Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Hey, Mittens! Only 3% of your 'job creators' are entrepreneurs! 9 more great numbers--

That fact is part of an intriguing piece I read in a post by Dakinikat over at Sky Dancing last weekend.

I've been thinking about this piece from Common Dreams by Paul Buchheit, turning it over it over in my mind since reading it on Saturday. The listings are thought provoking and deeply disturbing, given that our president thinks we the majority must make the sacrifices to cover for the upward redistribution of wealth to the top economic quintile, especially the tippy top Zero Dot One Percent. They've become insanely rich and do not want to part with a penney in taxes if they can help it. Obama seems to want to be their protector.


But they should be paying more in taxes, and Buchheit shows why. Numbers, facts -- links are embedded in subject lines and in the brief explanations below each, so click through for the links and explications of each point. I'm sure Obama knows these things, but they seem to conform to his world view and he's OK with the way things are. Not the rest of us.

This should go viral...if we feel the documentation stands up. It seems pretty solid; what think you all? Analysis welcomed.

Here are the Ten Numbers the Rich Would Like Fudged.

1. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs.

2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.

3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by rich Americans.

4. Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession.

5. Just TEN Americans made a total of FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year.

6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit.

7. The average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 IN NET WORTH.

8. Elderly and disabled food stamp recipients get $4.30 A DAY FOR FOOD.

9. Young adults have lost TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR NET WORTH since 1984.

10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks.

Which of these are new to you? #s 1 2, 4, and 6 surprised me, mostly for the amounts involved. Your favorites? Any arguments with any? Seems to me that if money pushed out the Fed's back door is counted, the banksters got waaaaay more than $4 trillion. More like $13-14 trillion?

Discuss among yourselves.

0
No votes yet

Comments

gizzardboy's picture
Submitted by gizzardboy on

I have a rough draft of a letter in front of me that I was going to write to my Senators saying that they should take on the Republican talking point "We should not (overly) tax the job creators".

I would be in favor of a tax credit for each new American job that the taxpayer created. There should be more credit for decent paying, full-time jobs, less for minimum wage and part time ones. One million dollar/yr job should not count as much as 10 $100,000/yr jobs. Most stock traders would not qualify because they are just moving around stocks already in existence. An IPO buyer, where money is used to hire more employees might qualify. It should be net new jobs that last, where lay-offs count against job creations.

Details would be tough to figure out all in advance, but the IRS could consider whatever case a "job creator" might make within a general framework and a reasonable structure could emerge. The idea would be to really offer an incentive to anyone who creates American jobs. It could have scale, so that jobs created during times of 9% unemployment get more credit than jobs created when there is 5% unemployment.

Any thoughts, readers?

Submitted by hipparchia on

i love this phrasing. it deserves to go viral.

at least some of those numbers look reliable. i haven't checked most of them out, but on food stamps there's this and this and this that all seem to corroborate that a food stamp recipient, elderly or not, disabled or not, does get about $4/day food assistance.

Turlock