. Says it all right there, doesn’t it?

  3. dicentra says:

    and they can certainly print up all the investment money needed to do just that

    If the gubmint can just print money, why does it need taxes?

  4. Mikey NTH says:

    “If the gubmint can just print money, why does it need taxes?”

    Punishment.

  5. sdferr says:

    Punishment.

    Ha! Once again, having written a comment to post I find I’m beaten on the draw, this time by MikeyNTH. Nevertheless, I’ll post what I’d written, but not submitted, unchanged.

    In this case it looks like taxes act as a means of instruction to the crooked, or a straightening, if you will.

  6. alppuccino says:

    Little League.

    Just confiscate all small businesses. Let Obama use his golden touch like he did with the solar industry. Get those stupid entrepreneurs on food stamps STAT!

    Obama will turn the loaves and fishes into dinner for all of us!*

    *when he’s not sticking his fingers in his buttcrack and then sniffing them.

  7. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Add a few “let me be clear”-s, a false dichotomy or two and call for the spirit of bi-partisanship and unity that we all felt on that terrible tragic day whose anniversary we’re in the shadow of to Jeff’s summary, and you’ve just approximated Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on jobs.

  8. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Comments from the linked article wouldn’t load. Was there one comment in particular, or are we making fun of the whole premise?

  9. ThomasD says:

    A nap? YOU got a NAP?

    I haven’t had a nap in, like, DECADES. Oh the unfairness of it all.

    We need to tax and re-distribute napping.

    Clearly, it’s for the children.

  10. Jeff G. says:

    If the gubmint can just print money, why does it need taxes?

    Let me go back to the bong and grab another nap and I’ll see what I come up with.

    But it will be some variation on “two, TWO mints in one!,” I can assure you.

  11. sdferr says:

    Shit, I thought the whole damned country has been napping for the last 8 decades, and yet to wake up. Hate to have to start all over looking for an explanation again, but oh well.

  12. steph says:

    My neighbor had a similar idea a few years back, when he was explaining to me the wonders of the progressive tax code. His idea was that the goverment should give everyone 1 MILLION DOLLARS, then we’d be able to buy things, which would spur the economy… things like houses, and cars … and we wouldn’t need to worry about privatizing Social Security, cause nobody would need the money, cause we’d all have enough to retire on, and …

    I asked him, ‘doncha think that that house you want to buy that costs $275,000 today is probably gonna cost something like $1,275,000 after you get your 1 MILLION DOLLARS?

    We haven’t spoken since.

    Can’t say I miss the conversation.

  13. Dave in SoCal says:

    I think this particular comment nicely sums up the thought process used by most of the Progressive Warriors there:

    whocaresisay 1:03 PM on September 1, 2011

    It’s hard to understand why the Repubs are so adamantly against this. There is little (or no) opposition to this. Could it be that the rich actually understand that there wealth arises from spending by the government?

    Maybe that explains why, in even these tough times, the wealthier communities of the Bay Area seem to have no trouble passing bonds and parcel taxes.

    They know. Government spending DRIVES the economy. Tax-and-spend will restore our economy. Cutting expenses only costs us jobs.

    Time for the T-Party to catch a clue.

    So blindingly stupid that it almost swings back into genius. But it doesn’t.

  14. sdferr says:

    Via Intsy via Volokh to Heather McDonald, this looks like it belongs here.

  15. Mueller says:

    13
    Unintentional comedy genius.

  16. Jim in KC says:

    Damn, Steph, your neighbors are even stupider than mine…

  17. steph says:

    Well Jim, I live right outside of Philadelphia, where they Unionize Stupid.

  18. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I think this particular comment nicely sums up the thought process used by most of the Progressive Warriors there[.]

    Jesus wept.

  19. Dave in SoCal says:

    If “government spending DRIVES the economy”, then maybe one of those progressive jeeniuses can explain why, despite $4 trillion in deficit spending by the Obama and the Democrats over the last 3 years, the economy is worse off now than it was 4 years ago.

    Other than “Bush Did It”.

  20. Jim in KC says:

    I was in Horsham once, to change a print driver for a client–a little company called Prudential. This despite having told them over the phone at least a dozen times to change the *()*^% print driver. I never did figure out how they stay in business.

    So I get what you’re saying.

  21. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Dave, it’s a good thing stupidity isn’t contagious. Otherwise we’d have to quarantine and burn you out too.

    Y’know. Just to be sure.

  22. Dave in SoCal says:

    There are a few over there with working brains after all…

    richinrio 12:49 PM on September 1, 2011

    I shall never understand the mentality that so many folks have, which gives them the mindset that they are entitled to anything that anyone else produces.

    I’m not rich, but I aspire to be so.

    What Bill Gates or Brad Pitt makes is of no consequence to me because it is not my business, nor my money.

    It is so easy to pick on the select few who have gobs of money….but it is not your money so why do you think you should get a percentage?

    Should someone who makes 15K a year be entitled to anything that comes from a person who makes 75K a year?

    It can be argued that no one needes to make 5 times what another person makes. The guy at 15K ” needs ” it more than the guy making $75K.

    It really does not matter if a person makes $85 million a year ( Oprah, Spielberg etc….) or makes $90K a year as a clerk here at city hall in S.F., how is it any business of yours what THEY make?

    I’m not ” entitled ” to a nice house, or a sweet Mercedes, or steak for dinner every night. Is it not fair that some folks have those things?

    When did we become such a nation of whiners who feel that we are ” entitled ” to anything that another person earns?

    I’m guessing it was when the word ” Welfare ” was changed to an ” entitlement program “.

    Very subtle. You are not taking a hand-out from someone who has had their income siezed and redistributed….nope…you are ENTITLED to it.

    Margaret Thatcher was correct. Socialism is terrific until you run out of other peoples money.

    Punish success, reward failure. It is the new America.

    Eat your peas commrade.

    Of course he gets immediately jumped on by several of the Progressive Special Needs Children. My favorite one:

    crazyeddie 1:03 PM on September 1, 2011

    People like you will never get it. Taxing rich people more via a progressive tax system is not a punishment, as you seem to imply, nor should it be viewed as something the rest of us are “entitled” to. It is the price that rich people must pay for living in a society that has created the conditions by which they are allowed to become rich in the first place, and they do that by utilizing the infrastructure society as created and the labor of other people. That doesn’t come free. There is a price to be paid to becoming rich, and all we are asking is that rich people pay it. If anyone is a whiner, it’s you.

    I see. Higher taxes are just the price that comes with living in a country that allows you to get rich. Not because you worked hard or took chances, no, it’s because we as a country allowed you to do so. Time to pay up, bitch.

  23. Dave in SoCal says:

    #21 I wore a condom the whole time I was on that site. Does that help?

  24. Dave in SoCal says:

    OT: Happy Feet starts journey home

    I was wondering why we were kind of light on the electric hamster screeds. Must have been busy packing.

  25. Ernst Schreiber says:

    As long as the rest of you was wearing a Level IV biohazard suit, sure.

  26. Jeff G. says:

    I see. Higher taxes are just the price that comes with living in a country that allows you to get rich. Not because you worked hard or took chances, no, it’s because we as a country allowed you to do so. Time to pay up, bitch.

    One wonders why the country isn’t allowing everyone to get rich.

    I think it has to do with racism, sexism, and some other -isms that somehow don’t impede the ones the country allows to get rich, though I’m not sure how that works, exactly.

    Time to hit the bong and the Little Debbies again, I guess.

  27. geoffb says:

    Meet the players.

    National Nurses United an AFL-CIO [Trumka] affiliate, formed just a few months before Obamacare was passed, run by long time labor activist Rose Ann DeMoro who is also a Board Co-chair of Healthcare-NOW. And Rep. Barbara Lee who has been an progressive/socialist activist for some 40 years.

  28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    When the ravenous unions are through gorging themselves on the billionaires and millionaires, whom will they next eat?

  29. sdferr says:

    Next? They’ve been eating the American middle and underclass for the last 40 years at least. Who’d be left?

  30. JHoward says:

    Surely the last steps in the decline of a people involve establishing envy and theft — by other words, of course — as principles of governance.

    No really; envy someone and steal his stuff. By way of your elected “leaders”. And consider yourself anything but a cheat and liar.

    Fuck this country.

  31. Jeff G. says:

    By the way, and this is likely to shock you, but GOP insiders favor Romney over Perry, supposedly for reasons of electability.

  32. sdferr says:

    Can’t help but suspect a false flag operation in action when I see the name National Journal though.

  33. B. Moe says:

    I am all for taxing the wealthy, I think it is horrible that poor old Warren Buffet don’t get to pay his fair share.

    What I propose is we slap a big old property tax on portfolios like Warrens, treat them just like real estate. Every year, tax the fuck out of them.

    Think Warren would like that idea?

  34. Jeff G. says:

    By the way, I just heard this, and I’m wondering if it’s true: a relatively new FAR regulation requires that government contracts go to companies whose board of directors (5 must be named) earn less than $300K in salary.

    Marxism.

  35. Crawford says:

    We just need to change the definition of poverty and Voila! No more poverty!

    Well, the current policy is to keep redefining “poverty” so the population of the “poor” is ever-increasing, despite them living better than the middle class did a generation or two ago…

  36. newrouter says:

    you could get real poverty going if the food stamp folks could only buy raw food.

  37. dicentra says:

    you could get real poverty going if the food stamp folks could only buy raw food.

    Make sure it’s local raw food and the term “subsistence-level” will get some long-overdue usage, dontcha think?

  38. Ernst Schreiber says:

    By the way, and this is likely to shock you, but GOP insiders favor Romney over Perry, supposedly for reasons of electability.

    Can’t help but suspect a false flag operation in action when I see the name National Journal though.

    I believe it. Nothing says preserve the (progressive) status quo like Mitt Romney.

    Unless it’s Huntsman.

  39. McGehee says:

    I’m offering my fellow Americans a deal:

    I won’t criticize how you spend your money and you don’t criticize how I spend mine. And since the government can only get money by taking it from you and me, it shuts up and leaves us both alone.

    I wonder if I’ll get any takers.

  40. Pablo says:

    Well, the current policy is to keep redefining “poverty” so the population of the “poor” is ever-increasing, despite them living better than the middle class did a generation or two ago…

    Isn’t our definition of poverty the bottom 10% or so? And gubmint checks don’t count.

  41. cranky-d says:

    People don’t know how to be poor any more. It takes a lot more work to survive on your own when you have little money, but it’s do-able.

    Then again, that was before having a vegetable garden was a crime.

  42. LBascom says:

    “Fuck this country.”

    You’re blowing sunshine up my ass.

Comments are closed.