Michael Moore’s foolproof scheme for solving the nation’s problems: Steal from the rich

by editor on March 3, 2011

“They’re sitting on the money,” Moore said, “They’re using it for their own — they’re putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with our life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this, we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfd_sNw2-Y

Michael Moore is wasting his time making documentaries. He should really try his hand at comedies, because based on that economic theory, he’s the funniest man who’s ever lived.

“Take my money, please.”

“A rich man walks into a bar with a duck under his arm…”

“Slowly I turned progressive…”

“Is that a wad of cash in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”

“Lenin, Trotsky and Ronald Reagan are in a boat…”

Ahhh, you crack us up, Michael. Stop it, Michael. You’re killin’ us. Our sides ache from laughing.

But wait. It was reported last week that “On Feb. 7, Michael Moore filed papers claiming he was owed at least $2.7 million on 2004 doc ‘Fahrenheit 9/11.’” Considering his desire to confiscate wealth, we assume that he wants those millions only so he can donate them to the United States Treasury.

Holy hypocrisy, Fatman!

Source: Variety

61
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
34 Comment threads
27 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
36 Comment authors
RockingHorseGuyCurtisHxMistellakokuaguynonkenyan Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

Tell me you are not confusing “The Fair Tax” with a VAT?

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Maybe we could just limit the federal government to doing only what it is authorized to do under the Constitution, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and the whole question would be restructured, with much smaller numbers?

perlcat
Member

Only problem I have with the “Fair Tax” is that there is no such thing as a fair tax. The nature of governments pretty much guarantees that we are paying for waste, and that’s unfair.

The Obumbly Obomster
Member
The Obumbly Obomster

All these liberals keep spouting about “WE NEED A PROGRESSIVE TAX RATE!!!” Well, a sales tax would be the most fair and most progressive we could possibly get. Say, 6% on all sales, except for food. Who’s buying the $30000000 mansions? The rich. Who’s buying the $18923987 pre-release Lambo? The rich. Who’s spending $1200 on a used car so she can get to her two jobs? The single mom who’s barely making ends meet. POOF!! Completely progressive and completely fair. If the states want to tax income, that’s fine. But the feds should tax 1 thing, and 1 thing only, and that’s sales.

I tried to look up the total amount of money spent in the US, and while I couldn’t find any hard data, I found one source that seems to suggest the total is around $33 trillion, so a 6% sales tax would bring in roughly $2.2 trillion, which is what is already brought in by income taxes.

Macbones
Guest
Macbones

Fair tax proponents suggest that that flat ‘sales tax’ would need to be 23%

Even if your math is correct, and a 6% sales tax would work- you are assuming that a 6% sales tax ON TOP OF a 6% sales tax which seems to be the average in states around the country is not going to significantly change spending behavior. It will. Then, where will the shortfall be made up?

There are more simple solutions. Count capital gains and dividends as income. This won’t affect your 401K. This won’t affect your Roth IRA.

The Obumbly Obomster
Member
The Obumbly Obomster

But with the fed’s no longer taxing income, the states can take care of that…Maybe I’m making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Perhaps this should be our tax code:

6% of all income is to be collected by the United States Government for functionality. According to my calculations, that will yield $3.4 trillion just from household income. (114.8 million households in 2010 with average income of 49,504). And then that brings up another interesting question: With tax rates being 15, 25, 35%, and the total expenditures of the gooberment is somewhere around 3 trillion, then why do we have a deficit problem? I must have my math wrong somewhere. Seriously wrong. The numbers just aren’t adding up.

perlcat
Member

Adding income types to the classification of what gets taxed won’t work.

Such a tax is a divisive “feel good” tax that will accomplish exactly *nothing*. If I was rich, had investments, and the fed said they were going to tax their income, I’d just move them out and into bonds. If they taxed them, then I’d move the money elsewhere. If they said that *any* income attributed to me would be taxed, I’d set up a corporation, pay myself a dollar a year, and duck taxes entirely.

Income taxation is a massive shell game of hidden subsidies and encouragements of certain behavior — why else would you get a mortgage deduction, for example? (I don’t pay enough mortgage interest to even be able to itemize) The whole thing is set up so that wage slaves (erm, W2 people) pay the bulk of taxes. The politicians can babble all they want about “soaking the rich”, but as bona fide members of the rich that they want you to despise to the point of voting for them, they have absolutely no intentions of actually making such a tax effective.

If you want fair taxation, you have to tax people’s actual consumption. The entire problem with that is that with a bloated government, with rent-seekers all over the place, ranging from billionaires to corporations, to your garden variety welfare recipients, actually making taxes fair also means making taxes visible. You can’t be for the “little guy” if you’re honest about the costs, and the little guy figures out how badly he is being boned.

Like I said, it is too easy — some would say trivial, to avoid paying income tax. If you ever read Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”, you’d learn that there is no functional difference at all between *owning* a million dollars, and *controlling* a million dollars. However, there is a massive tax benefit if you merely control the money. All’s you need to do is restructure your finances, and you’re home free. However, as a W2 guy, I haven’t a chance. Uncle Sam knows every penny I earn.

If I ever get rich and had no morals, I’d probably set up a 501c3 or some such, and pay myself a moderate salary, but have my charity lease my car, house, yacht, jet, helicopter, and all the other accouterments I would need as a *important* key part of my *wonderful* charity. In so doing, I’d be joining the ranks of thousands of limousine liberals, (except for the part about me being a conservative). You guys have to watch out for the charities — most aren’t charities at all — take Bono’s for instance. Funny about those 85% administrative costs. Wonder who they’re paying, or who’s the beneficiary of all those administrative costs. Wonder why that part didn’t make the news. Can we say “collusion”, kids?

perlcat
Member

In case you’re wondering, would I support a VAT? Only if they eliminate the income tax. Then I’d say “hell yeah!” because I know that if the pols have to actually pay their fair share, they’ll cut the size of government, or risk never getting elected again. Right now, *we’re* paying for all this waste, while most people are believing that it is somehow the “rich” who are paying it..

kokuaguy
Member
kokuaguy

I thought I might find folks on this site who are interested in a real discussion of the issues. They are certainly few and far between. The haters seem to feel right at home, however. I appreciated the discussion, Macbones and J.P. T.

Macbones
Guest
Macbones

Non sequiturs? Your saying that the fair tax will not encourage a cash and carry economy?

Macbones
Guest
Macbones

Well, you gotta admit- a plumber who runs a small business w/ 5 plumbers working for him is likely making a few hundred thousand dollars a year and paying 40% or more in taxes. . . but a hedge fund manager or trust funder is likely paying 15% on their dividends and capital gains, on millions of “income”. So lets cut the crap, and stop punishing LABOR. I don’t hate the RICH but don’t ask me to pay 40% when some little snot is paying 15% on 10X more for 10 hour or more less/ week.

Most of these sites are “grass roots” efforts paid for by some billionaire on a whim anyway. Lets see how long thins post lasts.

perlcat
Member

The problem lies with the entire “income” thing. A truly smart hedge fund manager won’t even pay the 15% — his business will pay the tax — after buying him the house, car, and whatnot.

If you want to tax all people fairly, then you need to tax personal consumption. Even then, you get into arguments over regressive and progressive taxes — but if everybody in the nation pays, say, $3,000, then everybody has an interest. Right now, there are so many tax dodges out there, but none of them apply to wage slaves, doctors, or other professionals. They are the exclusive domain of businesses and politicians.

I find it hard to believe that a person who pays no taxes should have any say in government at all — in fact, the minute a person collects dime one from the government, whether that is a business or an individual, I think they should lose their right to a vote. In the case of a corporation, that would be the officers and the board of directors. I figure that if you’re going to be on the tit, be a man, admit it.

Too few people, especially politicians, have any concept of what constitutes a conflict of interest.

Macbones
Guest
Macbones

There are downsides to every option. Think of the downsides to a consumption tax (alone). A person who makes 20K spends all he makes just to eat. 50K to eat, purchase decent clothes, transportation, etc. Get up over 100K, and 70% spent, 30% saved (invested). Investments result in additional income. . . Get up to 2 million and perhaps 20% spent and 80% saved. A consumption tax alone, one could argue would accelerate the development of dynastic wealth. . . To me, it seems appropriate that as I make more, I should pay a greater share of it in tax; on my first 10K, I pay a similar rate to the guy who only makes 10K, and on up the scale. When the progressive system goes the other way, it stands logic upside down. If the IRS can figure out whether or not my cell phone is for personal use- they should be able to figure our what amounts to income for the hedge fund manager- whether that is a free car, a free house, or stock options. If someone is making 10 million dollars in a year- does a 40% tax bracket impact their standard of living more or less than the person making 350K/ year in the 36% bracket. . . ? And back to that 15% CG rate. . . how many jobs has it created over the last 20 years in this country?

JPTravis
Member

“When the progressive system goes the other way, it stands logic upside down.”

A consumption tax is not “progressive the other way.” A rich person will spend much more on consumption than a poor person. You know that and I know that and God knows that. In addition, anybody who wishes has the option of avoiding the tax completely on everything but food, simply by purchasing used goods. Side effects will be the increased utilization of already produced goods, and additional money available for investment. Like most people brainwashed by the current educational system, you display a negative viewpoint of investment, which is irrational. Investment makes us all richer. By taxing consumption you will get less consumption and more investment – good piled on top of good.

Macbones
Guest
Macbones

The consumption tax is a pipe dream, and you know that. There will be tax evasion, the notion that the federal and state governments will tax themselves is a farce, the notion that consumption will not fall off sharply is also a farce. When consumption falls off, then the tax rate would have to be raised. Most every analysis of the VAT is that it would benefit the bottom and the top and decimate the middle class. The notion that the poor will pay less, the middle will pay less, the top will pay less, and the Federal, State, county, and municipal gov’ts will pay 23% tax on what they spend is ludicrous. The idea that everyone would be encouraged to “invest” money they would normally spend, and somehow this investment money would pour back to them, multiplied without labor in the setting of decreased consumption. . . I can’t follow that.

“if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money without any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption” Andrew Jackson

JPTravis
Member

“There will be tax evasion” is an argument against a consumption tax? Really? What planet do you live on where people don’t evade income taxes? Get real. Right now you have every drug dealer in America earning money tax free – with a consumption tax you’ll get them when they spend their money.

I hate it when people throw out non sequiturs like they’ve made a rational argument.

Macbones
Guest
Macbones

If the Fair Tax is so wonderful, why don’t we implement it in one of these governments we are currently rebuilding and see how it works there before we tear down our current system. The fair tax is a complete leap of faith. I’ll save that for church. Show me where it is working.

Mistella
Guest
Mistella

The reality is that most people spend most/all of what they make, regardless of their income. The problem isn’t how the rapist screws you, it’s that he comes by every night. They love for us to argue about how when the real argument should be why. We are sheep.

KimmyQueen
Member

My Mom used to tell me that money doesn’t grow on trees. I have to ask myself if Moore actually believes that or something to that effect? Cash is not easily accessible through magic beans NOR is it never ending. He must be living (in his head) in the land of Oz.

Didn’t he supposedly lost some weight? Where? He looks even fatter.

perlcat
Member

The whole scheme for that disgusting blob and his ilk is to get rich on other people’s money, and create their new ruling class on the hatred and misery they create.

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

The camera adds 120 lbs.

GOHAWKS
Guest
GOHAWKS

No you cant eat their money Michael…

mrcyberdoc
Member
mrcyberdoc

It’s amazing how Michael Moron gets so much press. I’d rather have them cover the frog jumping contest in Calaveras county. It’s more exciting!

john
Member
john

The really irritating thing about interviews with piggy boy, or any other stupid liberal for that matter is these moronic left wing hosts doing the so called interview that will sit there agreeing and going uh huh, uh huh. like he is brilliant.