Thom Hartmann: Why Tax Increases Would Boost Our Wages

[Freeper]

ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Nov-27-10 01:09 PM
Original message
Thom Hartmann: Why Tax Increases Would Boost Our Wages
   
When I was in Denmark in 2008 doing my radio show for a week from the Danish Radio studios and interviewing many of that nation’s leading politicians, economists, energy experts, and newspaper publishers, one of my guests made a comment that dropped the scales from my eyes.1

We’d been discussing taxes on the air and the fact that Denmark has an average 52 percent income-tax rate. I asked him why people didn’t revolt at such high taxes, and he smiled and pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid, with a minimum wage that equals roughly $18 per hour. Moreover, what Danes get for their taxes (that we don’t) is a free college education and free health care, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation each year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a major study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom.2

But it was once we were off the air that he made the comment that I found so enlightening.

“You Americans are such suckers,” he said. “You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don’t. When working peoples’ taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way -- look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!”

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148987

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9638649

Wait a second so he's saying the more we get taxed the more money we have?
And if our pay goes up and more of it is taxed we still won't seen an increase in what be bring home. On paper we will have more money but, after deductions we will bring home less to live on.

I did some math if we use Denmark's 52% tax rate and min wage, if you make $18 an hour that's $1440 every 2 weeks sounds nice right?
Well subtract 52% of that which leaves you $691.20 every two weeks. This means in a 2 week pay period the first entire week plus the first hour and a half or so of the following Monday all goes to the Govt.

[BlueStateSaint]

Thom Hartmann is a great example of what happens to someone later on in life, when they're dropped on their heads as an infant, IMO.  (Repeatedly, in Hartmann's instance.  Hell, he may have even been spiked like a football as an infant.)

[true_blood]

FAIL!

[Ballygrl]

Why don't we just cut taxes AND Government spending?

[Randy]

Why don't we just cut taxes AND Government spending?

Now you're just talking crazy talk there 

 

[jukin]

Thom Hartmann is a great example of what happens to someone later on in life, when they're dropped on their heads as an infant, IMO.  (Repeatedly, in Hartmann's instance.  Hell, he may have even been spiked like a football as an infant.)

Hartmann was also born that way and he worke...er..ah took drugs all his life.  Tough to beat a head start, an infant head dropping or five, and the time put in at the bong and syringe.

[NHSparky]

Why don't we just cut taxes AND Government spending?

Reagan thought like that--sadly, a lot of the "trickle down" folks didn't, hence the spend-and-spend Republicans we have today.

[USA4ME]

“You Americans are such suckers,” he said. “You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don’t. When working peoples’ taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down.

"I'm only getting taxed at 52%.  Please tax me at 75% so I can get paid more money."

Yeah, I can see how Hartmann would be stupid enough to think that's a good idea.

.

[DumbAss Tanker]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9638649

Wait a second so he's saying the more we get taxed the more money we have?

Well, he's right in a way, since you will have "More" money due to the inflation that results, because people will demand to be paid more to buy the same necessities or just maintain their lifestyles.  Of course in the short term this some jobs get cut to pay the employees who remain, and in the mid term it means the government has to print a lot of money, which is basically worth less than it was before the taxes were raised.

[BannedFromDU]

     Actually, that makes perfect sense, especially to a DUmbass. The higher are taxes, the higher the nominal wage must be. The problem, of course, is that no one made mention of the balance to that equation: UNEMPLOYMENT.

     Remember that a DUmmy (and a European, for that matter) draws NO DISTINCTION between working and not working when the government takes care of you anyway. That, my friends, is the goal of the DUmmy: to create a situation in which, at the margin, people are indifferent to working. It just requires crushing taxes on people who have more respect for themselves than the typical lazy, leeching ****face DUmmy.

     My guess is that the real rate of unemployment in Denmark is about 20%. But who cares, when you get free healthcare?

[Godot showed up]

Why don't we just cut taxes AND Government spending?

And add a Constitutional Amendment deleting, ENTIRELY, the second enumerated power of Congress:


"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

Enough. This has been treated like an unlimited credit card--which is what it always was--for too many years. I'd love to know something about what James Madison and the other contributors to the Constitution were thinking when they gave Congress this power. It's freakin' nuts. Time to end it.

[Godot showed up]

The other little point that he's leaving out of his "equation" is giving to the central government the power to compel private employers to raise wages. In other words, screw the free market. if you're a totalitarian-statist, naturally this looks just peachy-keen to you.

A nation is more than a financial ledger!

[USA4ME]

And add a Constitutional Amendment deleting, ENTIRELY, the second enumerated power of Congress:


"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

Enough. This has been treated like an unlimited credit card--which is what it always was--for too many years. I'd love to know something about what James Madison and the other contributors to the Constitution were thinking when they gave Congress this power. It's freakin' nuts. Time to end it.

Of course they did it in order to pay for an army and all the supplies that were necessary.  In wartime, and especially back then, one doesn't have time to collect the money to pay for all you need, so the gov't gave itself the ability to pay for it prior to actually collecting the money with the thought of "We'll pay for it now and collect revenue later to reimbuse what was paid."  I've got no problem with that.  But what you're talking about, the unlimitied credit card and other abuses, I'm in full agreement.

.

[Godot showed up]

Of course they did it in order to pay for an army and all the supplies that were necessary.  In wartime, and especially back then, one doesn't have time to collect the money to pay for all you need, so the gov't gave itself the ability to pay for it prior to actually collecting the money with the thought of "We'll pay for it now and collect revenue later to reimbuse what was paid."  I've got no problem with that.  But what you're talking about, the unlimitied credit card and other abuses, I'm in full agreement.

.

Thanks USA, I didn't know this historical background. At least I now know Madison and the rest had a good, sane reason for giving Congress this massive power. Since determining when a war is over (or even when it's begun) is a bit more difficult these days, a Defense appropriation carveout could be included in any amendment (and it'd still have to tightly written, to prevent any non-defense-related riders being attached to any defense spending). I'd have hated Ronald Reagan and his Congresses to have been Constitutionally limited in what he could have asked for in our defense buildup vs the Soviets, and the same goes for any President--even Obama--in the continuing war against Islam. But the rest? Has to be stopped. None of the rest is about survival, and time is not of the essence for other expenditures, not in the same way as military action, or strategic arming.

[USA4ME]

But the rest? Has to be stopped. None of the rest is about survival, and time is not of the essence for other expenditures, not in the same way as military action, or strategic arming.

I agree, friend.  Problem is we've opened Pandora's Box on this issue, and it's eventually going to break the bank.  People in general, and especially gov't and politicians, are addicted to money, and unfortunately in a "I want what's mine and what belongs to someone else, too" kind of way.  We see that attitude demonstrated daily on Skin's island.  I'd like to think we can turn it around, but my magic 8-ball keeps reading "Signs point to No."

.