That “Spread The Wealth Around” Fail Is Still … Failing

BILLIONAIRE WARNS OF ROUGH DAYS AHEAD FOR THE REST OF US … || By FITSNEWS || So former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke – who oversaw the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama – is now on Twitter.  And blogging.  And explaining…


|| By FITSNEWS || So former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke – who oversaw the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama – is now on Twitter.  And blogging.  And explaining how he printed all those trillions of dollars out of thin air because he was “worried about seniors.”

Ummm … okay.

Guess he’s referring to seniors like 91-year-old billionaire Charlie Munger – longtime right-hand man to fellow billionaire (and senior) Warren Buffett.  Because last time we checked the architects of all that money printing have already come clean – referring to it as “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.”

Anyway, according to Munger, Bernanke’s money printing (a.k.a. “quantitative easing”) is about to make things a lot more difficult for those of us on the hook for it.

“We should all be prepared for adjusting to a world that is harder,” Munger said last week, according to Bloomberg.  “You can count on the purchasing power of money to go down over time.  And you can almost count that you’ll have more trouble in the next 50 years than the last.”

Fun times … and hardly the “rainbows and unicorns” predictions we keeping hearing so much about from command economists and their media apologists.

Munger’s comments were echoed by Yahoo! finance columnist Rick Newman.

“He’s spot-on and he’s not the only one saying this,” Newman said. “Things have not been very good since 2000. We’re already in that period he’s talking about. That’s why six years after a recovery from a recession it feels like a recession to a lot of people.”

Yes … exactly.

“A lot of people.”  Which we’re guessing is Newman’s way of describing the 93 million working age Americans who are not currently part of the labor force …

Oh well …

At least their food stamps aren’t in danger … 


Related posts


South Carolina Workforce Data Continues To Disappoint

Will Folks

South Carolina: A State Of Resignation


South Carolina Energy Future: Questions Abound After ‘Underwhelming’ Report

Will Folks


ThreePalms March 30, 2015 at 12:06 pm

Mr. Newman says, “Things have not been very good since 2000.” That would be when G W Bush and Republicans took over. We all remember how that crashed everything by 2008. The economy began to improve in 2009, when Obama comes in, but Republicans have thwarted and blunted so many policies since then. Mr. Newman may be right. Republicans, who are great at starting wars, suck when it comes to promoting economic advances.

Elfego March 30, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Things haven’t been right since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came into play. It was started if I am correct with a Republican and it made many a Democrat rich along with all the money makers. There is no difference between Democrat and Republican when it comes to politics.Whoever is in charge funnels the money to their backers. America has become a nation of slime balls and it would probably help us if the terrorist got DC at the right time>

FastEddy23 March 30, 2015 at 1:41 pm

Any banker who can’t make money borrowing at 1% and loaning at 4% should be fired and locked up as totally incompetent.

That is where the income tax should be levied … on the bankers and brokers who use taxpayers dollars to make hay when the sun shines and even when it does not.

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 4:51 am

And it was the democrats that started Phoney and Fraudy. Specifically that Barnyard Frankfurter …

Native Ink March 30, 2015 at 12:33 pm

If the government really wanted to redistribute wealth, it would work. It has worked in the past, which is why we have (had?) a large middle class in America. Obama talks a good game, but he gives the super-wealthy 90% of what they want. The Republicans try to give them 110%.

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 12:49 pm

“The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent. As you can see in the chart below, this is a stark change from the 1980s and early 1990s. But since the early 1980s, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 90 percent has steadily declined.”

FastEddy23 March 30, 2015 at 1:31 pm

Not only that, the top five Big Oil companies pay more into the Treasury than all income tax payers combined.

The greedy Gruberment does not even need the fed income tax!

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 1:41 pm

Hmmmm….I need to see that. Based on all that I have read the 5 big oil companies get the big tax breaks.

FastEddy23 March 30, 2015 at 1:59 pm

Well, one could look back into the headlines at Exxon-Mobile circa 2010 and 2011, in which That company all by itself, paid into the US Treasury more money than All Personal Income Tax Payers Combined … I kid you not. Exxon-Mobile made a big deal about it because OB & congress were considering raising fuel taxes at the time.

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 2:03 pm

I need to look that up, everything I have read they get incentives, subsidies, tax breaks out the ying yang, while we were getting raped at the pump.

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 4:36 am

Believe me, it is government that is doing the raping. Big Oil seldom makes more than $0.10 per gallon. Fed Gruberment and here in Taxifornia makes more than $1.28 per gallon … PLUS a 10% sales tax on top!

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 2:22 pm

No doubt someone is fudging the numbers somewhere. Seems there are a lot of debates on both sides of the aisle. CNN Money paints a different picture, but according Forbes:

“Good thing Exxon has a few bucks left over to build out this Energy Center at its new complex in The Woodlands, Texas.Income tax expense: $31 billion
Net income: $45 billion
Effective tax rate: 39%”

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 4:23 am

I am five generations in the oil business: It never ceases to amaze the big corp. spin doctors’, legal beagles and platoons of accountants convoluted machinations and manipulations of what actually is going on with investors’ money.

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 1:42 pm

“Reuters estimates that Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil paid effective federal tax rates of 19 percent, 18 percent, and 13 percent, respectively, in 2011. Reuters noted that this is “a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.”

FastEddy23 March 30, 2015 at 1:53 pm

… Reuters and the mean scream media always fail to account for the oil lease costs, the taxes paid by the sub-contract explorers, drillers and pumpers, the exorbitant transportation taxes paid, the refinery fees and “fines” paid for property taxes, local wholesale sales taxes and the fed and states fuel taxes … and all of the rest of the hidden taxes, tithes and tributes … plus all of the “contributions” and outright bribes paid to the poli-wogs.

CharlieChan March 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm

The other stark change since the 1980s is the amount the .1% are worth. If you compare your tax percentage chart to the changes in the net worth of the top 1% vs the bottom 90% in the first chart in the story I linked, they are almost identical charts! Doesn’t this lead you to believe that the percentage the top 1% pay is in direct relation to their net worth? Isn’t that EXACTLY how taxes should work?

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 2:57 pm

Do you think the 1% should pay more for groceries too? Why should what they pay be tied to their “net worth”?

If you work hard and you save money, according to your statement, you believe that someone else is entitled to your “net worth” – any assets you have worked to attain. No, I don’t think that is how taxes are supposed to work.

What incentive do people have to grow a business? If there is no incentive, then what if the producers stopped producing? Who would pay taxes then?

CharlieChan March 30, 2015 at 3:15 pm

“Do you think the 1% should pay more for groceries too? Why should what they pay be tied to their “net worth”?”

Do you think taxes and groceries are the same thing? Taxes are SUPPOSED to be your fair share of the burden for running a society in which you participate. Are you against a flat tax? In that situation, the top 1% pays way more than the bottom 90% but at the same rate. Is that unfair?

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 3:18 pm

I am not opposed to a flat tax, but flat tax is not based on “net worth” Net worth is all your assets, not income, but assets minus liabilities.

CharlieChan March 30, 2015 at 3:54 pm

Yes, I see the difference between worth and income, and my flat tax example (thanks for a good definition) was just to illustrate that the $$ on one side of the formula effects the $$ on the other. True, a chart showing income instead of net worth would be more enlightening, but don’t you think there is a correlation there? If the top 1% are earning significantly more now than in 1980, and the bottom 90% are earning the same or less, wouldn’t the amount of taxes the top 1% pay go up in a fair system?

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm

Even in a pure flat tax system I believe the top 1% would pay more, but it would hurt the bottom 10%, because someone making say 10k would pay say 15% of their earnings, while someone making 1 MIL pays 15%.

It’s a very complex problem to solve. I don’t have an issue with paying “some” taxes to maintain infrastructure, but it has a reached a point that the amount of paperwork and loopholes in the current system isn’t really fair.

As FastEddy pointed out, our current tax code is so convoluted that even the IRS employees don’t understand it.

I have a tendency to favor a hybrid of flat and consumption. But on both sides, there has to be some limits. Example, if we tax based on revenues (corporate income) v. net income, some businesses may not make it. Some don’t make a 15% profit margin (using same scenario as above).

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 4:17 am

PT is talking about a flat tax with a simple addon. A fixed base deduction for every worker, often set at around a flat $200K. This insures that necessities like food and housing are covered. The flat tax then can be as high as 15% or 18% and still be revenue neutral compared to the ObamaNation we have now.

Pineapple Twist March 31, 2015 at 11:23 am

Thanks for fixing that for me ;)

Pineapple Twist March 30, 2015 at 3:20 pm

Just a FYI, so that we are on the same page of what a flat tax is – (wiki) A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no deductions.

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 4:07 am

Interesting. I do support a flat income tax, despite my rants about Abolishing the IRS.

I would suggest something along the pattern of many of the former Soviet Block countries … Around 13%, same, same, rich or poor.

Mom March 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm

Indeed. We call it INCOME TAX, not NET WORTH TAX. The elderly population are a very good example of why the emphasis should not be put on NET WORTH. Many elderly pp have a house and car fully paid for but a very meager income. Should they be forced to sell assets in order to pay tax?

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 3:56 am

Exactly! And if an old timer has a pot of gold, he still has to spend it, and he will if the taxsuckers leave him alone.

“I can do a better job of giving away my money than government can.” – Sir John Templeton retired to the Bahamas and dedicated his fortune to job creating investments in the third world. His favorites were poverty stricken flat tax countries like Singapore, which now has a booming economy in part because of Templeton’s investments.

FastEddy23 March 31, 2015 at 3:48 am

That is what is happening out here in Taxifornia. The bigger technology companies are packing up and leaving. Apple has moved most of its R&D to lower tax Texas. Hewlett Packard (a group of more than 100 companies) will soon have little left in the Silicon Valley except their recruitment center (formerly HP headquarters).

It was explained to me: “look at this spread sheet” a breakdown of profitability verses location (by state), which clearly showed double digit bottom line improvements in the divisions and companies that have left higher tax California. Another runaway engineer summed it up: “Our employees insisted. Housing is better for less. Often the schools are better. Take-home-pay is actually better. The only thing most miss is the surfing. …”

erneba March 30, 2015 at 1:27 pm

The Democrats want to punish the achievers as much or more than they want to help the poor. They want to create a collective where everyone depends on them.

FastEddy23 March 30, 2015 at 1:34 pm

The only difference between the democrats and the republicans is that the republicans stay bought.

Essentially both political parties are out to get anyone in business who does not pony up campaign contributions. This is an Extortion Racket and has been since Woodrow Wilson stuck the citizenry with the Income Tax and the IRS just about 100 years ago.

Some anniversary, Huh!

grandtangosuglydog March 30, 2015 at 11:38 pm

I imagine your avatar is symbolic. In reality you have 33 cats and aluminium foil over your windows.

FastEddy23 March 30, 2015 at 1:29 pm

Road Apples. Big Ben is in another catbird seat now. Overseeing the ebbe and flow of Our Gold as it winds its way through the sticky fingers of Goldman Sachs and their minions to the IMF and World Bank … Ostensibly to bailout the Greeks and Spanish and Ukrainians, et al, … We “loan” Them our Gold, Ben gets a fat set-aside commission, Goldman Sachs gets there middle man cut, then after inflation has done its damage, the EuroTrash “pay us back” in our own paper buy buying Gold and sending it back through that same sticky pipeline … so the Ben and his buds get even richer and fatter.

Bible Thumper March 30, 2015 at 2:40 pm

1. The golden age of the American worker is over.
—- a) After WWII, the industrial world had been destroyed except the United States and Canada. Our industrial production grew until the rest of the world could rebuild their industries.
—- b) Baby Boomers peaked in the workforce in 2000 when they were 35 – 54 years old. The Employment-Population Ratio (EPR = employed/16+ population) peaked on April 2000 at 64.7%.
—- c) The Birth control pill became available in 1960. There is not going to be another “Baby Boom”. A more reasonable Employment-Population Ratio would be 63% as existed in 2007.
2. “93 million working age Americans who are not currently part of the labor force …”
—- a) Currently US 16+ population is 249,899,000. Current employment equals 148,297,000. That means we have an EPR of 59.3%.
—- b) To reach an EPR of 63%, the US needs 63% × 249,899,000 = 157,436,000 jobs. That means the US needs to create 157,436,000 – 148,297,000 = 9,139,000 more jobs plus keeping up with population growth of about 1.1%, which means a additional 2,750,000 a year. Not 93 million!
3. We are on a very slow path to recovery.
—- a) At the lowest point in the “Great Recession” the EPR dropped to 58.2%. That is 4.8% below a goal of 63%. At 59.3%, the US has recovered 1.1% of EPR. 1.1%/4.8% X 100% = 23%. That means we are less than a forth of our way to recovery.
—- b) The lowest EPR of 58.2% occurred only 16 months ago. At that rate, it would take over 64 months for full recovery.
—- c) South Carolina’s EPR pre-recession was lower at 59.8% (more retirees I suspect). SC fell further – 6.2% to 53.6% – and has recovered 1.5% to 55.1%. That equals only a 24% recovery, but as I will discuss later, SC has made very rapid recovery in the last few months that the MSM and Fits refuses to report.

Gross Silliness March 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm

The concern expressed here for the wealthy and the oil companies is indeed touching.

Brings a slight tear to my eye.


Leave a Comment