Soak the Rich!

My buddy the Mad Dog insists that folks who aren’t willing to hike taxes aren’t serious about cutting the deficit. It’s an interesting theory, but how might it work in practice? Well, there’s a fun and easy computer simulation that lets us pick entire industries and not only double their taxes, but confiscate the pay of the CEOs therein! Unleash your inner Occupier and feel the satisfaction of punishing these out-of-touch swine.

And then look at the difference you made in the deficit.

About profmondo

Dad, husband, mostly free individual, medievalist, writer, and drummer. "Gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche."
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Soak the Rich!

  1. The Ancient says:

    I’d prefer to start with all those pensioned-off public employees of all sorts who go on to double-dip at the taxpayers’ expense in order to enlarge their retirement income.

    Let’s wheel them all on dogcarts to some suitable public place where a just reckoning might be made.

    (Personally, I think Lafayette Park might make a fairly decent future Place de la Concorde.)

  2. Don’t forget those “pensioned-off public employees” includes folx like me who receive a military retirement at 40-something and now work for the evil federal government in another capacity. Just string us all up!

  3. As for the link you provided, it’s a nice bit of propaganda, but doesn’t bear any semblance to actual Democratic or liberal proposals. I agree with Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein, do nothing and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will get us most of the way there.

    Fix Social Security with “a very modest and phased-in cut in benefits combined with a very modest and phased-in increase in taxes.”

    I might also go after some selected tax reform (on the assumption that full-scale tax reform would be a non-starter in Congress), by eliminating or capping mortgage deductions and going after certain other tax expenditures.

    Health care’s the real problem. Not sure what to do there (except I’m sure it shouldn’t be eliminating Medicare).

  4. Withywindle says:

    Out of curiosity, did the early military retirement precede the general early civilian retirement, or did it come in at the same time?

  5. Withywindle says:

    Incidentally, your pension is supposed to be a plot of land to farm in the conquered provinces.

  6. Jeff says:

    Maddog, you’ll concede that since you served in war zones, you’re far from a typical example?

    This is a huge problem at the state level, e.g., a gym teacher in a safe, wealthy suburban district who retires at 50, upon which he and his spouse live off the state for the rest of their lives, potentially 40 years.

    In the town where I grew up in New Jersey, the police chief retired at 47 and got a $115,000 annual pension plus $376,000 worth of unused leave. A year later, he was rehired for the same position at $120,000 while continuing, thanks to a well-known legal loophole, to collect his pension. How is that not a scam? (When a college prof tried to use a similar case as an example of the inevitable failure of the state pension system, the cop whose pension figures he cited came to the classroom and intimidated him in front of his students.)

    I work in the private sector for a small, very liberal, family-owned business. I love what I do…but I pay for half of my own health coverage, and my “pension” is whatever I’m responsible enough to save on my own. (I’m writing this comment from a shabby hotel outside a Midwestern city where I’m hustling to find clients to keep us solvent. Planes rattle my room when they fly over. No downtown Hyatt for me.) So when I see public employees complain about proposals to contribute 5% toward their own pensions, I laugh. They’re oblivious to the uncertainty and financial insecurity their private-sector neighbors are facing.

  7. dave schutz says:

    Well, I’m going to associate myself with the MADDOG contention, that the Ryan budget is not entirely serious. He may be less happy to have me aboard, though,when I add that the Obama budget is equally unserious. Both are sort of aspirational message documents – the Obama document message is that we can keep doing all the swell ‘nice-to-do’ things we’ve been doing, and economic growth will make everything swell in the out years (I’ve got a nice bridge to sell you. Put up a toll booth, your future is assured!)

    The message is getting through that we ought not make our kids pay for our consumption expenditures today. I think we are taxing a very non-optimal set of things – and I am very much with MADDOG that nearly limitless subsidy of the mortgage expenditures of the fortunate is NOT the way to go. Roads should likely be funded mostly through tolls.

  8. Chris says:

    The premise of the TEA party was that there are enough revenues to do what most people want government to do, the problem is overspending. Until politicians demonstrate that they are serious about addressing the overspending problem, then no, I don’t want taxes raised, and yes, I am serious about reducing the deficit.

    I’m not willing for any government entity to expropriate more revenue without some assurance that it’s not going to be subject to the same irresponsible behavior that we’ve seen for the last few decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s