Might be the end of Bannon.

Bannon is a Bernie Bro working from within the system.

Bannon is a Bernie Bro working from within the system.

He is a populist/nationalist. This is right out of the playbook. It did play a role in Trump's win of the WH, whether we like it or not.

Of course, the very idea is anathema to the WSJ and most conservatives. Milton Freedman is spinning in his grave, etc.

But this is a smart move for Bannon vs. his WH rivals. And it might actually be pretty good for Trump politically. Trump could play Santa Bernie for a while, even if the GOP won't go along with it.

You recall Trump used to make remarks about "raise my taxes" back when he was still a Dem. So this isn't Trump's first rodeo on this issue.

The endgame isn't clear but Bannon is definitely making a play and is likely slashing at several rivals/enemies in his attack strategy.

On the positive side, Trump stated he wanted to lower the highest rate, and Steve Bannon is the Secretary of Nothing.

People who are poor, ie those who do not have wealth, or even often are indebted to the rich and pay interest on loans and mortgages, should not be taxed.

More, the poorest should be exempt from the military service, because they have nothing to defend.

The rich should be the main taxpayers, because they are the main beneficiaries of the state that protects their wealth.

Thank you for summing up so nicely why your head is stuck so far up your ass.

When was the last time anyone poor created jobs that weren't within a welfare agency or law firm?

Who would you go to if your welfare check stopped showing up to see about getting a job,someone homeless or someone running a business?

This is NOT saying that all areas of wealth should remain tax-free. Trust Funds are the bastard children of the robber barons and their pocket politicians of the late 1800's to the mid-1900's as a way for THEM and their off-sprung to avoid paying any taxes on THEIR wealth while living tax-free like Indian Rajahs in ocean front and ski-country palaces and taxing the middle-classes and the upper middle-classes for the money to fund the government.

21 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

The rich should be the main taxpayers, because they are the main beneficiaries of the state that protects their wealth.

More, the poorest should be exempt from the military service, because they have nothing to defend.

That is essentially the way it was for the first millennium of Christendom.

People who are poor, ie those who do not have wealth, or even often are indebted to the rich and pay interest on loans and mortgages, should not be taxed.

Except that the poor were taxed in that they worked on the estates, producing the wealth of which they only got a share.

I don't have a means of posting graphics, but if you chart it, it's an eye opener.

Hint: the Tax Rate is 0%

Taxing WEALTH forces the super-rich to continue to be productive, to actually mobilize their money and risk it more. Once wealth is amassed and static, it becomes rather simple to live without paying any income tax at all, so no matter how high the INCOME tax is hiked, the wealth disparity is never addressed. The super-rich get richer, and new rivals are stifled from ever getting close.

If you want a truly fair tax system, you have to stop disfavoring new wealth in favor of old wealth, which is what our tax system does, very strongly.

When was the last time anyone poor created jobs that weren't within a welfare agency or law firm?

The biggest job creators are the middle and lower class in a mass consumption society triggered by FDR in the New Deal.

How many gardeners, chauffeurs and maids can the rich hire?

If he does, you guys will stick with him, no matter what. It's your whole social gospel fetish.

OTOH, are the poor, working class, and middle class going to throw a fit and refuse to vote for Trump again if he does raise that top rate? No way.

I think the smart political move for Trump is to go with Bannon on this one.

The power of the super-rich is not found in their INCOME. They can turn off and on their income at will. It is found in their accumulated WEALTH. Taxing high INCOMES further entrenches the super- rich while ruling the upper precincts off to risers.

Or in the case of a tycoon like Buffet, he is his own bank. He has some liquid assets, a few tens of millions, that will take care of his actual needs for the rest of his life. The vast fortune he holds is just used as a personal bank for himself and his businesses and to leverage further acquisitions in markets where he wants a monopoly stake, as Buffet did with hauling coal from Montana/Wyoming and shale oil from Canada via his BNSF railroad or by his cornering the entire market of mobile home manufacturing, sales and financing. And then he grabs headlines by whining to the press that his secretary pays more taxes than he does. Despicable asshole.

How many gardeners, chauffeurs and maids can the rich hire?

Like all communists,you have limited vision.

Rich people own corporations,and corporations hire millions of people.

Rich people own corporations,and corporations hire millions of people.

You missed the point completely.

These "millions of people" make products for the rich or for the normal people?

These "millions of people" make products for the rich or for the normal people?

They make products for both,as well as for the government,other governments,and other corporations.

Anybody that wants to buy their product that has the money.

The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth, not income.

You're advocating that we treat wealth as the states treat property taxes. Well, not exactly but comparable.

I don't see it as the panacea you are suggesting. I think the smart money will find ways to take advantage of such a system. Even more so if you don't do something serious about restricting the welfare-for-the-rich Federal Reserve Bank.

You could do just as much if you reformed the Federal Reserve, tightened banking laws, did more to absolve working- and middle-class debt (including bankruptcy) than you could with your fancy schmancy new system of let's-tax-static-wealth with all its inevitable pitfalls.

I can't even imagine the kind of pork and carveouts that would get tossed into a bill for your favored system of taxation, given the utterly corrupt operation of the Senate.

The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth

True,especially the wealth of alleged charities based in foreign countries.

Like the Catholic Church,for example.

True,especially the wealth of alleged charities based in foreign countries.

Like the Catholic Church,for example.

I kinda think there's some static wealth that Vic won't want to tax. Like the loot of the Bishop of Rome. That's good loot, not bad loot.

Who would you go to if your welfare check stopped showing up to see about getting a job,someone homeless or someone running a business?

I kinda think there's some static wealth that Vic won't want to tax.

All wealth, especially that held in "charitable organizations", must be taxed. No deductions. No exemptions.

Of course, there shouldn't be any OTHER taxes or fees or tolls IN ADDITION to that. One tax, at a flat percentage rate should fund the government.

OR simply print the money you need to pay government expenses and have no taxes at all.

OR mine the gold and uranium and drill the oil and natural gas on federal land and sell it into the marketplace, with the profits to go into the treasury. Then you can substantially lower taxes.

The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth, not income.

I don't want to pile on, as I see you are fielding gratuitous insults from the frustrated who was just complaining about same, and a blowhard.

Suffice to say, I would separate investment capital from fallow wealth. I think we would have a fruitful discussion of the element of Georgism (Henry George) that you appear to support. I look forward to the continuance of the Biblical economics thread you started.

My daughter won it.

I'm looking forward to it. Been out on vacation in Salt Lake City for a week at the US National Fencing Championship. My daughter won it.

You were supposed to keep me informed of this. :)

Congrats to your daughter.

Great way to end the season.

Unfortunately, it means you begin the next season with nowhere to go but down!

It's a French thing.

And being Basque too (and therefore, by the US Census definition, "Hispanic"), we also channel ourselves some Inigo Montoya.

" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I kinda think there's some static wealth that Vic won't want to tax. Like the loot of the Bishop of Rome. That's good loot, not bad loot.

Yup,he is a good like comrade.

All wealth, especially that held in "charitable organizations", must be taxed. No deductions. No exemptions.

If they are indeed charities dedicated to helping the needy,that tax rate should be set at "100 percent,minus reasonable operating expenses."