Who agrees with Michael Moore?

[Draco]

"We're not broke. This country is not broke. The state of Wisconsin is not broke. There is a ton of cash. Trillions of dollars of it. But it is a finite amount. What's happened is we've allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrate in the hands of just a few people. And they're not circulating that cash. They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your 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."

Source.

And another interesting article about it:

This week, Michael Moore offered a simple and elegant solution to our debt problem.
Calling the assets of wealthy Americans a “national resource,” he suggested our problems would all be solved if we could just have access to all that money.
“What’s happened is that we’ve allowed the vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people, and they’re not circulating that cash. They’re sitting on the money,” Moore said. “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.”
“America’s not broke,” he told a cheering crowd of pro-union protesters in Wisconsin.
So, we decided to try Moore’s solution. Laying aside the moral objections to the government simply appropriating the wealth of private citizens, could it work?
The United States of America has about 400 billionaires. Moore calls them “400 little Mubaraks.” About half of those have less than $2 billion each, and those with a net worth in the double-digit billions is an exclusive club of about 30.
Still, as Moore says, “there’s a ton of cash out there.”

The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.
That’s before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you’re keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).
So, what if we try to solve a smaller problem? Across the nation, 45 states are projecting over $100 billion in shortfalls, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If the government just redistributed the wealth of the top three American billionaires—Bill Gates ($54B), Warren Buffet ($45B), and Larry Ellison ($27B)— it could solve that problem in a jiffy.
Of course, the 260-275,000 people employed by Berkshire Hathaway, the 105,000 employed by Oracle, and the 100,000 or so employed by Microsoft, might have something to say about that (to say nothing of the thousands of non-profits, charities, and causes that benefit from Gates’, Buffet’s and Ellison’s fortunes). That’s over 400,000 people out of a job.
Moore would argue, of course, that those jobs would simply be nationalized and “belong to all of us” after the wealth of their creators is sapped, but who exactly would have an incentive to make Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, or Oracle profitable if all of the money they made was considered a “national resource?”
One could also close the state budget gap with the wealth of the bottom 100 or so billionaires, who have but $1 billion and change each. But good luck processing the payment because you’ve just wiped out Paypal’s founder (Peter Thiel, No. 365). Also, the owners/founders of the Colts, the Eagles, the Redskins, the Saints, Campbell’s Soup, Home Depot, and the entire ironic t-shirt empire of Urban Outfitters. Those products, brought to you by the country’s billionaires and currently enjoyed by all of us, would be sacrificed to Moore’s plan to almost pay for the 2011 deficit.
So, Michael Moore, you’ve wiped out the country’s richest Americans, millions of jobs, and billions to charity. What are you going to do next? Go to Disney World?
Nope, that’s gone too. The Mouse makes billions, and that money is ours, not theirs.

Source

I'm just wondering who agrees, flat out, with this hypocritical imbecile? Mainly this part: We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this --

And the poll is private since not everyone was keen with the last one I did.

[agamemnus]

It wouldn't hurt the country to raise corporate taxes and reduce a few corporate tax loopholes, but Michael Moore is actually advocating failed socialism of the kind that the USSR tried and failed to implement over a course of 74 years.

74 years.


...

On the other end of the spectrum, GE is reporting $0 in taxes. Why? Because they gambled on housing and lost. Because of that, they don't have to pay a tax on their successful businesses, and $3.2 billion in tax credits to boot! That is one more example of how big business is distorting the economy. GE takes risks, but the public wallet pays for those risks.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558

The top tax bracket for U.S. corporations stands at 35 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. So how is it possible that a giant of American business, General Electric, paid nothing in federal taxes last year, even as it made billions in profit?

And should the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, be advising the president on business?

For two years, President Obama has been talking about the need for corporate tax reform, declaring that the system is too complicated and that companies pay too much.

"Simplify, eliminate loopholes, treat everybody fairly," Obama said in February.

For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president is "bothered" by the idea that a U.S. company could pay no taxes, but he wouldn't talk about GE specifically. Carney was also quick to say that Immelt's council advises the president on job growth and not on tax policy.

"It is part of the problem of the corporate tax structure that companies hire, you know, armies of tax lawyers to understand how it works and to take advantage of the various loopholes that exist, that are legal in order to reduce their tax burden," Carney said.

When President Obama announced his decision to appoint Immelt to the unpaid advisory role on job creation in January, some critics wondered whether the move was appropriate. Under his leadership, GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009. More than half of GE's workforce is now outside the United States.

[Steely Glint]

Moore's an imbecile. The article explains why his 'scheme' wouldn't work. What's the point in this thread?

[Draco]

What's the point in this thread?

So that you could ask that...I'm joking, I just wanted to see what the result would be of the poll.

[GGT]

Moore is rather extreme. Not convinced the author represented his view very well, though. I think he proposes a wealth tax on the top 10% since they hold over 80% of national wealth. Not very different from what other opinionators have proposed, or how wealth was taxed previously.

I'd be more interested in adding up the top tier's charitable contributions, wealthy corporate donations or foundation trusts (for their tax write-offs). Of course it's their money to donate as they please, and many other nations with abject poverty would benefit more than our IRS or US Treasury. It's still be interesting to see the total numbers over the last few decades.

[Enoch the Red]

Of course it's their money to donate as they please, and many other nations with abject poverty would benefit more than our IRS or US Treasury. It's still be interesting to see the total numbers over the last few decades.

Don't you mean our money, GGT?

[GGT]

Don't you mean our money, GGT?

Excuse me?

[agamemnus]

He's saying:

You seem to have had a rather socialist slant as of late, GGT.

[Dreadnaught]

Beyond the simple idiocy of what he's saying (before he goes home to his decadent apartment on Central Park West in Manhattan)..."net worth" does not equal cash. It's not like Scrooge McDuck with a giant vault full of gold coins.

IE that net worth is either paper worth from relatively illiquid assets, invested in stocks or sitting in the secondary CD market where we are all benefitting from the credit potential it provides.

[Nessus]

While I appreciate the academic approach to life, I am personally saddened that we need a citation for Scrooge McDuck

And by a no-name cartoon artist, too? Aw.